Avoiding ‘managed decline’ in 2012
The publication of 1981 Cabinet Papers discussing a strategy of ‘managed decline’ for Liverpool has caused considerable comment at the start of a year in which many places in the UK may well face this direction of economic travel. Beyond the controversial emotive terminology, what is most striking is development and regeneration’s enduring struggles with the relative balance between investing in success and tackling deprivation; and that tackling deprivation still needs to present a compelling case for interventions sustaining better futures as opposed to making present poverty bearable. How far might we see continuity and/or (transformational) change in 2012?
There are consistent themes and approaches across the decades. Heseltine’s 1981 prescriptions for Liverpool (e.g. heritage and cultural-led tourism – Albert Docks/Garden Festival; knowledge economy – Wavertree Technology Park; modernised transport hub – ‘super Port’, comprehensive community regeneration – Toxteth) have some read-across with his 2011 report. Agendas, though, have evolved with the emphasis on devolved city-region powers and resources a refreshing change of tone compared to 1980s Whitehall-led Development Corporations.
‘Results’ of interventions have also been problematic. The blog I did last August on ‘Back to the future’ for Birmingham, compared that city’s 1991 20 year strategy with contemporary economic performance in 2011, and suggested real concerns at redressing long-term challenges. Heseltine and Leahy’s 2011 Liverpool report describes a more confident, forward-looking city leadership and ‘branding’ – offering hope that a future devolved approach will reap greater returns than hitherto. And the evidence does suggest some grounds for optimism.
In GVA per head terms, Liverpool has arguably been the most consistent core city in improving GVA per capita (at NUTS3 sub-regional level). This has risen from just over 90% of UK average in 1997 to 99.1% in 2009 (the latest year for which GVA data at this level is available). Over the same period all the other core cities’ (except ‘Tyneside’) relative positions declined, albeit often from a much higher starting position.
GVA improvement is also reflected in Liverpool’s move up the UK local competitiveness index. Although still ranked as the least competitive core city at 35th (out of 41 major cities), it is the fastest improving over the period since 1997. In deprivation terms, though, Liverpool remains the most deprived local authority district in the country as ranked by Local Super Output Area (LSOA) scores. Population at both city and Merseyside-level was at its peak in 1931, and although 2010 mid-year estimates show the decline has slowed, there is not yet evidence of any sustained turnaround.
The Liverpool ‘pen picture’ illustrates a fairly positive record for progressing city development of an internationally competitive character. That mix (high quality master-planned physical regeneration, enterprise and innovation support, together with service sector strengthening e.g. leisure and visitor economy), combined with modern approaches to strong leadership with devolved powers, operating on city region scale, and promoting a coherent distinctive creative and enterprising city branding/positioning are potentially on offer through the Government’s new ‘city deals’ launched in December
The counter to this positive conclusion, however, is that these improvements are neither strong enough to be nationally significant; nor are they pervasive (or connected) enough locally to address the scale and intensity of deprivation – hence the unwelcome thread from Heseltine’s 1981 ‘It took a riot’ report on Toxteth to the urban disturbances last summer.
On the national position, successful Core Cities are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for England’s prosperity. In broad employment, just over 30% of new urban jobs are created in London, just under 30% in the eight core cities, and around 40% in a further +/-40 major urban areas. Moreover, a number of these smaller cities perform significantly better in terms of growth than the Core Cities. For instance, the Centre for Cities typology of ‘private sector cities’ had only Bristol in the eight ‘buoyant’ cities outside London, and only Leeds in the top half of ‘stable cities’.
For investing in success, therefore, whilst we need to support Core Cities in securing the best menu of powers, freedoms and responsibilities available under ‘city deals’, there is a need to support small and medium cities both within their LEPs and bilaterally to secure similar packages for their economies.
The other national issue is how to reengage and refresh London’s (or more precisely Inner London West’s) engagement with the rest of the economy. The latest ONS sub-national GVA publication in December strikingly illustrates this dilemma in a fascinating table about national variation in sub-regional performance across the EU. The UK spread is significantly the most acute. In Scandinavia the variation between best and worst-performing sub-region in GVA per head terms is typically around 50%. In the bigger economies it is either side of 100%. In the UK it is approaching 400%! Even within London, the variation is staggering – £110k per capita in Inner London West to £13k per capita in Outer London East and North-East.
A serious radical new look at the City’s connectivity to UK economic growth is crucial, and then something needs to be identified to kickstart a reallocation of economic roles and functions to alternative centres. For instance, were Scotland to vote for Independence, is there a case for moving the seat of (England’s) government to a more central and/or developmental location geographically?
As the 1981-2011continuum demonstrates, avoiding ‘managed decline’ is not a short-term project. But if a start is to be made in 2012, the new city deals need to be broadened geographically and made to drive national agendas. Concurrently we need a fresh look at London’s roles and functions to identify ‘exchanges’ that go beyond office-by-office transfers that we have seen in recent years. Then a new start will need to be made on the communities of chronic enduring deprivation…but that must be the subject of a future blog…
