Geographies and Politics of Localism - Case Study Example

Introduction One of the key tenets of the political programme by the coalition government that came to power in is localism, which was expectedto mark a radical shift of power from Westminster to the "people". The minister for local government Eric Pickles declared his three priorities in government, which he listed as localism, localism and localism (Wilson and Game 2011, p.394). The government introduced the localism Act, which was meant to play a part in its big society policy under the presupposition that when local communities have been decentralised, they can have more power and control over resources (Cabinet Office, 2010). The background of community empowerment can be traced back to community action that gained prominence in the 60s and 70s (Dominelli et al. 2000). This paper will examine the various factors around localism including the background and motivation; the contention will be that despite its appearing to give power to local authorities, in reality it tends to weaken them due to the multiple stakeholders at the ground level as well as the nearly halved budget. Retrospectively, communities have complained of being unable to ensure that their needs have been satisfactorily addressed giving the underlying tensions between development conservation and pressure on the limited services designed to serve them. This is because some of the services were underfunded after since half cut down the local funding after the bill was passed. This meant that after the said autonomy came with a reduced scope since there was considerably less for the locals to administrate. Without localisation, developments can sometimes be delayed by objections, which tend to cost both local business and planning authorities (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2012). This is because of the bureaucracy that can result from top-down control and the lack of formal powers in the community to influence or shape the planning process although it directly affects them. Therefore, in the end, it is difficult for residents to have control of developments hence they tend to be critical of it irrespective of the potential benefits. Localism in Action The intention of localism was to give communities leeway to come up with their own ways of overcoming tension between the conservational and quality control pressures that affect service provision and development (Gallent, 2013). Through it, communities can have a chance both have a say and option in the developing of areas where they are likely to become proponents instead of opposing suitable local growth. Ideally, localisation was meant to ensure that local communities do not have to depend on the national government to rubber stamp projects that directly affected them. After Pickle’s landmark triple assertion or localisation, the localism acted upon its rhetoric and it stripped off most of the regulatory infrastructures straddling the local authorities and brought about a general power of competence (Sawford, 2010). The local government and community were empowered and made accountable through referendums and other devices that made it possible to take over state-run services particularly those that were in danger of closure (HM Government, 2010). However, instead of using it to improve the participation of the community, it has been largely used to rubber stamp plans by developers who use it to get their projects approved. By eliminating several regulatory functions, the bill has significantly empowered the local communities by delocalising power from the government. However, who is the local community? One needs to ask if the person on the street feels more empowered by localisms. In most cases, the locals while appearing powerful on paper might actually end up with less of a say. This is because community in the context of the bill simply means whoever has the most interest and push in a particular project may have a say while those who are not affected are side-lined in the long run. Consequently, in a sense it can be seen as if the bill is actually reducing the power of the people rather than empowering them. Localizing, several large-scale function that have been claimed to block grassroots economic growth have been abolished include in but not limited to the temporal and spatial strategies, the infrastructure and planning commissions. Consequently, decision on matters housing have been returned to the local councils Standard boards were also abolished and they could no longer regulate the activities of the elected councillors. The audit commission was also abolished and its performance and framework wound down instead of local authorities looking to the government for support and supervisions (Bentley & Pugalis, 2013). Under the mixed community policy, they were expected to develop their own performance measurements metrics instead of those that have been centrally defined or prescribed in the metrics. In theory, the local authorities will have the power to do anything they wish that is in the interest of their community as long as it is not against the law. However, although these appeared very practical and positive on paper their application has not always been particularly straightforward because of the restricted way in which the courts have tended to interpret the new bills for localisation. Challenges of Localism Vague description and case studies However, case studies have tended to be considerably varied in their scope compared to the theoretical and media presentation of the definition of local empowerment. At best, they deliver illustrations that encourage signs of the possible efficiency of localism initiatives in the enhancement of communal power. Dominelli et al. (2011) identified a series of conceptual issue in the literature, which problematizes the links between community and empowerment. The definition of the concept by politicians and through the media tends to be idyllic and they keep coming up with new terms to manage the latest paradigm of governance. However, legal and structural frameworks do not always support these; as a result, efforts by the local government to bring about community centred reform, and empowerment is not always successful. Another challenge, that affects the concept of localisation are the various conception of the term local scale, while it assumed that local refers to the area around where a community lives, the distinction between the scopes of the term are not always clear. Various geographers have argued that contrary to the Russian doll model where the international and local communities should be conceptualized based on how they are constructed (Dominelli et al. 2011). Opportunities are not always provided equitably on the local scale based on prevailing temporal and spatial conditions. Therefore, there are often disputed over policies based on making a particular scale more desirable than the other makes have been fraught with contradistinctions leading to controversy as some people have described the situation as a localism trap under the misconception that decentralization is necessary for the sake of democratization (Dominelli et al. 2011). Regulation and Limitation of Publics Power It is also worth taking to account that no matter how well intentioned the initiatives to empower communities they are usually aimed at regulating public in the communities through citizenship technologies. When citizens are to be empower through participation in various form of local governance new identities acre created for citizens, which combine the increase of power with more responsibility. The change in the nature of local governance is inclusive of the practice of citizenship, which has been linked to their rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, the devolution of power to the citizens can be regarded as competing and conflating with the representational modes of local governments, which brings about questions of the function of the welfares state, its legitimacy or even authority. One of the expected advantages of localisation is expected propensity for presumption in favour of sustainable developments. This is a positive change for developers who are intent on establishing sustainable policies of land use based on the implication of local policies by the Local Planning Authorities. The presupposition will however have both positive and negative impacts for the LPAs based on whether they have a stake in a particular scheme this is because even if they do not, it will nevertheless be difficult for them to prevent it. One of the major concerns of localism at the grassroots is the fact that with planning permits being given liberally to developers at the edge of towns, there has been a rise in speculative developers. In Hampshire for example, the parish was described as being under siege because developers had adopted a cavalier open season attitude towards development projects. After the introduction of localism, it has become difficult to have corporation between various Parishes and towns given that each appears to have its own independent agenda now that they were “free” of central control by the central government. While it has been suggested that this problem could be resolved if local authorities were to come together and try form a joint strategy, this has not been well taken up (Clarke & Cochrane, 2013). One of the major limitations of the bill has to do with finances, it gives local councils the mandate to publish their data about public spending such as salaries and grants among others; however, this was subject to a referendum. While this appears to be a progressive move, from Whitehall, this looks a lot like a case of double standards since the chancellor can make such decisions by a stroke of the pen with minimum consultation. Weakening Local Authorities Despite the claim that the Localism Act brings power to the people from government, the reality is quite different. Among the key provisions ostensibly placed to decentralize this power is the right of challenge, which gave voluntary groups and parish council’s authority to express interest in running affairs at the local level. However, this is not as ideal as it appears on paper, the right to challenge is often used as from to privatize services and brings about issues of accountability. When voluntary groups or other private entities are running local affairs, it is difficult to vet effectively them and as a result, localism is opening the door to corporate charities and other private sector players. At the end, when the duties are allocated through commissioning, many charity organizations have been designed in such a way the compete with each other in bidding much as if private firms do for government contracts. Despite the advantages, from a critical perspective, there localisation can be seen as weakening the local authorities instead of strengthening them. From a laymans point of view taking power from the government and vesting into in the local authorities will automatically maker the latter more powerful and increase their influence; however, this is not a given. The local authorities constitute of numerous bodies ranging from community and neighbourhood committees to private companies that will ultimately liaise and form partnerships with them. This might result in a complex division of power with each of the constituent bodies lobbying for independence and ultimately limiting the scope of local authorities. For example when it comes to construction projects, different groups may have various priorities and without the mandate of central government to "dictate" based on its wider picture view, the project may stall as community groups contest whose needs are more urgent which could result in wastage of time and resources. In addition, it creates room for underhand and even corrupt activities as local networks are much harder to regulate than central authorities are since the former will be closely connected and likely to cover for each other especially where there is no clearly set out regulation. The term community is very complex and it is not always easy to define in the context of the localisation at worst this can create a false door that uses misleading labels such as problem communities and communities in need (Herbert, 2005). Wallace (2010) argues that in attempting to empower communities, the policy has overlooked the opinion of people on the ground and obscured the complex social interplay on which local life is constructed. These critics have also been echoed by Amin (2005) proposes that the community as unit is critical to the reorganisation of the economy and society and to some extent the localisation of the social economic problem emerged from neoliberalism. Another risk for localism is that it will only be likely to help those who have the loudest voice and who can articulate their demands. For example, people aged over 75 for example may be set to benefit but given their low propensity for activism, they will end up not feeling the effects of the laws. In addition, the new community rights are not very straightforward since the members of the community need to have a lot of information about the numerous bureaucratic processes involved in challenging local services. The Localism act is however only a start to the changes that are bound to follow, and for them to be effectively implemented the relationship between the government and the local authorities can be developed. However, given that despite the show of giving power to local their actions have not been in line with theories. For example, after the bill was passed funding was sliced by half and the “Localized” areas had to do with much less than they previously had which significantly reduced their scope of using new found freedom. Conclusion Therefore, although the localisation bill has mostly played a critical role in developing the welfare of communities in local areas by vesting more power in them, there are several challenges that should not be ignored. Communities may appear to have localised power but in reality the absence of central government, control results in the division of role and mandate across various groups and individuals whose opinions all have to be factored in. This could potentially lead to slow decision making which cult ultimately disempower the communities and turn out to counterproductive unless they are managed effectively possibly through centralization of the devolved localised powers. References Amin, A., 2005. Local community on trial. Economy and Society 2005, 34 (4), 612-633. Bentley, G., & Pugalis, L., 2013. New directions in economic development: Localist policy discourses and the Localism Act. Local Economy, 28(3), 257-274. Cabinet Office, 2010. The Coalition: Our programme for government. [pdf] London: Cabinet Office. Clarke, N. & Cochrane, A. 2013. Geographies and politics of localism: The localism of the United Kingdon’s coalition government. Political Geography, 34, p.10-23. Dominelli, L Painter, J., Orton, A., Macleod, G. and Pande, R. 2011. Connecting Localism and Community Empowerment; Research Review and Critical Synthesis for AHRC Connected Community Programme. Department of Geography, [pdf] Durham: University of Durham. Gallent, N., 2013. Re-connecting people and planning: parish plans and the English localism agenda. Town Planning Review, 84(3), 371-396. Herbert, S., ‘The trapdoor of community’. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 2005, 95 (4), 850465. HM Government, 2010. ‘Decentralisation and the localism bill: an essential guide’. [pdf] London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L., 2012. Local Governance under the Coalition Government: Austerity, Localism and the Big Society. Local Government Studies 38(1): 21-40. Wallace, A., 2010. ‘New Neighbourhoods, New Citizens? Challenging Community as a Framework for Social and Moral Regeneration under New Labour in the UK’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (4), 805-819. Wilson, D. and Game, C., 2011. Local government in the United Kingdom – 5th Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Sawford, A.2010. The localism bill: the key points for local government. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2010/dec/22/localism-bill-councils-key-points Read More