ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 1/49 - 2

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 2/49 - "Why dont they ask us what will work rat…

"Why dont they ask us what will work rather than telling us what we need?" (Female, 51, North West)

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 3/49 - Executive Summary

Executive Summary

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 4/49 - Introduction

Introduction

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 5/49 - This report sets out to examine the land…

This report sets out to examine the landscape of intervention focused on supporting local economic development over the last two decades. It considers the types of intervention delivered against the issues communities see as important, and presents an analysis of trends in the performance of local economies in England since 2000.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 6/49 - Chapter 1: Part 1

Chapter 1: Part 1

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 7/49 - Since the turn of the century, there hav…

Since the turn of the century, there have also been a consistent procession of schemes focused on local economic development with varying degrees of reach, scope and priorities, funded and led by the UK government. With a particular focus on England, some of the most ambitious funds have included the �9.1 billion Growth Deals and the �2.6 billion Regional Growth Fund, which broadly aim to stimulate economic growth and employment in local areas. Other major funding streams include the �730 million Growing Places Fund, targeting key infrastructure projects, the �186 million

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 8/49 - Our analysis revealed communities caring…

Our analysis revealed communities caring far more about addressing inequalities within place, and prioritising how economic development could rectify the inequalities between local towns in a region, or between poorer and more affluent boroughs in a city. 79% of responses focused on the condition of the economy within local authority, city-region or neighbourhood boundaries and just 21% focused on the state of local economic development between places--between regions at the devolved nation or at the UK-wide scale. In the within-place category issues of unemployment were an exceptionally high priority (91%) with clear need to build stronger and balanced labour markets within local authority areas and regions and not concentrate labour markets solely within major urban or `opportunity towns.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 9/49 - Community involvement in macro schemes f…

Community involvement in macro schemes for local economic development

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 10/49 - Chapter 1: Part 2

Chapter 1: Part 2

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 11/49 - Our analysis assessed LSPs as having a M…

Our analysis assessed LSPs as having a Medium level of community involvement. As the principal mechanism for how Labours vision of local economic development inclusive of local priorities and shaped by an agreed local vision and local social outcomes, this assessed indicates that the LSPs fell short of achieving their role.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 12/49 - The goals that were prioritised and whic…

The goals that were prioritised and which the majority of LSPs had shown `major or `some progress against� aside from developing a collaborative strategy which was in practice, often not truly debated, agreed nor owned (see discussion above) � were those focused on sharing data and evidence; embedding priorities within partners strategies; and working to understand the priorities of larger partners (mainly public services, businesses or the largest voluntary organisations) (2004, p.18). Hence it could be argued that the majority of LSPs were content with and only managed involvement `by proxy (with a few dominant partners rather than broader collaboration, representation and community legitimacy) or focused on `quick win relationships, rather than a more inclusive local membership and accountability. The majority of case studies analysed bear this out, with the exceptions to this being the fewer part.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 13/49 - Furthermore, those focused on the gap be…

Furthermore, those focused on the gap between Labours successes in building the `supply side of employability and their limitations in not enabling a sustainable `demand side in local economies, have argued that the lack of local ownership of sectors and industries driven by the RDAs (responding to government priorities) contributed to why employers did not stay for the longer term in many deprived areas (Dalingwater, 2011). These factors have contributed to criticism that the RDAs were in fact `regional arms of central government � rather than fully embodying local and regional expectations and priorities (Toumanay, 2002).

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 14/49 - Neither a coherent model nor a set of me…

Neither a coherent model nor a set of measurable outcomes existed to drive a) greater understanding of the durable issues of local capability, transition requirements and priorities in the RDAs development of regional economies and their sub-region counterparts. There was also no established and consistent structure or model; nor set of measurements, for ensuring the involvement of local business and community priorities consistently in strategies to `balance national and local opportunities and barriers to `bottom up growth. This is despite a few notable strong examples of two-way involvement from specific RDAs including EMDAs Avenue programme (part of the National Coalfields Programme), marked out by strengths of early involvement; participation of community groups alongside business partners and an `extensive system of stakeholder engagement (2009, p.56).

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 15/49 - Community involvement under the Coalitio…

Community involvement under the Coalition: Localism confined

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 16/49 - Community involvement under the Conserva…

Community involvement under the Conservatives: Blurred vision

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 17/49 - contending of different layers of power …

contending of different layers of power between Mayoral, Local and Combined Authorities, LEPs and central government, as well as dominant employers and market actors, risks drowning out or marginalising local priorities or the opportunity for strategies to have authenticity, ownership and indeed present opportunities for local people. It has been discussed that a `fragmented and blurred (2020, p.310) system of boundaries in who governs what element(s) of local economic development is mitigating the involvement of a wider range of actors in setting priorities; and equally, stemming or stalling the scope for coherent local action.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 18/49 - Chapter 2:

Chapter 2:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 19/49 - Trend 1: What level of localism? Unequal…

Trend 1: What level of localism? Unequal governance and funding

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 20/49 - Trend 2: Opportunities over needs

Trend 2: Opportunities over needs

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 21/49 - Trend 3: Over-reliance on limited or mon…

Trend 3: Over-reliance on limited or mono-dimensions of economic development

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 22/49 - residents and poor quality housing (see …

residents and poor quality housing (see The future of seaside towns (HL Paper 320)). But focusing on the metric of employment - which matters strongly to communities and is foremost in the expressed aims of the CCF - suggests the Fund has made a contribution difference to job density in the places in which it has been awarded. Five towns in the south of England (Bournemouth, East Cowes, Falmouth, Hayle and Portishead) and two in Wales (Llandudno Junction and Penarth) had above average growth in employment over the 2009-2018 period - all of which were in early receivership of awards from the CCF (ICS, 2021). The growth in employment is equally born out in the Annual reports as a dominant success factor (CC Annual Report, 2016). This may in part be due to whether these local economies started from a greater `opportunity base than others; but the creation of not just employment but employment accessible to local people deserves further examination.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 23/49 - The first criticism emerges from the fac…

The first criticism emerges from the fact that the geographical boundaries of LEPs have had a complicated past. In 2018 the Government identified 20 of the then 38 LEPs that had overlapping boundaries (House of Commons, 2019, p.10). While it has since been mandated that all LEPs resolve any overlaps before receiving further funding, it is apparent that the issue of remit was (and, in many places, continues to be) convoluted with a potentially negative effect on the allocation of funding and coordination of responsibilities.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 24/49 - Chapter 3:

Chapter 3:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 25/49 - Studies of economic schemes and interven…

Studies of economic schemes and interventions in European countries have found that "the impact of countries structural policies largely depends not only on the specific instruments (e.g., human capital development, infrastructure investments, and smalland medium-sized enterprises support) but also on the concrete patterns in which these instruments are deployed geographically" (Varga, 2015). This means that considering the far-reaching, interconnected and relational effects of large scale interventions is essential in addressing spatial economic inequality. We discuss this as addressing `between-place inequality - that is, the economic inequalities that exist between local authorities, between city regions, and at larger spatial scales (regional, devolved nation, and national).

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 26/49 - Trend 2: Economic malaise and stagnation…

Trend 2: Economic malaise and stagnation of the most deprived areas

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 27/49 - Figure 10: Scatter plot showing the mean…

Figure 10: Scatter plot showing the mean IMD ranking for each local authority (LA) in England, plotted against the percentage of LSOAs within that LA that are in the most deprived 20% of England. The top left corner indicates the most deprived LAs. Each LA is colour-coded based on its priority from the recent government levelling up report. Priority 1 is the highest priority for investment and support. Priority 3 the lowest.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 28/49 - Local Authority (LA) Enfield

Local Authority (LA) Enfield

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 29/49 - Based on the analysis of both the most d…

Based on the analysis of both the most deprived regions and also those regions that have worsened significantly between 2015 to 2019, the following regions match both these criteria (highly deprived and worsening deprivation):

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 30/49 - Chapter 4:

Chapter 4:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 31/49 - to home or wherever they live, communiti…

to home or wherever they live, communities will have to commute or travel to access fair or any employment. This is an area where the current expression and organisation of the levelling up agenda is in tension with itself and furthermore where the change in working conditions and aspirations brought about by the pandemic makes flexible and local access to employment increasingly important to ordinary people and to places resilience.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 32/49 - To ensure the considerable funding commi…

To ensure the considerable funding commitment under levelling up can achieve the scaled impact needed to address spatial inequality and create fair opportunity, a new governance arrangement and institutional structure is needed. This needs to be positioned at the heart of governance and decision-making for the Levelling Up Fund and needs to coordinate the different funding schemes � Community Renewal, Community Ownership, Towns Fund and so forth - against a central set of shared goals that are jointly determined through inclusive membership of multi-sectoral stakeholders and effective community involvement, and with consideration for achieving diversification, competitiveness, sustainability and resilience across all places in the UK..

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 33/49 - dimensions interact at the local level a…

dimensions interact at the local level and why they must all be included within a local strategy for levelling up to avoid more, not less, spatial inequality, is below.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 34/49 - Learning from place-based funders

Learning from place-based funders

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 35/49 - the chance to buy �100 `community shares…

the chance to buy �100 `community shares in the piers redevelopment. While this approach only raised �590,000 (compared for example to the �14 million awarded by the Heritage Lottery Fund), it turned over 3,000 members of the community into shareholders and gave them a direct stake in the ownership and success of the pier. As a result, Hastings pier was commonly referred to as `The Peoples Pier and was seen less as a conservation project and more as a "multi-functional event space" for the benefit of the local community. In 2017 it won RIBA Stirling Prize for architecture.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 36/49 - Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions and Recommendations

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 37/49 - Appendix 1:

Appendix 1:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 38/49 - Appendix Figure 1: Institute for Communi…

Appendix Figure 1: Institute for Community Studies Typology of Community Involvement, Source ICS 2021.

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 39/49 - Appendix 2:

Appendix 2:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 40/49 - Deprivation (22.5%), Employment Deprivat…

Deprivation (22.5%), Employment Deprivation (22.5%), Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%), Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%), Crime (9.3%), Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%), Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%). For this study, we split the economic IMD rankings (considered Income and Employment domains) from the social factors (considered Education, Health, Crime, Housing and Living Environment domains) in order to compare and contrast how the economic and social factors varied across LSOAs. When this was done, the weightings were maintained for each domain (i.e. the economic IMD was considered to be an equal weighting of 50% Income and 50% Employment - due to their identical % weightings).

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 41/49 - Table 1: Regional correlation between th…

Table 1: Regional correlation between the number of mutual aid groups and personal wellbeing mean scores

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 42/49 - Table 3: Regional correlation between th…

Table 3: Regional correlation between the number of mutual aid groups and Covid-19 grants awarded

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 43/49 - Table 4: Regional correlation between th…

Table 4: Regional correlation between the number of mutual aid groups and number of community assets (England only)

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 44/49 - Appendix 3:

Appendix 3:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 45/49 - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF…

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 46/49 - Scottish

Scottish

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 47/49 - Strength in Places Fund

Strength in Places Fund

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 48/49 - Appendix 4:

Appendix 4:

ICS-WP2-Why-dont-they-ask-us AMENDED.pdf - page 49/49 - Copyright � Institute for Community Stud…

Copyright � Institute for Community Studies, July 2021