City Charter presentation LSE Mark Kleinman

Download Report

Transcript City Charter presentation LSE Mark Kleinman

A City Charter for London

Mark Kleinman LSE London Seminar March 2 nd 2009

1. The Governance Question


•Govern: rule with authority. Governance: the act, manner, function of governing •Be strategic…The core strategy focus on


, not


– making policy and setting direction rather than producing services (Osborne 1999)


I asked, 'How do you steer it'? Somebody

said, 'Shut up and go down'. I asked again.

And he said, 'Shut up and go down'. Jim Shea Jr, U.S. ‘skeleton bob’ Olympian

The shift to governance is at all levels of the state…

• National states have lost some exclusivity and sovereignty • Growth of supra-national bodies, e.g. European Union, NAFTA, WTO • Loss of legitimacy/authority of politicians and some institutions • But the death of the nation-state much exaggerated. In fact, more nations today than 20 years ago .

…including the management of cities

reduced authority

national and local of the state, both •


public of actors, both private and •


as well as hierarchies and markets • response to


- recognition of inter-dependence • importance of

urban leadership

- both institutional and personal

London has had four systems of government in the last 40 years

• 1889-1965: London County Council – 4.5 millions. Fabianism in action • 1965-1986: Greater London Council – 8 million. The metropolitan region • 1986-2000: GLC abolition: an experiment in ‘network governance’ • 2000- The Greater London Authority – strategic governance; London’s first Mayor

The Greater London Authority

• From 1986-2000. London governed by the boroughs (32 +1), central government and ad hoc bodies.

• 2000: directly elected mayor and separately elected assembly of 25 members, each for a term of four years.

• The GLA represents a new form of governance in Britain, with clear separation of powers between the mayor and assembly.

• The mayor is responsible for strategies for transport, planning, the environment, economic development and culture.

The Mayor sets the budget for the GLA and the four functional bodies that make up the GLA ‘family’. He appoints most of the members of these bodies.

2007 GLA Act: additional powers

• Investment in new affordable housing: London housing strategy, chairs London HCA board … • Planning: can ‘call in’ • Health inequalities and climate change responsibilities devolved • London Waste & recycling Board – but not Mayoral Waste authority • Chairs LSEB, can chair or appoint chair of MPA • City Hall staff appointed by CX not Assembly

2008 Mayoral election

• Increased turnout (45%) and a‘Million vote mandate’ • Turnout increase highest in outer London • Conservative strategy to target outer boroughs: “Ken Livingstone has neglected London's suburbs "

The Blue Doughnut

Mayor is part of a system of ‘network governance’

• • • • GLA ‘family’ spends around £12 billion annually. . Boroughs spend around £13 billion p.a. Total public sector expenditure in excess of £45 billion. ‘Core’ GLA employs around 600 staff.

The mayor has limited fiscal powers. Most of the money comes via Whitehall Boroughs retain many powers. They are primarily responsible for service delivery. Mayor devises strategies, but needs boroughs and other agencies to implement “

However charismatic and forceful the Mayor is, London is really governed by a crowd of jostling political bodies, from borough councils to the City of London Corporation to the Olympic Delivery Authority, as competitive and labyrinthine as the City itself.” (Andy Beckett, The Guardian 9/12/08)

2. What and Where is London?

The governance structure is



• Economic and political scales of cities are different. • The urban city is • But city


travel-to-work area

dynamic political

. historically defined. functions over a large area such as a labour market or • Hence the economic definition of the boundaries are usually

There are no clear rules for optimal city governance

• Political identity is always more local than economic reality.

• In most cities, there are arguments for changing the governance structure.

• But the mismatch between economic reality and political identity means that this is difficult to achieve.

• The question is not “what is the optimal structure?” but “what are the costs and benefits of change? ”

Is metropolitan government an economic necessity?

• Consolidation argument: efficiencies of scale for larger units; provision of ‘local public goods’; prevention of urban sprawl • ‘Territorial Competition’: Functional Urban Regions require city-regional form of governance. Significant spillovers from growth promotion policies.

• Requires leadership: dominant authority; ‘club’ of authorities; or partnership arrangements • More government units implies weaker leadership, higher transactions costs and less effective policies

The evidence is mixed

• Carr and Feiock(1999): no evidence that consolidation in 9 US cases had impacts on economic growth.

• Swanstrom (2001): little evidence that fragmentation harms economic growth • Cheshire: success stories in Strathclyde, Rennes, Nantes, Frankfurt associated with regional/local development policies. (But London performed better


GLC abolition!) • ‘Public choice’ school: multiple governments better reflect citizen preferences

A range of solutions are possible

• Do nothing/create special districts • Annexation and consolidation • Federal two-tier structure • Voluntary co-operation (Goldsmith 2002)

Solutions can be inter municipal or supra-municipal

• UK was ‘supra-municipal’ – creation of GLC (1965) and six metro authorities (1974) – but then abolished in 1986 • In most European countries, inter-municipality more common: Greater Rotterdam abolished in 1985 and Met Corporation of Barcelona in 1987. Communautes Urbaines in France – indirect elections. (Lefevre 1998)

In the 1990s, return of the ‘Big Cities’

• Metropolitan government more in fashion in last 10 years – experiments in Italy, Spain, Germany, UK, Netherlands • Limited success – e.g. reform attempts in Rotterdam and Amsterdam rejected in referenda • London almost only European example of new (revived) metro government

Challenges for metropolitan governance

• There are a range of choices about structure, but network governance and a ‘messy’ system are inevitable. • For the largest cities, even a metropolitan tier does not capture the whole of the economic city or FUR – the 100-mile city.

• Economic logic and the competitiveness agenda suggests larger units are more effective. But citizens often identify with something much smaller.

London/Greater South-East

Represents the administrative city Represents the physical city Represents the travel to-work area as an indication of the city region

Swindon Milton Keynes Travel to work Cambridge London Heathrow Airport Bournemouth Southampton Crawley/ Gatwick Brighton

Thames Gateway (opportunity) 23


The London city region: Advanced Producer Services information flows connect towns & cities at a global ‘mega-city-region’ scale. The mega city region “is the fundamental urban reality of the early 21st century” (Sir Peter Hall)

1991 Commuting Networks overlaid on 3D map of in-commuting 24

3. The London City Charter

• • •

“Working towards a City Charter for London” MoU June 2008

Signed by Mayor and Chairman of London Councils Principles: • Decisions as close to people as possible • Each tier of govt has unique contribution • Transparency, diversity, improvement, accountability Actions: • Congress of Mayor + borough leaders, at least twice yearly • Delivery Board • Produce full city charter

What’s driving this?


Network Structure

Maturity of the London Governance System


Other relevant examples…

New York City Charter: but it’s a statutory document, 340 pages

Toronto: e.g. Canada- Ontario-Toronto MoU on Immigration and Settlement

MAAs in other UK cities, and the Olympic 5-borough MAA in London

What will be in the City Charter?

• Under discussion, but could cover: • Principles (building on the MoU) • Arrangements for Congress and a Charter Board • Protocols for key priorities of the Congress • Set the stage for next phase of devolution

What are the risks?

• • •


risks: economic recession, tighter public sector budgets


risks: borough elections in 2010; general election in 2009 or 2010


risks: danger of ‘just another document’

What are the benefits?

• Clearer, simpler, more transparent • Avoid duplication and things ‘falling in the gaps’ • Elected London leadership, not quangos • Acknowledges reality of both directly elected Mayor and network governance