Steve Leach - Local Government Reorganisation: The Review and Its Aftermath

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION

Of related interest

QUANGOS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A Changing World

Edited by Howard Davis

FINANCING EUROPEAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Edited by John Gibson and Richard Batley

THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE

Politicians and Management in European Local Government

Edited by Richard Batley and Adrian Campbell

POLITICS IN AUSTRIA

Edited by Dr Richard Luther and Dr Wolfgang C. Muller

PARLIAMENTS IN WESTERN EUROPE

Edited by Philip Norton

THE POLITICS OF THE NETHERLANDS HOW MUCH CHANGE?

Edited by Hans Daadler and Galen A. Irwin

UNDERSTANDING THE SWEDISH MODEL

Edited by Jan-Erik Lane

Local Government Reorganisation:

The Review and its Aftermath

Edited by

STEVE LEACH

First published in 1998 by

FRANK CASS AND COMPANY LIMITED

Published 2013 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 100 17, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright 1998 Frank Cass & Co. Ltd

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Local government reorganisation: The review and its aftermath.

1. Local government Great Britain. 2. Legislative bodies Great Britain Reform

I. Leach, Steve

352.22140941

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Local government reorganisation: The review and its aftermath / edited by

Steve Leach.

p. cm.

This group of studies first appeared in a special issue of Local government studies, vol. 23, no. 3 (Autumn 1997) T.p. verso.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Local government-Great Britain. I. Leach, Steve.

JS3111.P47 1997

This group of studies first appeared in a Special Issue of Local Government Studies, Vol.23, No.3 (Autumn 1997), [Local Government Reorganisation: The Review and its Aftermath].

ISBN 13: 978-0-714-64859-0 (hbk)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Contents

Introduction: The Continuing Relevance of the Local Government Review

STEVE LEACH

Steve Leach, De Montfort University.

The Local Government Review (LGR) in England has not, by and large, been a rewarding or happy experience for the majority of authorities who were drawn into it. Although those authorities which have achieved unitary status are generally positive about the outcome (if not always about the process which led up to it), elsewhere the Review has generated a good deal of frustration, loss of morale and a sense of injustice. Districts who still feel that their case for unitary status is just as strong as many of the 46 new authorities that have been (or are soon to be) established, and counties who are preparing for (or trying to cope with) the loss of one (or more) districts which have been central to their service strategies and strategic concerns have perhaps been particularly affected by these reactions. But even in counties where there has been no change and no strong case for change perceived by the Local Government Commission (LGC) or (ultimately) the previous government, there remains a sense of expectations raised and then time and staff resources wasted on a process which proved to have little consistency, logic or direction to it.

Such reactions will take time to dissipate; indeed it is not unlikely that attempts will be made to resurrect the idea of a further reorganisation. Such a development would be a total anathema, I suspect, to the vast majority of authorities, who are still recovering from the effects of the last Review. For many authorities the priority must be to draw a thick black line under the whole bizarre process. That response merits a good deal of empathy.

In such circumstances the question might be raised of how a study on the subject of the Local Government Review can be justified, especially in the light of the recent publication of a special issue of Public Administration on the same topic1 (in which the editor of this volume was also involved).

The main justification is the way in which the LGR provides such an invaluable learning opportunity for academics and practitioners alike. It is important to make the most of that opportunity, whilst the experience remains reasonably fresh in the minds of those involved, as willing or unwilling participants, or as academic onlookers. It is only now the Review is over2 that it is possible to interpret the process (with the benefit of hindsight) in a holistic way. The advantages of so doing are recognised even by those who have been critical of the process and whose authorities have suffered unwanted change. As John Sinnott rightly argues3

The local government review was an inept exercise, but shameless as much as shameful. Even the poll tax produced an admission of error. If not now, when will the local government review produce the same? If the lessons are not learnt, the only loser will be local government itself. (my italics)

The Review is of particular interest to academics because it raises so many fascinating issues of political process and provides a test-bed for a range of decision-making theories (see below). The interest for practitioners, in addition to the insights provided by academic analysis, lies in the highlighting of the lessons to be learned. If there is to be a further review in the foreseeable future and the instability and logical inconsistency of the outcome of the Review in England certainly raises that possibility4 then it must be done better than it was last time. That surely is a principle on which all can agree!

In this volume we have attempted to respond to both these perspectives. In relation to academic analysis, there are a series of articles, all with policy relevance, which examine different aspects of the review process. Howard Davis provides an overview of the English Review, highlighting the key events and changes of direction, in a way which makes for an interesting comparison with other recent attempts to carry out similar retrospective analyses.5 Steve Leach examines the LGR in terms of policy process, arguing that because the process (in England at least) was undertaken by a Commission, certain expectations of rational analysis were raised, only to be disappointed. The garbage-can model of policy process6 provides in many ways a more convincing perspective, with problems and solutions chasing one another throughout the process.

The LGR was instigated by a Conservative government which had by the time of the policy launch (1991) already implemented a profound programme of changes in local government, many of which can be seen as components of what has became known as the new managerialism.7 It was widely expected that the LGR would reflect this perspective, together with other related concepts, such as enabling and consumerism. Bob Leach and Neil Barnett show how initial attempts to steer the Review in this direction were never sustained, and the opportunity to apply what was by then a well-established set of ideological principles to a territorial review was lost.