Ian Gordon Geography Department, London School of Economics

1. Governance of the metropolitan economy an approach to  learning from comparison with Paris and Berlin Ian Gordon Geography Department, London School of Economics and Spatial Economics Research Centre Regional Studies Association Research Network Governing Metropolitan Regions Within a LocalistAgenda, University of Westminster, 21st September 2012

2. My Starting Point • See this event as beginning of a process for the network: • looking comparatively at experience of 3 capital city regions • to identify governance needs and better ways of meeting these • for our specific (and different) cases • Expecting to learn from this – not just about why I/we are ‘right’ • nor to discover which other cities have the answer (i.e. right model) • or even whole bits that we can patch on to an existing structure (bricolage?) • but about the relevant processes / conflicts and what affects these, and how • plus some national blind spots (cf. Ashford on British dogmatism/French pragmatism) • So, not going to hazard any instant comparisons here • but try to start discussion on framework within which to approach ‘cases’ • starting from why there might be a co-ordination issue in metro regions • in relation to standard mix of modes of integration • and why (maybe) it may be more problematic for capital cities • and then types of case where could matter – as poss focus for work?

3. Why Governance is an Issue ... • As I see it, governance = regulation / co-ordination of a system • ‘by whatever means’, including a (specific) combination of : • bureaucratic control – from hierarchy of agencies, • ‘free’ markets • co-evolution of (shared) understandings, norms, habits of co-operation • Largely taken for granted – but becoming an ‘issue’ when / where: • shortcomings emerge in established divisions of labour and accommodations, between: • public/private; formal/informal; functional specialties; spatial levels ⇒ need for a revision / re-negotiation of these • Common / general in current era because of increased complexity and dynamic instability / uncertainty • but especially the case around major agglomerations

4. ... Especially in (extended) Metro Regions • For two reasons : • Extension of the functional region ⇒ increasingly complex pattern of action fields /interactions (and spatial externalities from actions); • layered across more distinct scales, decentred and overlayed • in ways that established administrative hierarchies cannot match • and scarcely recognised in any shared way by key stakeholders/ citizens • markets cope better with this complexity - but will still ‘fail’ to handle many impacts (inc. on environment, deprivation etc.) • functional integration enables spatial differentiation • across much broader areas (despite incorporation of ‘whole towns’) • self-conscious of collective differences in interests + values from those in other areas ⇒ perceived threats & conflicts with these • including core city versus periphery Expect to be true everywhere – but in intelligibly different ways (e.g. the traditional inversion of class geographies London vs Paris) ??

5. Range of Issues Identified in Greater South East context • Housing land supply (as many will have said already) • nb 50 years since (Tory) government said ‘’need to match jobs, transport, housing and land over the next 20 years in London & South East calls for a regional plan’ • hasn’t worked – or come nearer to doing so- despite LA new incentives • Intra-territory competition for mobile businesses • not been major problem – lack of fiscal incentive + EU restraints • but liable to be much more so with enterprise incentives under ‘localism’ • De-regulatory competition for retail trade etc. between LAs • relaxation of parking etc. limits in urban areas to match exurban advantage • potential race to the bottom • Persistent confusion of structural and spatial causes of U/E • Ignoring integration of regional LMs ⇒ bolster localist development case with a ‘social’ rationale - rather than concerted attach on structural problems • Growth of orbital/eccentric (road) transport demands • versus historic radial (rail) network

6. Suggested Approach to Learning from Each Other in Network • Identify ‘shopping list’ of issue area ‘cases’ • from of a priori reasoning + evident importance in 1+city e.g.: • meeting housing needs of regional workforce • securing strategic infrastructure • locating additional airport capacity • managing traffic congestion – in central areas & eccentric links • regulating inter-area competition for service trade or mobile businesses • Examine where/ why /how these are issues in a ‘city’ • and why not • Explain how these are (not) managed & changes • with emphasis on the constraints and assets available to overcome these • and on what might be transferable / how

7. Summary • Significance of governance perspective = • amalgam of different elements & logics • to cope with conflicts – not just complexity • need to evolve better processes – not perfect structures • and identify incentives / catalysts for achieving this • borrowing and adapting practice from elsewhere – and how it was developed – not off-peg answers • But where leadership comes from is crucial question