Futures Forum: In defence of localism
Futures Forum: The 'funding pressures' on local government
Futures Forum: Aiming for a fairer planning system
Lord Kerslake 26 January 2018
Lord Kerslake: Let's reignite the possibilities of localism
Nearly seven years ago the Localism Act 2011 promised a ‘fundamental shift of power’ away from Westminster and towards communities. When I was permanent secretary at the then Department for Communities and Local Government, I never doubted that this aspiration was a sincere one from ministers. It built on an emerging political consensus that the scale and complexity of our social challenges are so great, they are unlikely to be effectively addressed from SW1.
But the landscape for localism was a gruelling one, as the Act was implemented alongside a deep austerity programme, squeezing local government finances and hollowing out much of our community infrastructure. And while the Community Rights have brought new powers for communities – to save local buildings and get involved in local planning – these have not been enough to fundamentally change the balance of control in our neighbourhoods.
Ultimately, the transformational potential of localism – to tackle disadvantage, rebalance our economy, and revitalise democracy – is still waiting to be fully unleashed.
Lord Kerslake Lets reignite the possibilities of localism - LocalGov.co.uk - Your authority on UK local government
Come on councils, it’s time to let local people lead
1 Feb 18
Local people have expertise and entrepreneurial flair. Councils should make the most of it, says Vidhya Alakeson of Power to Change.
Last week, the independent Commission on the Future of Localism chaired by Sir Bob Kerslake and established by Locality and Power to Change issued its final report.
It concluded that the fundamental shift in power promised by the 2011 legislation has not been achieved and called for localism to be reinvigorated to give greater voice, choice and control to Britain’s left-behind communities.
While the commission called for action from all levels of government, local authorities were in the spotlight. The commission called for stronger partnerships between local authorities and local communities, greater support for community institutions and an environment where local initiatives were more likely to thrive.
What is clear from the work of the commission is that localism is far more significant for the future of our country than a simple reorientation in the role of local government. It is about nothing less than the future of our democracy and reconnecting citizens with those who govern them.
Come on councils, it’s time to let local people lead | Public Finance
The idea is gaining some momentum in the States:
THE MAGAZINE: From the February 19 Issue
When Localism Works
Success stories for better cities and better lives.
Many of America’s cities are struggling. Once-strong communities have experienced post-industrial collapse, rampant unemployment, and brain drain. Crumbling infrastructure, the opioid crisis, and a host of lesser pathologies have contributed to instability and frustration among citizens and leaders.
In the face of these challenges, the available policy solutions often seem unsatisfactory. Some people say we need a new federal fix—a renovated set of Great Society programs, perhaps, or a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Others believe, as Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review in 2016, that “dysfunctional, downscale communities . . . deserve to die.”
It may be that fresh answers can be found among the “localists”—intellectual and wonkish conservatives and liberals who have found, at least when it comes to problems, some common ground. Inspired by such writers as Wendell Berry, Jane Jacobs, and Wilhelm Röpke, localism generally asserts that federal oversight is usually too heavy-handed, uniform, and cronyist to serve local communities well. Organizations like Smart Growth America, the Congress for the New Urbanism, and Strong Towns have advocated for a small-scale renewal of urban communities and the built environment. In books like Why Place Matters, on websites like Front Porch Republic and CityLab, and in magazines like Yes! and the American Conservative, journalists and academics have explored how localism can help solve social ills and empower citizens.
For some of these thinkers, localism is a decidedly libertarian idea: a means for individualism and innovation to flourish. For others, such as Berry, a novelist and farmer, the idea is more conservationist and traditional—localists ought to preserve and protect their communities from abuse, unbridled change, and federal hubris. Still others suggest that localism is truly the new progressivism: They believe that real power and progress can only be achieved through autonomous localities, as local governments working in tandem with private philanthropists and powerful CEOs draw their communities into the increasingly globalized economy.
The New Localism, a new book by Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak, fits best in the last category: They present a variety of city-building strategies that emphasize the grassroots and small-scale, advancing broadly conservative principles of subsidiarity but giving them a progressive spin. Katz is a scholar at the Brookings Institution and a former co-director of its program on metropolitan policy; Nowak is a fellow at Drexel University’s Lindy Institute for Urban Innovation and the creator of the Reinvestment Fund, one of the largest community investment institutions in the nation.
Katz and Nowak counter the top-down, federally run approach to governance we’ve become so accustomed to over the last half-century or more, suggesting that cities do not need the feds and Washington politicians to save them. With D.C.’s deadlock and hyperpartisanship come an opportunity: “The ability to get things done has shifted from command-and-control systems to the collective efforts of civil society, government, and private institutions.”
The book covers a great many subjects—housing, finance, jobs, community renewal, and more—but several themes remain constant. First, the authors argue that local government allows for flexible, fluid interactions between private and public institutions, thus creating a more fruitful method of governance and reform than our current top-down model. They put great stock in the mediating institutions and spirit of volunteerism that Alexis de Tocqueville once saw as integral to the American experience.
Katz and Nowak also emphasize the ability to see, test, and tweak theories at the local level, a method that allows for variation, specialization, experimentation. Washington’s one-size-fits-all attitude ensures the “proliferation of highly rigid programs” administered by government that, “like a fossil, is inflexible and stiff.” Cities, by contrast, can “respond nimbly and flexibly to challenges and opportunities . . . a small city or regional philanthropy has more discretion to make smart, aligned investments than distant federal agencies do.” This allows (at least hypothetically) for less waste and greater accountability.
Finally, the localist approach plays to different cities’ identities and strengths: The people who actually live and work in a given place know what they do best, where their greatest assets lie. Rather than trying to replicate Silicon Valley or New York, each city must discover and determine its own ingredients for success. “Solutions are often more likely to succeed because they are customized to place,” the authors write. Instead of trusting in (and waiting on) some “omniscient central power,” which often infantilizes cities, localism empowers and animates.
When Localism Works | The Weekly Standard
See also:
Futures Forum: For community and against sprawl ..... 'Strong Towns' and 'the end of the suburbs'
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment