leicester business school - de montfort university the internatio nal and comparative hrm ......

28
Leicester Business School RESEARCH BRIEFING 2010/11

Upload: trannhan

Post on 15-Jul-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Leicester Business School

R E S E A R C H B R I E F I N G

2010/11

C O N T E N T S

RESEARCH NEWS IN BRIEF 2

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DIVERSITY 4

IN THE NEW ENVIRONMENT

DULL, BORING? YOU MUST BE JOKING! 10

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNANCE

REGIONS, SKILLS AND THE COMPETITION 17

FOR FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

NEWS FROM RESEARCH UNITS 21

DOCTORAL STUDENT FEATURE 24

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The main features in this issue of

Leicester Business School’s annual

Research Briefing look at ethnic

minority entrepreneurship, local

government, and foreign investment

and regional skills development:

• Drawing�on�action-learning�research,Professor�Monder�Ram�examines�the�profileof�ethnic�minority�businesses�in�the�WestMidlands,�their�important�role�in�the�regionaland�national�economy,�the�key�issues�facingethnic�minority�entrepreneurs,�and�theimplications�for�policy-makers�

• Professor�David�Wilson,�dean�of�Business�and�Law�and�deputy�vice-chancellor,provides�an�overview�of�local�government,exploring�the�incessant�structural�changeand�the�wide�diversity�of�organisation�andpractice�beneath�the�apparently�pervasivecentralism�of�the�British�system�ofgovernment

• Dr�Phil�Almond�reports�on�ESRC-fundedcomparative�research�in�the�UK,�Spain,Ireland�and�Canada,�investigating�howdevelopment�agencies�and�other�regionalbodies�seek�to�provide�sources�ofcompetitive�advantage�for�the�foreignmultinational�companies�they�host�in�order�to‘embed’�these�firms�within�the�local�economy.The�focus�of�the�research�is�on�the�role�ofregional�bodies�in�upskilling�the�local�labourforce�as�a�way�of�developing�the�humancapabilities�that�multinationals�require.�

There�are�also�shorter�items�on�other�currentresearch�projects,�news�items�from�a�range�ofour�research�centres�and�groups,�and�profilesof�two�of�our�doctoral�students.

If�you�are�interested�in�finding�out�more�aboutany�of�our�featured�research,�please�contact�theproject�teams�at�their�email�addresses,�or�emailme�at�the�address�below.�More�information�canalso�be�found�at�dmu.ac.uk/balresearch

Professor Anthony Ferner

Head�of�ResearchLeicester�Business�SchoolE:�[email protected]

PAGE | ONE

R E S E A R C HN E W S � I N � B R I E F

Employment practices in multinational

companies

The�International�and�Comparative�HRMresearch�group’s�work�on�EmploymentPractices in MNCs has�continued�to�developinternationally�with�comparative�analysis�ofsurvey�data�across�MNCs�in�the�UK,�Spain,Ireland�and�Canada�underway.�ProfessorsAnthony�Ferner�and�Olga�Tregaskis�wereinvited�to�Cornell�University�in�September�2010to�present�their�preliminary�comparativefindings.�Work�from�this�study�has�also�beenpresented�by�the�DMU�team�at�outreachconferences�in�Mexico�and�Denmark�organisedby�our�research�partners�in�the�Centre�of�US-Mexican�Studies,�El�Colegio�de�la�FronteraNorte/University�of�California�San�Diego�andCopenhagen�Business�School�Denmark.�

For�further�details�contact:Professors Anthony Ferner and

Olga Tregaskis

E:�[email protected]�and�[email protected]

Facilitating impact: Making

entrepreneurship and diversity

everyone’s business 

Professor�Monder�Ram,�of�the�Centre�forResearch�in�Ethnic�Minority�Entrepreneurship(CREME),�has�successfully�secured�anEconomic�and�Social�Research�Council(ESRC)�grant�from�their�‘Follow-on�funding’programme�for�his�research�into�ethnic�minorityentrepreneurship.�The�award�of�£85,000,�for�a�joint�project�with�Lancaster�University,�willextend�work�with�the�Minority�Ethnic�EnterpriseCentre�for�Expertise�(a�two-year�project�thatended�in�November).�Monder�and�colleagueswill�be�working�closely�with�Barclays�plc,�the

Chartered�Institute�of�Purchasing�and�Supply,the�Association�of�Chartered�CertifiedAccountants,�Business�in�the�Community�and�local�and�national�policy-makers.

For�further�details�contact:Liz Frost, projects officer

E: [email protected]: creme-dmu.org.uk

Double success for Dr Catherine Durose

Dr�Catherine�Durose,�senior�research�fellow�inthe�Department�of�Public�Policy,�hassuccessfully�gained�an�award�of�£9,905�fromDMU’s�Revolving�Investment�Fund�(RIF)�for�aproject�on�Building capacity to impact onpolicy and practice.�This�will�be�undertakenthrough�a�series�of�activities�centring�on�a�blogfor�practitioners�and�policy�makers.�This�projectwill�also�include�Dr�Steven�Griggs,�Dr�JoRichardson�and�Dr�Kathryn�Jones�(all�fromPublic�Policy)�along�with�Dr�Richard�Hall,�theuniversity�e-learning�co-ordinator.�

Dr�Durose�was�also�successful�in�an�ESRCresearch�seminar�series�application.�This�bid,entitled�Beyond the State? Third partygovernment in comparative perspective,�beatoff�intense�competition.�Her�co-applicants�wereProfessor�Chris�Skelcher�at�INLOGOV(University�of�Birmingham)�and�Jonathan�Justiceat�the�Institute�for�Public�Administration,University�of�Delaware.�The�lectures�began�at�the�start�of�2011.�

For�further�details�contact:Dr Catherine Durose

E:�[email protected]

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)

Dr�Steven�Griggs,�from�the�Department�ofPublic�Policy,�has�won�a�KTP�award�inconjunction�with�the�Association�of�PublicService�Excellence.�DMU�now�has�a�projectportfolio�of�21�KTPs�and�four�shorter�KTPs�with�a�total�value�of�£2.44�million.�

For�further�details�contact:Dr Steven Griggs

E:�[email protected]

PAGE | TWO

PAGE | THREE

PAGE | FOUR

E N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P A N D D I v E R S I T y

I N T H E N E W E N v I R O N M E N T

The promotion of enterprise in diverse

communities is today facing huge

challenges and uncertainties. The

impact of the credit crunch and deepest

recession since the 1930s continues to

reverberate through existing ethnic

minority businesses (EMBs), and those

potential Black, Asian and other

Minority Ethnic (BAME) entrepreneurs

struggling to establish a business.

Added to this uncertainty have been the

radical changes in enterprise policy

being introduced by the new coalition

government, the stark outlines of which

are just emerging, with much detail to

follow.

Professor Monder Ram OBE, reports

on a major Centre for Research in

Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship

(CREME) initiative – the Minority

Ethnic Enterprise Centre of Expertise1

(MEECOE) – which has been working

with business support organisations in

the West Midlands on the following

questions over the past 24 months.

What�is�the�role�of�entrepreneurship�anddiversity�in�the�coalition’s�‘programme�forgovernment’?�How�can�EMBs�help�promotegrowth�and�‘rebalance’�the�economy�in�an�eraof�sharply�reducing�public�expenditure?Certainly�these�are�very�challenging�times�forthose�involved�in�supporting�entrepreneurshipin�diverse�communities�which�call�for�freshthinking�and�imaginative�responses.�

MEECOE’s�work�has�emphasised�thefollowing:• EMBs�are�critically�important�for�the�regional

(and�national)�economy�both�in�terms�of�theircontribution�to�growth�and�to�the�alleviationof�deprivation.�There�is�much�untappedpotential�here

• Diversity�should�be�everybody’s�business,integrated�into�the�work�of�all�those�in�thepublic,�private�and�third�sectors�providingbusiness�support�and�advice

• Entrepreneurs�are�diverse�in�many�differentways�at�the�same�time:�different�ethnicities,genders,�ages,�economic�sectors,�legal�formand�so�on.�Enterprise�support�needs�anintegrated�approach�to�diversity

• Business-to-business�mentoring�is�acrucially�important�method�of�mobilisingneeded�business�support�but�itseffectiveness�is�not�automatic.�Thought�isrequired�on�how�it�is�structured�and�lessonscan�be�learnt�from�innovative�good�practice

• Encouraging�supplier�diversity�in�both�thepublic�and�private�sectors�is�a�key�dimensionof�enterprise�support�and�developing�thepotential�of�EMBs

• In�order�to�learn�what�works�and�why,initiatives�need�to�embed�action�learning�andevaluation�for�continuous�improvement

This�article�explains�MEECOE’s�approach�andits�relevance�in�the�current�challengingenvironment�and�to�the�developing�enterprisepolicy�agenda.�

1 Advantage�West�Midlands�(AWM)�funded�MEECOE’sestablishment�in�December�2008�as�part�of�its�programmeto�improve�the�promotion�of�entrepreneurship�among�allsections�of�the�region’s�population.�AWM�recognised�thatthe�region’s�population�was�diverse�and�that�the�potential�ofmany�‘equalities’�groups�to�establish�and�sustain�businessesthat�created�jobs�and�wealth�for�the�region’s�economy�wasnot�being�fully�realised.�In�response�it�developed�centres�ofexpertise�for�women,�young�people,�social�enterprise�andethnic�minority�communities�to�increase�knowledge,stimulate�innovation�and�improve�the�impact�of�policy�andbusiness�support�for�the�benefit�of�these�diverse�businessesand�the�region�as�a�whole.

MEECOE�was�established�as�a�consortium�of�existingorganisations.�It�is�led�by�De�Montfort�University’s�Centre�forResearch�in�Ethnic�Minority�Entrepreneurship�(CREME)�andinvolves�Lancaster�University,�CSK�Strategies�Ltd�and�ateam�of�expert,�policy-orientated�researchers.

PAGE | FIvE

PAGE | SIX

The economic importance of ethnic

minority businesses

Ethnic�minority�businesses�(EMBs)�are�criticallyimportant�for�the�West�Midlands’�economy�bothin�the�contribution�they�make�to�the�region’sgrowth,�innovation�and�productivity�and�in�therole�they�play�in�providing�employment�andservices�particularly�in�some�of�the�region’smost�deprived�neighbourhoods.�In�these�areas,they�can�act�as�a�role�model�for�aspiringminority�ethnic�entrepreneurs�and�provideinformal�training�to�co-ethnic,�often�sociallyexcluded�workers,�(and�also�other�local�labour).More�widely,�their�ability�to�develop�newproducts�and�adapt�them�to�new�markets�couldmake�a�major�contribution�to�the�future�revivalof�the�West�Midlands’�economy.�For�example,�anumber�of�Indian�and�Chinese�businesses�aredeveloping�trade�and�investment�with�theirancestral�countries,�giving�the�region�access�totwo�huge�and�rapidly�expanding�markets.�

However,�EMBs�also�face�many�challenges�toand�constraints�on�their�establishment,�survival,and�growth.�These�include�difficulties�inaccessing�the�finance�required�to�establish�andgrow�a�business,�and�poor�access�to�publicsector,�business-to-business�markets�and,�formany,�markets�outside�their�co-ethnic�consumersor�the�inner�city�areas�in�which�they�are�based.Related�to�both�of�these�are�weaker�networks�ofbusiness�support,�that�critical�ingredient�forentrepreneurial�success�that�has�recently�beenhighlighted�by�the�coalition�government�asoffering�far�more�than�has,�and�can�be�offered�bypublicly�funded�business�support.

However,�the�evidence�base�for�EMBs�andpolicy�impact�on�their�development�is�sparse.Information�is�very�limited�on�the�number�ofEMBs�in�the�region,�the�sectors�they�arelocated�in�and�their�business�developmentdynamics.�Information�on�policy�impact�is�evenmore�limited.�MEECOE�has�therefore�focused

many�of�its�resources�on�developing�a�betterevidence�base.�

Drawing�on�the�2001�Census�of�Population�andthe�more�recent�Annual�Population�Surveys�andcombining�these�with�more�specific,�qualitativeresearch�already�undertaken,�MEECOEproduced�a�profile�of�ethnic�minority�businessesin�the�West�Midlands�in�October�2009.��

The�profile�brought�out�the�different�trendsamong�different�minority�ethnic�groups�andhighlighted�the�emerging�phenomenon�ofentrepreneurial�transition.�This�involves�new�andexisting�EMBs�moving�out�of�traditional�sectors,often�characterised�by�low�pay,�long�hours�andlow�returns,�into�less�labour�intensive,�highervalue�sectors�such�as�financial�services,�realestate,�IT�and�business�and�professionalservices.�This�process�has�been�accompaniedby�a�decline�in�the�self-employed�proportion�ofcertain�minority�groups�reflecting�a�moving�outto�low�paid�self-employment,�previously�oftenthe�only�career�option�available,�into�better�paidemployment�in�skilled�occupations.�As�a�result,the�self-employment�percentage�among�thoseof�Indian�heritage�is�now�slightly�below�thosefrom�the�white�British�ethnic�group.

These�results�have�important�implications�forpolicy�and�practice.�They�suggest,�for�example,that�people�of�BAME�origin�seeking�businesssupport�must�not�be�restricted�to�ethnically-specific�support�which�may�be�more�accessibleand�empathetic�to�start-up�issues�and�moreknowledgeable�about�traditional�markets,�butmay�not�be�able�to�provide�the�range�of�supportand�business�advice�required�given�the�newand�varied�sectors�in�which�EMBs�nowoperate.�At�the�same�time,�‘mainstream’business�advisers,�including�those�in�the�privatesector,�need�to�have�a�better�understanding�ofthe�constraints�and�potentials�of�EMBs�fromdifferent�ethnicities�rather�than�stereotyping.

The�evidence�and�policy�implications�have�beendisseminated�via�presentations�and�discussionsat�a�number�of�forums�and�through�a�number�ofMEECOE�briefing�notes,�including�onetargeted�at�local�authorities�and�their�growingeconomic�development�duties.

MEECOE�has�also�been�undertaking�researchon�the�untapped�entrepreneurial�capacity�withinnew�communities�in�the�West�Midlands�–asylum�seekers�and�refugees,�newly�arrivedimmigrants�and�people�from�EU�Accessionstates.�This�research�has�had�to�use�innovativetechniques�of�engaging�with�communityorganisations�that�work�with�these�newcommunities�and�snowball�sampling.��

MEECOE�has�also�drawn�together�the�latestresearch�on�key�issues�facing�EMBs�in�theregion�and�their�implications�for�enterprisepolicy�and�practice�including�access�to�finance,a�key�constraint�to�EMB�start-up,�survival�andgrowth�and�international�trade.�The�latter�wasthe�subject�of�an�event�organised�in�April�2010that�showcased�research�on�overseas�graduateentrepreneurs�from�China�and�the�Indiansubcontinent,�the�experience�of�two�EMBslinking�with�the�Indian�and�Chinese�markets�andthe�work�of�UK�Trade�and�Investment�(UKTI).This�event�shone�a�light�on�a�relativelyneglected�policy�area�that�could�contributegreatly�to�economic�growth�and�a�rebalancingof�the�economy.

Finally,�MEECOE�has�been�disseminatingnational�good�practice�in�business�supportincluding�a�workshop�on�innovative�approaches�toengaging�diverse�businesses�held�in�June�2009.This�included�presentations�by�Enterprise�4�All,�aBradford-based�agency�that�was�established�bylocal�Asian�businesses�but�which�has�expandedto�serve�a�wider�range�of�ethnicities�and�the�workof�business�in�the�community.�

PAGE | SEvEN

Adding value through leverage,

collaboration and new relationships

Promoting�enterprise�in�diverse�communities�isnot�just�the�remit�of�specialist,�publically�fundedbusiness�advisers.�Diversity�issues�need�to�beintegrated�into�the�work�of�all�those�providingbusiness�support�and�advice.�This�includesmainstream�business�advisers�funded�bygovernment�and�the�much�larger�numbers�inthe�private�sector�that�provide�some�form�ofbusiness�support�such�as�financial�institutionsand�accountants.�It�also�includes�those�in�thepublic,�private�and�third�sectors�makingdecisions�on�which�businesses�to�procure�theirsupplies�from;�and�those�providing�social�andeconomic�services�ranging�well�beyond�directenterprise�support.�In�other�words,�we�need�tomake�diversity�everybody’s�business.

To�this�end,�MEECOE�has�created�a�LegacyGroup�that�is�levering�in�the�resources�of�theprivate�sector�into�invaluable�support�for�EMBsin�the�region.�The�Legacy�Group�is�made�up�ofrepresentatives�of�banks,�the�accountancyprofession,�purchasers,�governmentdepartments,�Business�Link,�ethnic�minoritybusiness�organisations,�Business�in�theCommunity�and�others�(See�Appendix�I�for�afull�list�of�members.)��

As�well�as�taking�initiatives�to�widen�access�ofEMBs�to�information,�advice�and�support,�theLegacy�Group�has�been�invaluable�in�advisingand�guiding�MEECOE�in�its�work.�It�is�also�keyto�MEECOE’s�succession�strategy�of�leading�agroup�of�different�institutions�working�togetherto�break�down�the�barriers�to�survival�andgrowth�facing�EMBs.

Support start-ups and existing

businesses

There�is�a�significant�focus�on�promotingbusiness�start-ups�in�The Coalition: ourprogramme for government and�subsequentpolicy�statements�as�a�tool�for�promoting

economic�growth�and�rebalancing�the�economy.Emphasis�is�given�to�the�role�of�developingenterprise�in�deprived�geographical�areas�andcommunities.�MEECOE�welcomes�this�andwould�add,�based�on�research�evidence�and�onits�experience,�three�further�points.

First,�promoting�enterprise�start-up�in�BAMEcommunities,�requires�publicly�fundedintervention�and�facilitation,�in�part�to�lever�inthe�private�sector�business�support�that�EMBstend�to�be�excluded�from�or�weakly�wired�into.The�evidence�suggests�that�online�businessadvice,�which�is�likely�to�feature�moreprominently�in�the�government’s�policy�delivery,is�most�effective�when�combined�with�locallyavailable�advice�and�support�networks.

Secondly,�while�enterprise�support�initiativestargeted�at�unemployed�people,�such�as�thecoalition�government’s�proposed�‘Work�forYourself’�programme,�can�be�of�great�benefit�tothe�individuals�involved,�they�should�recognisethat�self-employment�is�not�always�the�bestoption�for�participants.�Much�of�the�growth�ofEMBs�over�the�past�decades�has�been�a�resultof�necessity�because�of�exclusion�from�thelabour�market�rather�than�a�sign�ofentrepreneurial�flair�and�potential.�Thephenomenon�of�entrepreneurial�transitionidentified�by�MEECOE,�and�partially�reflectedin�a�move�from�self-employment�into�better�paidand�more�highly�skilled�employment,�is�apositive�one.�So�too�should�securingemployment,�rather�than�self-employment,�beseen�as�a�positive�outcome�of�enterpriseprogrammes�for�unemployed�people.

Thirdly,�providing�advice�and�support�to�existingbusinesses�has�tended�to�play�second�fiddle�tostart-up�support�in�the�panoply�of�governmentbusiness�support�measures�in�the�past.MEECOE�believes�that�properly�targeted�andcustomer-focused�support�to�existingbusinesses’�survival�and�growth,�including

developing�EMB�business�support�networks,needs�to�have�greater�prominence�in�futurepolicy�and�practice�if�the�twin�aims�ofpromoting�economic�growth�and�a�rebalancingof�the�economy�are�to�be�met.

Understanding the real world: delivering

an integrated approach to diversity

Ethnicity�is�only�one�aspect�of�diversity.Individual�entrepreneurs�may�be�‘diverse’�inseveral�respects,�for�example,�based�in�aparticular�economic�sector,�being�a�socialenterprise,�having�ownership�and�managementwhich�is�predominantly�female,�young�and/orfrom�a�range�of�different�minority�ethniccommunities.�Each�of�these�aspects�of�diversitycould�present�different�opportunities�or�suggestparticular�barriers�to�their�survival�and�growth.As�a�consequence,�all�those�involved�inbusiness�support�need�to�develop�an�integratedapproach�to�diversity�in�their�work�rather�thanadopting�a�‘one�size�fits�all’�approach.

MEECOE�and�the�other�COEs�have�beenworking�collaboratively�to�avoid�duplication,maximise�resources�and�identify�areas�withsynergy�across�the�four�centres.�This�hasincluded�collaborative�research�so�that�thecombined�effects�of�different�aspects�ofdiversity�can�be�examined�and�implications�forpolicy�and�practice�drawn�out.

This�collaboration�has�extended�to�advice�on:�• ‘Diversity�proofing’�business�support�work�to

ensure�that�it�reaches�all�equality�groups�andthat�the�support�is�appropriate�to�their�needs

• Developing�business�support�providers’�datagathering�and�analysis�processes�to�betterunderstand�the�impact�of�policy�and�practiceon�diverse�groups;�as�well�as�what�hasworked,�what�has�not�worked�and�why

• Ways�to�improve�access�to�business�support

PAGE | EIGHT

Advancing innovation in networks

and mentoring

Another�example�of�where�MEECOE�hasinnovated�and�helped�lever�in�additional�privatesector�support�to�EMBs�is�in�the�field�ofbusiness�mentoring�and�the�development�ofbusiness�support�networks.�Research�suggeststhat�a�major�disadvantage�faced�by�businessesfrom�a�wide�range�of�minority�ethniccommunities�is�weak�access�to�such�supportnetworks�and�mentoring.�

The�coalition�government�in�The Coalition: ourprogramme for government proposes�“fundinga�targeted�national�enterprise�mentoringscheme�for�BAME�people�who�want�to�start�abusiness.”�MEECOE’s�work�with�EMBnetworks�such�as�the�12/8�Group�and�Fyshnetprovides�a�good�practice�exemple�of�howbusiness�mentoring�for�BAME�communitiesshould�be�approached�which�is�rich�in�lessonsfor�this�proposed�national�mentoring�servicetargeted�at�EMBs.��

Making a difference through

commercially viable supplier diversity

Again,�The Coalition: our programme forgovernment proposes�a�greater�emphasis�onthe�public�sector�using�its�procurementpractice�as�a�tool�for�promoting�the�growth�oflocal�small�and�medium-sized�enterprises.�Thisis�a�key�area�that�MEECOE�has�been�workingon�through�the�Access�to�Markets�clustergroup�of�the�Legacy�Group�referred�to�aboveand�through�Supply Diversity Europe.MEECOE’s�work�focuses�on�supplier�diversitywithin�both�the�public�and�private�sector.�Thisincludes�collaboration�with�Business�in�theCommunity,�the�Charted�Institute�of�Purchasingand�Supply,�the�Equality�and�Human�RightsCommission�and�The�Consortium�to�develop�acommercially�viable,�web-based�hub�forprocurement�activity�in�the�West�Midlands.�

Embedding action learning and review

for success

All�of�MEECOE’s�work�has�emphasised�theimportance�of�embedding�action�learning�andevaluation�for�continuous�improvement�at�thestart�of�initiatives.�This�has�included�our�work�withthe�Legacy�Group,�the�12/8�group�and�Fyshnet,evaluations�of�Business�Link�interventions�andour�research�on�entrepreneurial�activity�amongnew�arrivals�and�on�business�support�providers.��

Further details

For�more�information�about�CREME�orMEECOE,�contact:�Liz Frost, Projects Officer

E:�[email protected]

Appendix I: Legacy Group Membership

1 Barclays�Bank2 The�Association�of�Chartered�and�Certified

Accountants�(ACCA)3 The�Department�for�Business,�Innovation

and�Skills�(BIS)4 The�West�Midlands�Minority�Business

Forum�(WMMBF)5 Advantage�West�Midlands�(AWM)6 The�Equality�and�Human�Rights

Commission�(EHRC)7 Business�in�the�Community�(BitC)8 The�Charted�Institute�of�Purchasing�and

Supply�(CIPS)9 The�Economic�and�Social�Research�Council

(ESRC)10 Business�Voice�West�Midlands11 The�Consortium12 Representatives�from�the�other�Centres�

of�Expertise

PAGE | NINE

PAGE | TEN

D U L L , B O R I N G ? y O U M U S T B E j O k I N G ! F R O M � L O C A L � G O V E R N M E N T � T O � L O C A L � G O V E R N A N C E

‘‘

’’

The governing of localities has become

increasingly complex in recent years:

elected local government today is but

one part of a mosaic of agencies

involved in local policy-making

including local businesses, community

organisations and faith groups.

Far from being dull, modern local

governance is a fascinating arena for

the politics that affect everyone on a

day-to-day basis. Taken from his recent

Professorial Lecture, David Wilson,

professor of public administration,

dean of Business and Law and

deputy vice-chancellor, examines the

costs and benefits of the advent of local

governance and the implications for

effective policymaking. While he

argues that there is an excessive bias

towards central control, at the same

time he counsels against sweeping

generalisations that fail to draw out

the importance of ‘place’ and the

significance of local political culture.

Introduction: Setting the scene

You�notice�smiles�come�more�easily�in�somegrounds�and�cities�than�in�others.�You�learn�that�some�counties�harbour�more�hatred�ofgovernment,�or�London,�or�flashiness.�You�heardifferent�attitudes�to�money,�to�drink,�to�sport.Ed Smith, Kent, Middlesex and Englandcricketer in Smith, 2005, p.78.

By�contrast�to�the�above,�Raymond�Seitz(1998),�the�highly�regarded�US�Ambassador�toBritain�(1991–94),�bemoaned�Britain’s�unitaryand�uniform�governmental�structure,�illustrating

the�fact�through�distinctive�US�vehicle�licenceplates�that�display�the�self-conceptions�of�theissuing�states:�‘New�York:�The�Empire�State’and,�more�disconcertingly,�‘New�Hampshire:Live�Free�or�Die’.�

Seitz�was�both�right�and�wrong�–�constitutionallyright,�observationally�wrong.�The�UK�is�indeed�aunitary�state,�governed�constitutionally�as�asingle�unit,�through�the�national�Parliament�atWestminster.�Any�sub-central�governments�–the�Scottish�Parliament,�the�Welsh�and�NorthernIreland�Assemblies,�and�the�UK’s�430�localauthorities�–�are�necessarily�subordinate.�All�arecreations�of�Parliament.�Britain�differsfundamentally,�therefore,�from�the�US,�Canada,Australia,�India,�Germany�and�Belgium,�which�are�federal�states:�associations�of�largelyself-governing�regions�united�by�a�central�orfederal�government.

Where�Seitz�went�too�far�was�in�equatingBritain’s�unitary�form�of�government�withuniformity�of�identity�and�practice.

Seitz�was�certainly�right�about�our�councilsbeing�subject�to�greater�central�governmentcontrol�and�direction�than�most�of�theirEuropean�counterparts.�But�look�more�carefullyand,�like�Smith,�you�will�quickly�see�forces�ofdiversity�as�well�as�forces�of�uniformity:�differingsizes,�locations,�histories,�cultures,�economies,social�class�structures,�politics�–�all�militatingagainst�even�neighbouring�councils�being�theundistinguishable�‘administrative�units’�thatSeitz�thought�he�saw�(1998,�p.271).

Councils,�even�of�the�same�type�–�counties,metropolitan�boroughs�–�‘do’�local�government�in

different�and�distinctive�ways,�and�always�havedone.�The�first�message,�therefore,�is�toemphasise�the�importance�of�getting�the�balanceright.�Don’t�understate�the�real�and�pervasivecentralism�that�characterises�the�British�systemof�government,�but�don’t�ignore�the�equally�reallocal�variations�that�stubbornly�remain.�

Dull, boring – you mean like cricket?

It�was�playwright�Harold�Pinter’s�belief�that‘cricket�is�the�greatest�thing�God�ever�created…’.There�are,�however,�those�who�claim�to�findcricket�downright�boring:�indeed,�surpassed�in�itsboringness�only�by�local�government�–�or‘sewage�without�tears’,�as�the�textbook�by�JohnRedcliffe-Maud�(1932),�was�apparently�known�tohis�students.�On�the�face�of�it,�the�boring�imageought�to�be�easy�to�demolish.�Check�‘boring’�in�a�thesaurus,�and�it�is�surrounded�by�words�like‘narrow’,�‘unvarying’,�‘monotonous’.�Yet,�whilethere�are�plenty�of�critical�things�that�can�be�saidabout�contemporary�UK�local�government,�beingdull�and�boring�are�not�among�them.�

Indeed,�the�very�suggestion�of�localgovernment�being�dull�and�boring�is�likely�toraise�a�self-pitying�smile�from�most�of�thoseworking�in�or�with�local�government�over�thepast�few�years.�What�area�of�the�private�sector,they�would�ask,�has�had�to�come�to�terms�withmore�change�and�upheaval�on�every�front:privatisation�and�the�out-sourcing�of�services;Best�Value�and�Comprehensive�PerformanceAssessment�(CPA),�and�Comprehensive�AreaAssessment�(CAA);�the�introduction�and�almostinstant�abandonment�of�a�‘poll�tax’,�followed�bya�council�tax�and�tax�capping;�neighbourhoodoffices,�one-stop�shops,�enabling�councils,

R E S E A R C HN E W S � I N � B R I E F

PAGE | ELEvEN

beacon�councils,�private�finance�initiatives,area-based�initiatives,�partnerships�of�every�sizeand�shape,�inspectorates,�e-government,performance�indicators�and�league�tables�andnow�‘total�place’�...�all�against�a�backdrop�ofcontinuous�financial�constraint�and�the�actual�orthreatened�rearrangement�of�the�country’swhole�local�government�structure.

Structural turbulence: A democratic

deficit?

Local�government�has�been,�and�continues�tobe,�characterised�by�structural�turbulence�–most�recently�in�2009�when�nine�new�unitaryauthorities�came�into�being.�In�both�localgovernment�and�the�NHS�there�seems�to�be�aninbuilt�assumption�that�you�can�solve�problems

by�amending�structures�on�a�regular�basis.�Thisleads�to�uncertainty�and�turbulence,�to�what�isoften�called�‘noise�in�the�system’.�Culturalchange�(focusing,�for�example,�upon�greatermutual�trust�between�central�departments�andlocal�authorities)�rather�than�repeated�structuralchange�is�required,�but�this�is�rather�morecomplex�than�shifting�lines�on�a�map�ordesigning�a�new�organisational�chart�(Table�1).�

As�a�result,�2,065�councillors�in�2008�became744�in�2009�–�a�massive�64%�reductionproducing�4,215�residents�per�councillor.�Can�this�really�still�be�called�local�government?In�1950�the�UK�had�2,060�principal�localauthorities;�today�there�are�around�406.�Havewe�now�so-called�economies�of�scale�at�the

expense�of�meaningful�local�democracy?�Francehas�almost�37,000�municipalities,�76�per�cent�ofwhich�contain�populations�of�under�1,000.�Thisis�an�average�of�118�residents�per�councillorcompared�with�our�4,215.�We�are�massively�outof�line�with�our�continental�neighbours�–�the�UKaverage�size�of�principal�local�authority�is150,000�followed�by�Denmark�(56,000),Netherlands�(37,000)�and�Belgium�(18,000).

You�would�have�predicted�something�verydifferent�from�the�Labour�Government’s�2006White�Paper�Strong and ProsperousCommunities given�its�acclaim�of�councillors�as“the�bedrock�of�local�democracy”.�Indeed,�itwent�much�further:�“We�need�to�reaffirm�theimportance�of�councillors’�role�as�democraticchampions”.�They�should�be�given�new�powers,their�role�as�community�champions�more�clearlydefined,�and�they�should�be�recruited�frommore�diverse�socio-economic�backgrounds(para�3.11).

Local�Government�Minister�John�Healey�did�not�actually�mention�the�big�shake-out�ofcouncillors�that�accompanied�the�legislation,though�made�it�absolutely�clear�what�this‘stripping�out�a�layer�of�local�government’�wasall�about:�efficiency�savings.�Local�democracy,in�short,�came�a�poor�second�to,�in�the�PrimeMinister’s�expressive�phrase,�“more�bang�fortaxpayers’�buck”.�Some�might�rejoice�at�thereduction�in�councillors�(especially�as�in�manylocal�authorities�they�are�frequently�singularlyunrepresentative�of�the�communities�theyserve)�–�but�beware�of�swallowing�toouncritically�the�economies�of�scale�arguments.

Table 1: The 2009 Unitaries: their scale and “democratic deficit”: Is this still local

government?

Area

(miles2)

Pop.

(’000)

Councillors Residents

per

councillor2008 2009 % lost

Bedford 185 153209

3751

4,140

Central�Bedfordshire 274 241 66 3,650

Cheshire�East 600 356375

8159

4,400

Cheshire�W.�&�Chester 350 324 72 4,500

Cornwall 1,317 524 331 123 63 4,260

Durham 860 492 375 126 66 3,900

Northumberland 1,942 307 306 67 79 4,580

Shropshire 1,236 289 224 74 67 3,900

Wiltshire 1,260 450 245 98 60 4,590

Averages/totals 892 348 2,065 744 64 4,215

PAGE | TWELvE

To�amplify�the�‘unrepresentative’�nature�of�localcouncillors,�women,�those�from�ethnicminorities�and�younger�people�remain�severelyunder-represented.�Of�candidates�up�forelection�in�2009,�98.3�per�cent�were�of�whiteorigin,�71�per�cent�were�men�and�they�were�onaverage�57.3�years�old.�This�is�aggregate�data:the�pattern�varies�enormously,�but�much�needsto�be�done�on�broadening�the�councillor�base.The�lack�of�diversity�can�all�too�often�impoverishcouncils�and�weaken�their�connection�with�thecitizen.�Shari�Vahl�began�a�recent�BBC�Radio�4programme,�How to run a city with�thefollowing�observation:�“When�you�think�of�acouncil,�you�might�think�of�boring,�ordinary,unambitious�groups�of�white,�middle�aged,middle�class�men,�striving�not�very�hard,�to�donot�very�much”.�A�stereotypical�view,�yes,�butsufficiently�close�to�reality�in�some�localities�forthe�barb�to�hurt.

There�is,�of�course,�a�danger�in�simplyassuming�the�case�for�democratically�electedlocal�government�without�arguing�it�out.�Verybriefly,�I�would�want�to�argue�that�there�are�fourdistinct�rationales�for�local�government:�civic,social,�political�and�economic.�• The�civic�rationale�is�based�upon�a�simple

proposition:�local�units�of�governmentprovide�more�opportunities�for�citizens�toparticipate�effectively�in�decisions

• The�social�rationale�focuses�on�citizen�well-being�especially�in�the�context�of�‘joining�up’local�action�(what�Jim�Sharpe�called�“serviceco-ordination”)�to�provide�a�more�integratedapproach

• The�political�rationale�focuses�on�threepivotal�points:�accessibility,�responsivenessand�accountability

• The�economic�rationale�is�based�upon�theproposition�that�local�government�can�makemore�efficient�and�effective�use�of�resources

All�these�are�complex�and�merit�lectures�in�theirown�right.�All�are�contested�but�they�do�beginto�spell�out�the�case�for�local�governmentrather�than�simply�assuming,�like�motherhoodand�apple�pie,�that�it�is�a�good�thing.

Towards local governance

While�non-directly�elected�local�government�isnot�in�itself�new,�its�scale�has�increasedenormously�during�the�past�three�decades,frequently�at�the�expense�of�directly�electedlocal�councils.�Under�national�governments�ofboth�major�parties,�many�service�responsibilitieshave�been�removed�from�local�authorities�andgiven�mainly�to�single-purpose�government-appointed�agencies.�Inner-city�developmentwent�to�urban�development�corporations;regeneration�of�particularly�deprived�estateswas�taken�over�by�housing�action�trusts;�youthtraining�passed�to�training�and�enterprisecouncils�then�to�Learning�and�Skills�Councils(LSCs)�before,�ironically,�completing�its�journeyback�to�local�government�in�2010.�This,�linkedwith�the�lead�role�of�local�authorities�in�bothLocal�Area�Agreements�and�Multi-AreaAgreements,�has�led�some�commentators�toargue�the�government�is�‘bringing�localgovernment�back�in’.�But,�at�the�same�time,�thelast�year�has�seen�a�ministerially-appointedquango,�the�Infrastructure�PlanningCommission,�taking�over�councils’�powers�ofdecision�on�major�commercial�developmentproposals,�as�well�as�national�projects�like�windfarms�and�power�stations.

Such�single�–�or�special-purpose�bodies�–�are�conventionally�known�as�quangos:�quasi-autonomous�non-governmental�organisationsalthough�purists�will�argue�that�quasi-governmental�is�in�most�cases�a�more�accuratedescription�of�their�function.�In�the�localgovernment�world,�depending�on�exactly�howyou�count,�there�are�about�5,000�local

quangos,�run�by�a�‘quangocracy’�of�some70,000,�over�three�times�the�number�of�directlyelected�local�councillors.

Now,�so�fundamental�have�these�changesbeen,�that�it�is�claimed�that�local�governmenthas�evolved�into�something�termed�localgovernance.�This�concept,�many�academicsand�practitioners�believe,�describes�moreeffectively�the�extensive�network�of�public,voluntary�and�private�sector�bodies�that�arenowadays�involved�in�local�policy-making�andservice�delivery.

The�advent�and�subsequent�expansion�of�non-directly�elected�bodies�(quangos)�–�along�withthe�proliferation�of�partnerships�–�has�greatlycomplicated�local�policy�making.�What�we�havewitnessed�has�been�the�advent�of�dispersedgovernance;�a�recognition�that�local�decisionmaking�involves�far�more�actors,�morecollaboration/partnerships�than�in�previouseras.�As�Tony�Blair�(1998)�emphasised�“Thereare�all�sorts�of�players�on�the�local�pitch�jostlingfor�positions�where�previously�the�council�wasthe�main�game�in�town”.�Of�£7,000�per�personspent�annually�on�public�services�like�health,education�and�social�care,�as�little�as�5%�insome�areas�is�controlled�by�local�councillors.

The�Local�Quango�State�in�Great�Britain,�April2000�(Table�2),�gives�us�a�snapshot�of�thecomplex�and�differentiated�nature�of�the�localstate.�And�to�quangos�we�need�to�add�statutorypartnerships,�pressure�groups,�parties�(andfactionalism�within�party�groups)�etc,�in�order�tobegin�to�appreciate�levels�of�complexity.�Add�tothis�the�huge�power�–�especially�financial�power–�of�central�government,�and�we�see�what�achallenging�arena�this�is.

The�December�2009�Smarter GovernmentWhite Paper was�a�further�reminder�of�the

PAGE | THIRTEEN

current�complexities.�It�highlighted�a�multiplicityof�national�funding�schemes�which�can�all�tooeasily�get�in�the�way�of�effective�cross-sectorworking.�For�example,�there�are�currently�102different�local�authority�funding�streams,including�49�in�education�and�children’sservices,�11�in�adult�social�care�and�six�inpolicing.�There�are�52�specific�revenue�grantsto�local�authorities�totalling�£76.3�billion,�36�ofwhich�are�currently�ring-fenced.�Leicester�andLeicestershire�have�identified�that�public�bodiesin�the�city�and�county�process�over�3,000performance�datasets,�reports�or�evaluationseach�year,�at�an�estimated�cost�of�over�£3.5�million.�Simple?�Transparent?�Easy�tounderstand?�No.�But�far�from�boring.

The�world�of�local�government�is�full�of�complexpolicy�problems�–�neighbourhood�regeneration,crime�and�disorder,�integrated�care�for�childrenand�older�people,�local�sustainabledevelopment�–�issues�that�require�the�people,skills�and�knowledge�no�longer�located�within�asingle�organisation�but�which�can,�often�withgreat�effect,�be�brought�together�incollaborative�partnerships.

Collaboration�is�the�current�managerial�mantraand�despite�its�many�plusses�it�remainsproblematic�and�often�very�challenging�for�thelocal�government�workforce.�It�is�frequentlycostly�in�terms�of�the�financial�and�humanresources�that�need�to�be�invested.�Yet,increasingly,�this�is�the�major�(and�often�theonly)�way�of�levering�new�government�moneyinto�a�local�community.�Partnership�workinghas,�then,�become�a�central�feature�of�today’slocal�government,�and�councils�frequently�findthemselves�working�with�and�through�externalorganisations�that�now�deliver�the�services�forwhich�they�themselves�were�once�the�sole�orpredominant�providers.

Despite�the�obvious�benefits�of�partnershipworking,�in�practice,�bringing�together�peoplefrom�local�bodies�representing�a�wide�range�ofinterests�(eg,�council,�police,�fire�and�rescueservices,�charity�groups,�businesses,�schools,health�bodies�and�many�more),�able�to�speakauthoritatively�on�behalf�of�these�interests�andensure�the�delivery�of�any�decisions�agreed,�isoften�extremely�difficult.�

Multi-level governance or multi-level

dialogue?

What�I�have�emphasised�so�far�is�that�localdecision�making�today�does�not�have�a�singlelocation�but�rather�a�range�of�locations.�We�arein�the�complex�world�of�multi-level�and�multi-actor�governance,�about�which�there�aretheories�and�interpretations�galore.�I�wonder�ifthis�world�is�quite�as�novel�as�it�is�frequentlyportrayed.�Close�examination�of�the�operationof�public�governance�since�the�19th�Centurysuggests�that�elements�of�hierarchy,�marketsand�networks�have�always�been�present.�But,what�is�relatively�novel�is�the�growth�andintensity�of�collaboration.

There�was�a�warning�shot�from�Tony�Blair.�I�used�to�refer�to�sticks�and�carrots�whendiscussing�central/local�relations.�I�now�refer�to�it�rather�differently:�Carrots�and�Semtex.�In�Leading the Way (1998)�he�wrote:�“WhereCouncils�embrace�this�agenda�of�change�–then�they�will�find�their�status�and�powerenhanced”.�But:�“If�you�are�unwilling�or�unableto�work�to�the�modern�agenda�then�thegovernment�will�have�to�look�to�other�partnersto�take�on�your�role”.

The�growth�of�collaboration�reflects�thecomplexity�and�intransigence�of�the�so-called‘wicked�issues’�facing�government�(eg�urbanregeneration;�child�protection;�care�for�the

Table 2 – The local quango state in

Great Britain, April 2000

Source:�House�of�Commons�Committee�on�PublicAdministration,�Fifth�Report,�2000/01:�Mapping�the�Quango�State

No.

Further�education�institutions 511

Foundation�schools�(ex-GM�andvoluntary-aided�schools)

877

City�technology�colleges 15

Learning�and�skills�councils(replaced�TECS�in�2000)

47

Local�enterprise�and�careersservice�companies�(Scotland)

39

Registered�social�landlords 2,421

Housing�action�trusts 4

Police�authorities 49

Health�authorities/boards 114

NHS�trusts 387

Primary�care�groups/trusts 488

Total 4,952

PAGE | FOURTEEN

elderly;�crime�prevention)�–�issues�that�can�onlybe�tackled�effectively�by�bringing�together�theresources�of�a�range�of�agencies.�As�RodRhodes�(1997)�observed,�‘messy�problemsdemand�messy�solutions’�and�so�the�neathierarchies�of�public�bureaucracies�arereshaped�to�establish�lots�of�differentrelationships�with�other�bodies�operating�indifferent�tiers�and�in�associated�policy�fields.

What�we�now�have�is,�as�I�have�alreadysuggested,�dispersed�governance,�ie,�no�singlefocus�but�rather�a�plethora�of�organisationsinvolved�in�formulating�policies�for�a�locality.�If�you�need�any�convincing�look�at�thecomposition�of�any�Local�Strategic�Partnership(LSP)�where�there�are�likely�to�be�over�30representatives�from�various�local�bodies.

There�is�certainly�plenty�of�multi-level,�multi-actor�dialogue�but�this�is�not�necessarily�thesame�thing�as�multi-level,�multi-actorgovernance?�Does�this�focus�on�multi-levelactivity�underplay�the�overweening�power�of�thecentre�and�its�multitude�of�‘unelected’�agents?It�is�important�to�emphasise�that�multi-leveldialogue�(with�which�we�are�saturated)�is�verydifferent�from�multi-level�power.�There�is�almostendless�dialogue�but�mapping�policy�clout�ontothis�dialogue�is�a�complex�exercise,�and�one�inwhich�the�vastly�superior�resources�of�thecentre�should�not�be�underplayed.�The�pluralitywhich�characterises�the�complex�world�of�localgovernance�does�not�automatically�reflect�apluralist�power�structure.�The�two�can�be�verydifferent�indeed.

One size does not fit all

If�my�first�health�warning�was�to�beware�ofequating�a�plurality�of�actors�with�a�pluralistpower�structure,�my�second�is:�beware�ofgeneralisations.�Neither�central�government�norlocal�government�are�monoliths.�As�Dave�Marshand�colleagues�(2001)�emphasise�in�the

context�of�central�government�departments,there�‘are�distinct�sub-cultures�withindepartmental�divisions�and�agencies�andcompeting�cultures�and�interpretations�ofcultures�in�Whitehall�as�a�whole’.�There�is�notonly�distinctiveness�between�Whitehalldepartments�but�also�within�each�department.Searching�for�homogeneity�within�Whitehall�isan�exercise�in�chasing�shadows:�localauthorities�interact�with�a�large�number�ofcentral�government�departments�(andnumerous,�sub-sets�of�each�department)�all�with�distinctive�cultures�and�agendas.

Homogeneity�is�absent�in�Whitehall,�and�atlocal�level�differences�are�even�more�stark;compare�two�unitary�authorities�–�Bristol(410,500)�with�Rutland�(34,600)�or�twocounties�–�Kent�(1.38�million)�with�Shropshire(289,400).�I�could�go�on.�There�is�no�suchthing�as�a�‘typical’�local�authority.�Norms,�valuesand�cultures�vary�enormously.�There�could,�forexample,�be�an�excellent�relationship�between�acounty�council’s�education�department�and�theDepartment�for�Children,�Schools�and�Familieswhile�at�the�same�time�the�relationship�betweenthe�authority’s�social�services�department�andits�Whitehall�counterpart�might�be�highlystrained.�In�Scotland�and�Wales�relationshipsare�much�more�informal�than�in�England.Beware�–�once�again,�we�need�to�recognisethe�importance�of�differentiating�rather�thangeneralising�in�what�is�a�highly�complex�andvaried�UK�context.

Targets and terror

Local�government�is�beset�by�inspections�andtargets.�From�2002–2008�ComprehensivePerformance�Assessment�(CPA)�overseen�bythe�Audit�Commission,�was�the�most�prominentinspection�regime.�In�2009�CPA�was�replacedby�Comprehensive�Area�Assessment�(CAA)�–�aregime�(still�overseen�by�the�Audit�Commission)which�examines�how�well�councils�are�working

together�with�other�local�public�bodies�to�meetperceived�local�needs.�It�is�a�joint�assessmentmade�by�a�group�of�six�independentinspectorates�(such�as�Ofsted�and�the�CareQuality�Commission).�While�60�authoritiesreceived�top�rankings�in�the�last�round�of�theCPA,�only�15�managed�it�in�the�first�round�of�the�CAA�published�in�December�2009.�Elevencouncils�received�the�lowest�marks�possible(zero)�compared�to�none�in�the�CPA’s�final�year.Many�local�authorities�believed�that�the�co-ordination�of�inspectorates�wasn’t�working�andthat�the�whole�exercise�was�pitched�too�broadlyto�tell�them�anything�they�didn’t�already�know�–‘a�weapon�of�mass�distraction’,�as�the�ChiefExecutive�of�Brent�LBC�put�it.�The�suggestion�isthat�the�whole�inspection�industry�costs�about£2�billion�today.�You�don’t�need�to�be�rabidlyanti-centralist�to�argue�that�this�is�a�lot�to�divertfrom�serving�the�local�public�to�servicingnational�inspectors,�especially�when�oneoutcome�of�all�this�diverted�time�and�energy�was�all�too�often�a�damaging�of�staff�morale.�

Another�health�warning�is�needed�at�this�point.In�an�excellent�article�on�targets�Bevan�andHood�(2006)�use�the�phrase�‘targets�andterror’.�They�make�the�point�that�thegovernment�is�assuming�that�a�relatively�smallnumber�of�indicators�reflects�performanceacross�a�much�wider�field�than�they�actuallymeasure.�It�also�assumes�that�the�officials�whooperate�the�system�can�be�motivated�by�thesetargets�and�dissuaded�from�manipulating�them.Bevan�and�Hood�argue�that�dysfunctionalbehaviour�is�inevitable.

The�bottom�line�remains�–�are�policy�outcomesreally�improving�or�are�officers�simply�gettingbetter�at�playing�the�game?�In�several�publicauthorities�which�I�know,�a�lot�of�very�brightpeople�spend�a�lot�of�time�working�to�securethe�best�possible�profile.

PAGE | FIFTEEN

A�good�example�of�such�behaviour�comes�fromthe�NHS�where�Bevan�and�Hood�draw�on�twoNational�Audit�Reports�(2001�and�2004).�Theyshow�that�waiting�times�for�accident�andemergency�reception�clustered�suspiciouslyjust�below�the�target�of�four�hours�maximum,and�managers�manipulated�the�figures�(eg,requiring�patients�to�wait�outside�inambulances,�or�in�corridors�on�trolleys,�so�asnot�to�be�counted).�With�regard�to�waiting�lists,informal�lists�were�created�of�people�who�werenot�added�to�the�official�(target)�waiting�listsuntil�it�was�known�that�they�could�be�treated�inthe�target�time.�Far�from�improving�quality�ofservice�such�targets�soon�became�counter-productive�to�all�but�the�managers�of�the�publicauthority�concerned.

Separate worlds?

Each�element�within�the�world�of�‘dispersedgovernance’�has�its�own�identity�and�its�ownculture.�The�different�norms,�values�andorganisational�frameworks�add�to�thecomplexity�of�the�local�decision�making-environment.�As�John�Stewart�(2000:�91)argues:�“There�are�deep�divides�between�theworlds�of�local�government�and�centralgovernment�so�that�one�can�almost�describethem�as�two�worlds�acting�in�isolation�andignorance�of�each�other”.�As�George�Jones�and�Tony�Travers�(1996)�emphasised�in�theirresearch�for�the�Commission�for�LocalDemocracy:�“The�mundane�nature�of�manylocal�services�encourage�(at�least�some)�civilservants�to�believe�that�they�possess�Rolls-Royce�minds�and�local�government�officershave�motor�cyclists’�minds”.

In�the�last�few�years�there�has�been�much�moretransferability�of�personnel�between�localauthorities�and�central�government.�There�arenow�a�significant�number�of�former�localgovernment�professionals�in�senior�posts�withinWhitehall.�Likewise,�training�of�both�high�flyinglocal�government�trainees�and�fast�track�civilservants�has�begun�to�address�this�gap.Nevertheless,�there�still�remains�a�need�formuch�more�organisational�learning�between�thevarious�components�of�dispersed�governance.There�also�remains�the�need�to�rebuild�trust.• Trust�is�necessary�across�the�multifarious

agencies�of�local�government• Meaningful�interaction�and�discussion�can

engender�such�trust• Without�trust�between�the�centre�and

localities�genuine�multi-level�governance�islikely�to�remain�elusive

The�debate�about�both�‘social�capital’�and�‘civilsociety’�has�begun�to�address�some�of�theissues�of�trust�but�there�is�a�danger�that�theskills�oriented�focus�of�many�public�sectormanagement�courses�can�easily�marginalisesomething�that�has�become�increasinglynecessary�in�a�world�of�collaboration�andpartnership.�In�elevating�‘trust’�I�recognise�that,in�many�parts�of�the�world�of�dispersedgovernance,�I�am�swimming�against�a�fast-flowing�tide�that�has�many�more�easilymeasurable�priorities.�But,�to�quote�the�signhanging�in�Albert�Einstein’s�Princeton�office,“Everything�that�can�be�counted�does�notnecessarily�count;�everything�that�counts�easilycannot�necessarily�be�counted”.�Trust,�likeintegrity,�cannot�be�counted�but�it’s�far�moreimportant�than�many�things�which�can.

Further details

For�more�information�contact:Professor David Wilson

E:�[email protected]

Thanks�to�Chris�Game,�Honorary�SeniorLecturer�at�INLOGOV,�University�ofBirmingham,�for�his�considerable�input�into�thisarticle.�See�Wilson,�D�and�Game,�C�(2011)Local�Government�in�the�United�Kingdom�–�5th�Edition�(Basingstoke:�Palgrave�Macmillan).

References

1. Bevan,�G�and�Hood,�D�(2006)�‘What’smeasured�is�what�matters:�targets�and�gamingin�the�English�Public�health�care�system’,Public Administration,�84:�3,�pp.�517–538

2. Blair,�T�(1998)�Leading the Way: A NewVision for Local Government (London:�IPPR)

3. Department�for�Communities�and�LocalGovernment�(2006)�Strong and ProsperousCommunities: The Local Government WhitePaper (London:�DCLG)

4. Marsh,�D,�Richards,�D�and�Smith,�M�(2001)Changing Patterns of Governance:reinventing Whitehall (Basingstoke:�PalgraveMacmillan)�

5. Redcliffe-Maud,�J�(1932)�Local Governmentin Modern England (London:�ThorntonButterworth)

6. Rhodes,�R�A�W�(1997)�UnderstandingGovernance: Policy Networks, Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham:Open�University�Press)

7. Seitz,�R�(1998)�Over Here (London:�Phoenix).8. Smith,�E�(2005)�On and Off the Field

(London:�Penguin)9. Stewart,�J�(2000)�The Nature of British Local

Government (London:�Macmillan)

PAGE | SIXTEEN

In the light of the impending abolition

of regional development agencies in

England, we report on the early stages

of an ESRC-funded project, run by

Dr Phil Almond, Professor Anthony

Ferner, Professor Olga Tregaskis

and Dr Tomila Lankina of Leicester

Business School. With colleagues

overseas, it looks at regional

development and multinationals in a

number of regions across England,

Ireland, Canada and Spain.

Attracting�and�retaining�investment�frommultinational�corporations�has�become�animportant�means�by�which�regions�attempt�toboost�their�economies.�While�foreignmultinationals�have�long�had�an�important�rolein�the�economy,�the�globalisation�of�productionand�service�provision�means�that�it�is�no�longerfeasible�for�the�UK�and�its�regions�to�competefor�foreign�investment�on�the�basis�of�lowlabour�costs�or�light�regulation.�Therefore,regions�need�to�find�ways�of�attracting�highvalue-added�investment�that�is�relatively�difficultfor�firms�to�move�elsewhere.�This�means�thatregions�and�localities�are�faced�with�the�difficulttask�of�putting�together�an�infrastructure�thatprovides�multinationals�in�particular�sectorswith�competitive�advantages.�This�is�likely�torequire�fairly�complex�networks�of�co-ordinationbetween�a�wide�number�of�bodies�andinstitutions,�including�local,�regional�andnational�government,�as�well�as�developmentagencies,�skills�and�education�institutions,employers’�organisations�and�others,�as�well�asthe�local�managers�of�the�multinationalsconcerned.

Why regions?

Those�multinationals�that�have�a�choice�oflocations�from�which�to�service�markets�aregenerally�geographically�concentrated�in�asmall�number�of�local�sites�within�nations.�It�iscommonly�argued�that�choices�about�whichsorts�of�facilities�to�place�in�which�nations�canbe�affected�by�the�skills�and�competenciesavailable�within�labour�markets,�which�in�turnare�shaped�by�skills�and�other�institutions�in�thehost�country�(see�for�example�Kristensen�andMorgan�2007).�As�work�within�economicgeography�argues,�it�is�also�logical�that�firmswill�seek�to�take�advantage�of�skills�that�may�beavailable�on�a�more�local�or�regional�basiswithin�nations.�This�is�particularly�the�casewhere�multinationals�need�to�establish�localisedsupply�chains,�as�is�frequently�the�case�inmanufacturing,�or�where�they�wish�to�penetratelocalised�networks,�or�‘clusters’,�of�innovation(Gertler�2003).�As�in�practice,�the�subsidiariesof�multinationals�normally�recruit�primarily�fromlocal�and�regional�labour�markets,�thendeveloping�valuable�human�capabilities�inregions�is�likely�to�be�important�for�sub-nationalfactors�such�as�development�agencies,�localand�regional�government,�and�skills�agencies,�in�their�attempts�to�attract�and�retain�highvalue-added�activity�within�their�areas.

Attracting and retaining foreign direct

investment: the role of development

agencies

Development�agencies�have�two�mainstrategies�in�which�to�directly�attract�and�retaininvestment.�First,�there�is�the�attraction�of�newinvestment,�which�is�a�question�of�seeking�tomarket�destinations�for�investment.�Second,

there�is�‘aftercare’,�where�they�seek�to�deal�withthe�concerns�of�the�existing�multinationals�intheir�area.�

The�two�roles�exist�at�one�level�or�other�in�allthe�places�covered�by�our�research.�But�howthis�is�organised�varies�considerably.�Placesdiffer�in�terms�of�the�relationship�betweennational�and�sub-national�agencies,�how�close�their�relationships�are�with�existingmultinationals�in�their�area,�and�how�they�seekto�engage�with�them.

In�most�cases�there�are�both�national�and�sub-national�agencies�involved�in�seekinginvestment,�although�the�balance�between�thetwo�levels�differs.�In�England,�for�the�lastdecade,�the�role�of�seeking�investment�hasbeen�performed�both�at�national�level,�by�UKTrade�and�Investment�(UKTI),�and�by�RegionalDevelopment�Agencies�(RDAs)�which�were�setup�by�the�New�Labour�government�as�nationallyappointed�bodies�aiding�economic�developmentin�each�of�England’s�nine�regions.�The�aftercarerole�has�mostly�been�performed�by�the�RDAs,except�in�the�case�of�a�small�number�of�verylarge�multinationals�in�which�UKTI�would�alsohave�a�role�at�a�more�strategic�level.

‘Aftercare’,�as�performed�by�the�RDAs,�hasmeant�a�variety�of�roles.�At�one�level,�it�is�amatter�of�site�visits,�and�of�effectively�workingas�a�broker�between�the�multinational�and�skillsand�other�agencies.�Also,�however,�it�can�covertrying�to�discover�the�future�strategies�of�firmsin�order�either�to�seek�repeat�investment�at�theend�of�product�life�cycles,�or�to�ensure�thatwhere�local�sites�close,�there�is�some�public

R E G I O N S , S k I L L S A N D T H E C O M P E T I T I O N

F O R F O R E I G N D I R E C T I N v E S T M E N T

PAGE | SEvENTEEN

PAGE | EIGHTEEN

‘‘

’’‘‘

’’

strategy�for�dealing�with�the�consequences�forworkers�and�for�the�local�economy.�This�isperhaps�best�explained�by�a�negative�example:

Hitachi�made�TVs�in�North�Wales.�And�one�dayit�closed,�and�everyone�went�‘ugh!’�and�four,five�hundred�people�closed.�Well�actually,�ifyou’d�known�the�sector,�you’d�have�known�thatcathode-ray�tube�televisions�were�on�their�wayout,�everyone�was�buying�flat-screens,�butnobody�actually�challenged�Hitachi�in�thatfactory,�how�they�were�adapting�to�the�newtechnology.�Nobody�said,�where�you�going�tobe�in�four,�five�years�time,�and�actually�plan�toeither�downscale�that�plant,�so�there’s�amanaged�closure,�or�look�to�work�with�Hitachito�actually�bring�in�new�technology.Interview with RDA InvestmentDevelopment Manager

In�our�other�countries,�the�balance�between�the�regional�and�the�national�varies.�In�Spain,regional�agencies�predominate.�These�areappointed�by�powerful�autonomous�regionalgovernments,�and,�in�the�case�examined�todate,�had�very�close�links�to�the�maininstitutional�actors�in�the�region,�includingrepresentatives�of�employers�and�trade�unions,to�a�much�greater�extent�than�has�been�thecase�in�England.�Notably,�in�the�regionexamined,�the�same�individual�directed�both�theinward�investment�programme�and�regionaleconomic�‘cluster’�policies.�In�Ireland,�bothroles�are�performed�largely�by�an�agency�ofnational�government.�The�exception�is�onelong-established�regional�agency�originally�built�around�a�low-tax�development�zonesurrounding�Shannon�Airport,�and�thesomewhat�special�case�of�the�areas�where�theIrish�language�predominates.�The�small�size�ofIreland,�and�the�sheer�importance�of�foreigndirect�investment�to�its�economy,�has�meantthat�foreign�multinationals�have�tended�todevelop�relations�with�representatives�of

national�government.�Finally,�in�Québec,�whichowing�to�its�size�is�itself�divided�into�17�regions,there�is�something�of�a�patchwork,�with�cityregions�having�their�own�agencies,�and�othersfalling�under�the�ambit�of�a�Québec-level‘national’�development�agency.

Relations with the skills sector

Part�of�the�task�of�the�above�agencies�is�toensure�that�foreign�multinationals�become‘embedded’�in�the�region,�that�is,�that�theydevelop�localised�competitive�advantages�andrelations�with�local�firms�and�institutions�whichmakes�them�less�likely�to�move�elsewhere.�Thiscan�be�particularly�difficult�in�England,�as�withina�liberal�market�economy�(Hall�and�Soskice2001)�firms�tend�to�have�relatively�littleinteraction�with�each�other,�creating�marketfailures,�as�the�example�below�shows.

Pcom�said�to�us�that�their�investment�skills�was�a�major�issue.�They�had�to�upskill�and�theywanted�to�put�in�certain�processes�in�place.�We�said�actually�we’ve�been�talking�to�(twoother�local�companies�in�the�same�sector)�thathave�exactly�the�same�issues�as�you�around�this–�we�will�look�to�fund�a�cross-company�trainingprogramme...�Now�they�weren’t�talking�to�eachother,�but�because�our�sector�team�was�key,account-managing�three�or�four�of�them,�wecould�draw�out�those�common�issues.Interview with RDA respondent

In�such�circumstances,�one�of�the�advantagesof�integrating�the�work�of�those�who�arecharged�with�attracting�and�retaininginvestment�within�broader�regionaldevelopment�agencies�is,�at�least�in�principle,that�the�work�of�“investor�development”�canbecome�more�closely�integrated�with�othersworking�to�develop�the�forms�of�co-ordinationnecessary�to�upskill�regional�economies.�This�isperhaps�particularly�important�given�the�almostunfathomable�complexity�of,�and�frequent

changes�to,�the�skills�sector�in�the�UK.�It�has�tobe�said,�though,�that�the�degree�of�co-ordination�between�those�working�with�foreigninvestors�and�the�skills�system�has�beeninconsistent�across�English�regions,�with�veryclose�relationships�in�some�regions�and�a�muchweaker�emphasis�on�this�in�others.�

Future prospects

Given�the�impending�abolition�of�RDAs�underthe�coalition�government,�and�the�likelyintegration�of�most�inward�investment�workunder�the�ambit�of�UKTI,�it�is�perhaps�useful�tospeculate�on�the�advantages�and�disadvantagesof�different�sorts�of�arrangements.

One�disadvantage�of�dealing�with�multinationalsprimarily�at�a�regional�level�is�the�increasedopportunities�this�affords�firms�to�play�one�regionoff�against�each�other,�resulting�in�a�wastefulapplication�of�public�effort�across�regions.�Somerespondents�in�Spain,�where�extensive�regionalpolitical�autonomy�creates�a�high�potential�forregional-level�deals,�highlighted�this�problem.Respondents�in�English�RDAs�did�claim�thatthere�was�a�degree�of�co-ordination�betweenregions�in�order�to�minimise�these�problems,�butclearly�there�is�some�risk�here.

However,�concentrating�efforts�at�a�nationallevel�has�two�important�problems.�The�first�is�adistributional�question.�Respondents�in�Englishregions�argued�that,�as�those�seekinginvestment�within�UKTI�did�not�have�targetsthat�were�broken�down�by�region,�theinvestment�they�helped�attract�to�the�UK�wasdisproportionately�concentrated�in�London�andthe�South�East,�where�the�‘sell’,�particularly�to�the�financial�sector,�was�easier.�Similarconcerns�were�raised�by�respondents�in�Irelandand�in�Québec.

This�relates�to�the�second�problem,�whichconcerns�the�relationships�between�public

PAGE | NINETEEN

actors�in�the�inward�investment�business�andthose�actors�and�institutions�that�help�shapelocal�and�regional�human�resource�supply.Those�working�in�inward�investment�attractionand�retention�need�to�have�knowledge�ofregional�economies�and�networks�that�can�findsolutions�that�operate�in�the�interests�of�thepublic.�Given�the�scale�of�cuts�in�the�publicsector,�and�the�importance�of�internationallymobile�businesses�in�regional�economies,�bothdirectly�and�as�customers�of�smaller�firms,�it�isimportant�for�UK�employment�levels�that�workin�creating�forms�of�co-ordination�that�can�help‘embed’�foreign�firms�locally�continues,�and�isexpanded�upon.�While�the�success�of�RDAs�inthis�task�is�difficult�to�evaluate,�there�is�clearly�arisk�that�regional-level�market�failures�will�notbe�corrected�if�regional�economic�co-ordinationdeclines.

Acknowledgement

Research�funded�by�the�ESRC�(Grant�NoRES-062-23-1886).�The�research�performedin�other�countries�to�date�has�been�co-ordinated�by�Maria�C.�Gonzalez�(University�ofOviedo)�and�Paddy�Gunnigle�(University�ofLimerick),�and�the�work�in�Canada�supportedby�Gregor�Murray�(University�of�Montreal).

Further details

For�more�information�contact:Dr Phil Almond

E:�[email protected]

References and further reading

1. Almond,�P�(2011)�‘The�sub-nationalembeddedness�of�international�HRM’,Human Relations,�forthcoming

2. Gertler,�M�(2003)�‘Tacit�knowledge�and�theeconomic�geography�of�context’,�Journal ofEconomic Geography,�3,�1,�75–100

3. Hall,�P�and�Soskice,�D�(2001)�Varieties ofCapitalism.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press

4. Kristensen,�P�and�Morgan,�G�(2007)‘Multinationals�and�institutionalcompetitiveness’,�Regulation andGovernance,�1,�3,�197–212

PAGE | TWENTy

PAGE | TWENTy-ONE

Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority

Entrepreneurship (CREME)

Led�by�Professor�Monder�Ram,�CREMEengages�with�practitioners�and�policy-makersto�further�the�understanding�of�the�needs�ofethnic�minority�businesses�and�to�helpinfluence�policy.

We�routinely�work�with�business�supportagencies,�local�authorities,�ethnic�minoritybusiness�groups,�public�and�private�sectororganisations,�and�ethnic�minorityentrepreneurs�to�develop�informed�approachesto�enterprise�support.�We�bring�together�thesestakeholders�in�a�variety�of�ways,�ranging�frominternational�conferences�on�key�policy�issuesto�small�workshops�for�local�entrepreneurs,�aswell�as�through�our�high-level�academic�work.

CREME�is�a�leader�on�research�on�ethnicminority�entrepreneurship,�policy�influence�andoutstanding�community�engagement.

CREME’s four areas of focus

Research excellence

We�undertake�significant�work�for�local�andnational�policy-makers�and�carry�out�leadingacademic�research�to�increase�understandingof�ethnic�minority�entrepreneurship.

User engagement

Bringing�together�different�key�organisations�to�enhance�knowledge�transfer�is�one�of�ourstrengths.�From�international�conferences�toworkshops�with�local�entrepreneurs,�weengage�with�all�stakeholders�to�improve�ethnic�minority�enterprise�support.

Collaborative working

We�are�committed�to�working�closely�withpractitioners�in�order�to�understand�their�needsand�to�develop�appropriate�interventions.�Thisis�a�defining�feature�of�our�approach�and�itinvolves�active�engagement�with�the�concernsand�priorities�of�our�stakeholders.

Innovative practice

We�work�with�our�partners�to�develop�innovativeresponses�to�policy�and�practitioner�issues.�We�have�used�our�knowledge�base�to�establishcutting-edge�initiatives�in�procurement,business�support�and�user�engagement.

For�further�details�about�CREME�contact:Liz Frost, projects officer

E: [email protected]: creme-dmu.org.uk

The Local Governance Research Unit

(LGRU)

The�LGRU,�based�at�Leicester�Business�School,is�an�internationally�recognised�centre�ofexcellence�for�theoretically�informed,�robust�andrigorous�policy�relevant�research�into�British�andcomparative�local�governance.�Our�work�focuseson�community�cohesion�and�local�citizenship,neighbourhood�governance,�local�democracyand�local�politics.�We�also�have�a�broad�researchinterest�in�all�aspects�of�local�governance.�Our�high�quality�research�meets�the�needs�ofacademics,�policy-makers�and�practitioners�atthe�international,�national,�regional�and�local�level.We�are�committed�to�providing�a�strong�andvibrant�link�between�academic�research�and�theneeds�of�the�research�user.�The�unit�undertakesresearch�for�a�wide�variety�of�bodies,�ranging

from�the�Economic�and�Social�Research�Council(ESRC)�and�the�Joseph�Rowntree�Foundation,pan-European�bodies�such�as�the�Council�ofEurope,�through�to�government�departments,such�as�the�Department�of�Communities,�andlocal�government.�We�also�provide�consultancy,research�and�policy�advice�to�individual�councilsand�others�concerned�with�aspects�of�local�governance.�We�have�continued�ourgroundbreaking�research�as�part�of�theinternational�Regenerating�UrbanNeighbourhoods�programme,�which�aims�toimprove�understanding�of�the�politics�andprocesses�of�neighbourhood-based�initiatives�forthe�regeneration�of�urban�areas. �

LGRU�has�recently�been�involved�in�researchproject�awards�made��by�the�Arts�andHumanities�Research�Council�as�part�of�theirConnected�Communities�Programme�totalling£100,000.�Dr�Catherine�Durose�(LGRU)�will�leadtwo�of�the�projects,�‘Illuminating�the�evolution�ofcommunity�participation’�and�‘Problematising�co-production’.�Both�these�reviews�involvecolleagues�from�the�Universities�of�Manchesterand�Birmingham.�Dr�Jo�Richardson�(Centre�forComparative�Housing�Research)�is�also�involvedin�the�latter�project.�Dr�Leila�Hamalainen�(LGRU)will�lead�the�third�project,�‘Conceptualisingcommunity�as�a�social�fix,�argument�andpersuasion�in�health,�housing�and�localgovernance’,�working�with�Dr�Kathryn�Jones(Health�Policy�Research�Unit).�‘ConnectedCommunities’�has�been�designated�as�one�of�the‘Grand�Challenges’�for�research�and�is�a�newcross-Research�Council�programme.�The�fundedprojects�will�seek�to�understand�the�changingnature�of�communities,�in�their�historical�and

N E W S F R O M R E S E A R C H U N I T S

PAGE | TWENTy-TWO

cultural�contexts�and�the�value�of�communities�in�sustaining�and�enhancing�our�quality�of�life.This�enhanced�understanding�will�also�inform�thedevelopment�of�more�effective�community-basedinterventions�to�address�key�economic�andsocietal�challenges.

In�January�2011�LGRU�began�its�two-yearresearch�collaboration�with�the�Association�for�Public�Service�Excellence�(APSE),�a�not-for-profit�local�government�body�working�withover�300�councils�throughout�the�UK.�Thistimely�research�partnership�with�APSE�seeks�to�deliver�guidance�on�new�tools�and�ways�ofworking�for�local�authorities�facing�reductions�in�public�spending.�The�project�is�led�by�Dr�Steven�Griggs�and�Dr�Catherine�Durose.Steven�is�editor�of�the�journal�Critical PolicyAnalysis.

Catherine�was�also�commissioned�by�the�Equalities�and�Human�Rights�Commissionto�lead�the�‘Pathways�to�Politics’�projectexamining�the�common�pathways�and�barriersfor�under-represented�groups�seeking�tobecome�elected�representatives.�She�has�alsoco-edited�and�contributed�to�a�book,�ChangingLocal Governance, Changing Citizens.�

In�May�2010�we�organised�a�seminar�on‘Innovative�Methods�in�Public�Policy�Research’which�was�the�first�in�a�series�of�eventsproviding�an�opportunity�to�hear�from�leadingresearchers�and�experts�about�pioneeringmethods�in�public�policy�research,�includingexperiments,�QCA,�profiling�and�discourseanalysis.�In�September�we�organised�aconference�with�the�theme�of�‘InterpretingDemocratic�Governance’.�In�November�weplayed�host�to�a�group�of�key�internationalacademics�who�attended�our�workshop�onsmall�parties�and�non-partisan�politics�in�localgovernment.

Dr�Tomila�Lankina�has�been�developing�ourcomparative�politics�research�capacity�andcontinuing�her�excellent�publishing�record.�

Dr�Melvin�Wingfield�has�been�working�with�the�unit’s�new�Director,�Professor�Colin�Copus,on�a�research�project�exploring�the�role�ofindependent�councillors�and�has�worked�withthe�Local�Government�Association’sIndependent�Group�Office�in�developing�a‘statement�of�principles’�for�independentcouncillors.�Colin�is�editor�of�the�journal�LocalGovernment Studies.�Members�of�the�unit�havecontinued�to�produce�high�quality�journalpublications�as�well�as�book�chapters�andresearch�reports.�

For�further�details�about�the�LGRU�contact:Suzanne Walker, Unit Administrator

E: [email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/lgru

The Centre for Comparative Housing

Research (CCHR)

CCHR�brings�together�expert�researchers�whohave�an�established�reputation�in�housing�andrelated�issues.�We�are�currently�engaged�inseveral�research�and�consultancy�projects�for�a�range�of�clients.

We�are�carrying�out�a�major�project�for�thegovernment�on�institutional�investment�in�the�private�rented�sector.�The�work�is�led�byProfessor�Michael�Oxley�and�involves�Dr�TimBrown�and�Ros�Lishman�as�well�as�colleaguesat�Delft�University�of�Technology�(TU)�in�theNetherlands.�The�focus�is�on�lesson�learningfrom�other�countries�including�Australia,France,�Germany�and�the�USA.�The�findingswill�shape�the�new�coalition�governmentpolicies�on�housing.

In�2009,�the�centre,�with�colleagues�from�Delft�TU,�carried�out�a�major�project�for�the

Government’s�National�Housing�and�PlanningAdvice�Unit�(NHPAU)�on�Learning the lessonsfor planning and affordable housing fromWestern Europe.�This�is�a�review�of�Europeanplanning�systems�and�the�consequences�forhouse�building.

Professor�Michael�Oxley�has�co-authored�aninternational�comparative�study�on�housingsubsidies�and�taxation�in�the�owner-occupiedsector�for�the�Joseph�Rowntree�Foundation.�It�forms�a�major�input�into�a�study�on�stability�inthe�housing�market�and�the�options�for�reform�to�reduce�volatility.�Michael�has�also�co-authoredtwo�reports�for�the�Dutch�Housing�Ministry�onhousing�markets�and�the�international�financialcrisis�and�has�produced�a�report�for�UN�Habitaton�financing�affordable�social�housing�in�Europe.

Michael�has�also�researched�the�competitiverelationship�between�private�and�social�rentedhousing�in�Europe�with�colleagues�in�the�OTBResearch�Institute�for�the�Built�Environment�atDelft�TU.�This�has�resulted�in�a�book�andarticles�in�several�journals�including�HousingTheory and Society and�the�European Journalof Housing Policy.

Tim�and�Ros�completed�a�study�on�urbanregeneration�for�the�Northern�Way�in�January2010.�This�highlighted�that�councils�should�co-ordinate�regeneration�projects�more�effectivelyand�cut�down�on�the�number�of�local�deliveryvehicles.�A�number�of�local�authorities�are�nowusing�this�report�as�a�basis�for�reviewing�theirapproach�to�urban�regeneration.

Dr�Peter�King�has�published�two�significantbooks�in�2010:�Housing Boom and Bust:Owner Occupation, Government Regulationand the Credit Crunch (Routledge);�andHousing Policy Transformed: The Right to Buyand the Desire to Own (Policy�Press).

PAGE | TWENTy-THREE

As�a�result�of�the�latter�book,�Peter�wasfeatured�in�The Observer, The Daily Telegraphand�the�Sunday Times,�as�well�as�on�aprogramme�for�BBC�Radio�Scotland.�The�bookwas�launched�at�a�reception�hosted�by�theInstitute�of�Economic�Affairs�in�February�2010.

Peter�has�a�contract�with�Policy�Press�for�a�bookcalled�The New Politics’ on�the�Lib-Con�coalitionand�why�Cameron�couldn’t�win�the�electionoutright�–�due�for�publication�summer�2011.

Dr�Jo�Richardson�led�a�project�for�the�Somersetcouncils�analysing�accommodation�needs�forgypsies�and�travellers�using�communitymembers�on�the�survey�team;�the�final�draftreport�was�completed�in�October�2010�and�aseminar�to�launch�the�findings�to�the�communityand�local�councillors�took�place�in�Taunton�inJanuary�2011.�The�report�is�available�on�theSouth�Somerset�District�Council�websitewww.southsomerset.gov.uk.�Jo�also�led�aproject�to�develop�a�gypsy�and�travellerstrategy�for�Cambridgeshire�County�Counciland�district�partners,�the�final�draft�wascompleted�at�the�end�of�November�2010.

Two�books�were�published�at�the�end�of�2010which�Jo�edited�and�contributed�to:�FromRecession to Renewal – the impact of thefinancial crisis on public services and localgovernment (Policy�Press);�and�Housing andthe Customer (Chartered�Institute�of�Housing).

For�further�details�about�the�CCHR�contact:Ros Lishman

E: [email protected]�W: dmu.ac.uk/cchr

Health Policy Research Unit (HPRU)

The�HPRU�began�life�as�a�joint�venturebetween�the�Leicester�Business�School�andthen�Faculty�of�Health�and�Community�Studiesin�2000.�Ten�years�on�the�unit�has�achieved�agreat�deal.�In�this�period,�we�have�seen�theHPRU�grow�and�develop.�Members�drawn�from�the�two�faculties�have�generated�over�£5�million�in�research�income.�They�havesecured�grants�from�international�bodies,research�councils,�government�departments,the�NHS�and�the�voluntary�sector.�They�alsoundertake�consultancy�work�for�the�NHS,voluntary�sector�and�local�government,�whichhas�a�bearing�on�service�delivery.�Membershave�produced�over�300�publications,�includingsome�of�the�leading�books�and�journal�articlesin�their�field.�Some�of�our�publications�are�citedand�used�by�researchers�and�practitionersaround�the�globe,�including�the�World�HealthOrganisation.�Our�research�interests�arebroadly�similar�to�our�original�priorities:�publichealth,�diversity�and�inequalities;�healthprofessions;�health�policy�and�management,and�public�and�patient�involvement.�Examplesof�recent�work�include:�An�international�study�ofhealthy�lifestyles,�an�evaluation�of�local�publicinvolvement�in�health�service�reorganisation,�aproject�to�improve�hospital�hygiene�and�a�studyof�patient�groups’�campaigning�activities.

We�have�built�networks�both�within�and�outsidethe�university.�We�have�a�good�workingrelationship�with�other�centres�and�units�atDMU�(such�as�Mary�Seacole�Research�Centre,the�Centre�for�Social�Action,�the�Unit�for�theSocial�Study�of�Thalassaemia,�the�LocalGovernance�Research�Unit,�Centre�forComparative�Housing�Research�and�Centre�forSocial�Action).�We�have�also�built�links�withresearchers�across�the�university�in�areas�suchas�pharmacy�and�communication�technologies.Our�activities�are�disseminated�to�a�wider

group�of�stakeholders�across�the�university�inthe�form�of�a�regular�electronic�newsletter,which�also�contains�details�of�potentialresearch�funding�and�promotes�awareness�ofrecent�health�policy�documents.�Links�withother�universities�have�also�been�strengthenedthrough�joint�research�bids�and�othercollaborations�as�well�as�a�seminar�programmewith�external�speakers.�

A�new�brochure�gives�the�highlights�of�ourrecent�activities.�A�copy�can�be�obtained�fromthe�Director,�whose�details�are�given�below.

For�further�details�about�the�HPRU�contact:Professor Rob Baggott, Director, HPRU

E: [email protected]�or�[email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/hpru

Steve White: Full-time student – The

nature and extent of the public service

ethos in front-line professionals

After�13�years�as�a�manager�in�the�police�force,�I�wanted�to�look�at�public�sector�issues�from�awider�perspective.�I�undertook�a�Master’s�inPublic�Administration�at�the�University�ofNottingham.�During�that�year,�I�developed�aparticular�interest�in�the�public�service�ethos�–the�notion�that�public�service�is�a�form�ofvocation,�with�a�different�philosophy�andapproach�to�private�or�voluntary�sectors.�I�wassuccessful�in�applying�for�a�bursary�to�undertakea�PhD�in�Public�Policy,�with�the�Department�ofPublic�Policy�at�De�Montfort�University.

My�research�focused�on�two�community�safetypartnerships�as�case�studies.�This�allowed�meto�compare�and�contrast�different�governancerelationships�within�and�between�England�andWales,�and�to�assess�how�a�legal�requirementto�work�in�partnership�affected�the�publicservice�ethos�of�front-line�professionalsinvolved�in�delivering�safer�communities.�Myresearch�therefore�combined�two�theories�–�thepublic�service�ethos,�and�network�governance.This�combination�represented�my�contributionto�new�knowledge�and�understanding. 

My�research�is�the�first�to�assess�the�impact�on�the�front�line�of�New�Labour�policies.�The�community�safety�legislation�specificallyrequired�networks�to�be�at�the�heart�ofgovernance�for�community�safety�issues.�My�research�has�indicated�that�the�publicservice�ethos�has�changed,�away�from�a�mainlypatrician�but�long-term�view.�Instead,�it�hasbecome�more�focused�on�short-term�issues�anddemonstrable�performance.�This�has�skewedthe�public�service�ethos�towards�somethingmore�akin�to�professional�pride,�as�front-lineprofessionals�are�increasingly�required�to�think�

about�their�immediate�contribution,�rather�thanwider�and�longer-term�community�issues.�Assuch,�there�is�considerable�crossover�with�thevoluntary�sector,�although�there�are�dangers�ifpolicy-makers�assume�the�two�are�identical.� 

William Wells: Part-time student –

Capturing and augmenting the

knowledge assets of the UK regions:

Sub-national governance actors and

their collaboration with universities to

win foreign direct investment 

Why�are�you�doing�a�PhD?�This�is�a�common,often�incredulous, response�from�friends�andcolleagues�with�whom�I�have shared�the�detailof�my�current�academic�pursuit.�And�it’sunderstandable,�to�most mid-careerprofessional�people�it�seems�an�unusual�projectto�undertake,�beset,�as�they�are,�by�a�busyworking�life�and�family�commitments.

The�motivation�for�undertaking a�major�piece�ofself-directed�research�over�an�extended�periodwill�be�unique�to�the�individual.�This�has�beenconfirmed�by�my�contact�with�fellow�PhDstudents.�However,�while�for�some�there�is�theelement�of�hobby,�fulfilment�of�long-termambition,�or�first�step�on�to�the�career�ladder,�I�have�come�across�many�seeking�a�substantialframework�for�ongoing�professionaldevelopment.�In�doing�so,�their�impetusmatches�my�own.�As�increasing�numbers�of�theUK�workforce�are�educated�to�Master’s�level�itcan�only�be�expected�that�demand�for�part-timePhDs�will�grow.�This�will�be�a�function�of�thedemand�from�students�to�continue�their�studiesat�a�yet�higher�level,�as�well�as�the�need�to�bedifferentiated�in�a�crowded�market.

While�these�features�hold�true�to�my�ownexperience�it�has�not�simply�been�a�case�of�theneeds�of�the�career�shaping�the�education.

At�the�time�of�embarking�on�an�executive�MBA�atDe�Montfort�University�in�2001,�I�had�made�asolid�start�to�my�career�in�industrial�and�consumersales�and�marketing.�At�that�time�I�wanted�toinvest�in�an�all-round�business�education.However,�as�well�as�developing a broad�businessskills�base,�it�was�through�the�programme�that�Ideveloped�an�engaged�interest�in�globalinvestment�flows�and�the�role�of�MultinationalCorporations�(MNCs) in�that�process.�Within sixmonths�of�graduation�I�had�taken�up�a�post�in�thegovernment�agency�charged�with�winninginvestment�from�international�businesses�–working�in�the�frontline�of�engagement�with thelocation�decisions�of�major�global�businesses.

Five�years�on,�and�my�experiences�in�the�role�haveshaped�my�PhD�research.�The�project exploresthe�ways�in�which�government�investment�inuniversities�can�impact�relative�flows�of�MNC-ledresearch�and�development�investment�betweencompetitive�post-industrial�economies.

And�so,�to�those�who�ask�why�are�you�doing�aPhD?�I�genuinely�believe�that�I�can�add�somesmall�understanding�and�further�insight�in�to�aneconomically�important�process,�that�I�am�wellplaced�to�do�this�work�through�my�professionalrole�and�academic�background�and,�at�the�riskof�sounding�worthy,�I�want�to�be�recognised�asan�outstanding�practitioner�in�my�field.

Working�with�the�staff�at�De�Montfort�University(and,�especially,�my�supervisors)�has�allowedme�to�develop�a�more�academic�approach�toresearch�than�was�the�case�in�my�professionalcareer.�I�found�each�of�my�supervisors�to�haveseparate,�but�complementary�expertise�andexperience.�I�feel�this�blend�is�an�important�partof�good�supervision,�and�good�research.�I�nowhope�to�publish�in�academic�journals�and�speakat�academic�conferences,�broadening�myunderstanding�and�contacts�network. 

D O C T O R A L S T U D E N T F E AT U R E

PAGE | TWENTy-FOUR

Leicester Business School has a dynamic,

thriving research community whose work has an

international reputation in a number of fields.

Why not join us as a PhD student?

Research degree applications are welcomedfrom students working in a wide range ofBusiness School disciplines includingAccounting and Finance, Human ResourceManagement, Marketing, Public Policy, andStrategy and Management.

Much of our work is focused on three specificareas of expertise and we particularly inviteapplications within these fields:• Public policy, including research in the fields of local governance, health and housing

• Human resource management andorganisational behaviour, especially in themanagement of organisational change andemployment relations in multinationals

• Small business and ethnic minorityenterprise, covering such themes as accessto finance, small firms and the environment,supplier diversity and employee relations

The International PhD Programme

The International PhD allows students basedoutside the UK to register with DMU for a PhDbut to undertake the majority of their studies intheir home country.

Full details of the International PhD can be foundat: dmu.ac.uk/internationalphd

Contact us

T: +44 (0)116 250 6332E: [email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/balresearch

J O I N u S

Alternative formats: Where possible DMU publications or specific sections can be supplied inalternative media. For further information on how we can help, please contact The Enquiry Centre on08459 45 46 47, dmu.ac.uk/enquiry or text phone +44 (0)116 257 7908.© The Studio, External Relations Department, De Montfort University. April 2011 (169) All rights reserved.

Leicester Business School

De Montfort University

The Gateway

Leicester LE1 9BH, UK

T: +44 (0)116 250 6454

E: [email protected]

W: dmu.ac.uk/balresearch