There is something wrong with economic policymaking – its called ‘neoliberalism’.
For years many people sought to deny its existence, but over the last 35 years it has become the dominant economic narrative across the UK and beyond. So ingrained has it become, that, until recently, it has been difficult to disaggregate it from broader understandings of capitalism.
Since 2008 however, the harm and inequality that it causes has become more readily accepted, including within institutions like the International Monetary Fund.
Figures from the OECD show the share of the top 1% of income earners in the UK grew from 6.1% in 1981 to 12.9% in 2011, and the JRF calculates that poverty now costs UK public service delivery £78bn per year.
But what policies and practice lie beyond neoliberalism?
I recently completed a ‘deep place’ study of the south Wales town of Pontypool, with support from the Sustainable Places Research Institute at Cardiff University,
The study sought to develop the deep place approach to sustainable placemaking advocated in the Tredegar study of 2014. The central research question for the Pontypool study is:
What type of economy and society do we need to create to achieve economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability by 2035?
The approach continues to be strongly influenced by, and indeed seeks to influence in return, theories of social exclusion, transition theory, the ‘total place’ public service reform agenda, and foundational economics.
In Wales in particular, the legislative context now includes the wellbeing of future generations (Wales) act 2015, which places a duty on all devolved public bodies in Wales to consider the needs of future as well as current generations. At its core is a sustainable development principle, and, in my view, an emphasis on place-based policy. The act presents significant opportunity to take forward the place-based sustainable place-making agenda in Wales, and it is a major credit to Wales that this legislation exists.
Place-based approaches have experienced some criticism, but I believe that place-based policymaking can lead to creative local solutions to sustainable futures. Critics of place tend to over emphasise the power of national governments to solve problems, which in turn seek to exert too much influence upon local stakeholders. This is a major threat within the context of UK economy programmes, such as city deals.
Critics of place also, rightfully, point to the fact that previous attempts at place-based policymaking have failed to overcome the challenges of our poorest communities. This should not, I suggest, lead to an abandonment of the place-based approach, but rather a greater emphasis on holistic sustainable placemaking, which has so far been limited.
The overriding emphasis on securing foreign direct investment and agglomeration economics, which I believe derive from the dominance of neoliberalism, take priority over distributed local economic development. A significant emphasis on infrastructure investment, which is at the core of the UK’s city deal programme, has so far failed to consider social, cultural and environmental infrastructure. Nor, as is particularly salient in the Welsh legislative context, has it given much consideration to future generations.
Pontypool has a socio-economically mixed population, with areas of deep poverty in close proximity to areas of relative affluence. Pontypool town centre experiences significant weaknesses, but continues to have significant potential to provide public services, to be a focus for community cohesion and act as a potential location to grow local economic activity and employment. Key sectors of the foundation economy, including food, energy, care, the environment and e-commerce all offer opportunities for local employment, as well as being critical for the sustainable place-making agenda.
Another key difference advocated by the deep place approach, is the importance of communities themselves engaging in a process of meaningful co-production with local public, social and private sectors. It argues for a shift from seeing communities either as the passive recipients of grants and government-led programmes, or as being the victims of forces beyond their control.
The research I undertook in Pontypool, and which I wrote about in the report, identified major opportunities and I was privileged to engage with local people, businesses and public sector practitioners, who while recognising the challenges that exist, nevertheless have a commitment and passion to make things better for their community.
Although realistic about the scale of the challenge in Pontypool and other communities across the UK, the deep place approach is fundamentally a positive one. It actively seeks to identify local initiatives, resources, and the passion and commitment of local people and businesses.
These can, it argues, form the basis of a whole-place, place-based approach, which is so critical to making our all of our communities more equitable, resilient and sustainable for current and future generations.
The Pontypool localist placed based project is very interesting and demonstrates what can be achieved. Local authorities, the wider public sector and voluntary and community organisations should see what lessons they can take from this project to drive change and localism in their areas.
Local authority place leadership and place shaping are critical contributions to enhancing welfare and securing growth.
This report should be read by those interested in this agenda.