Advertisement

Public spending: it ain’t just about efficiencies

Matthew Jackson new webIn November last year, I was delighted to be asked to give evidence to the communities and local government committee inquiry into local government procurement. The session gave Cles the opportunity to highlight the work we have been undertaking over the last five years on local government spend and how to use it for creating great economies, lives and places.

The government last week published its findings of the inquiry and an associated set of conclusions and recommendations. On first glance, there is the same old, prosaic nature to them. They are missing some key points. The recommendations point towards a need for local authorities to use procurement to achieve value for money (efficiency); a need to collaborate across boundaries (efficiency); a need to simplify processes (efficiency); and a need to engage better with private organisations on outsourced contracts (efficiency).  Where is the progressive virtuous  ambition, which we and many others are so keen for?

For me, there is too much about using local government procurement to achieve efficiencies and to mitigate the impact of the cuts as opposed to advocating a progressive new future around local government procurement being used for local economic and social benefit. The report does not get to grips with what many in local government are doing. Manchester council and Belfast council, amongst others, have used procurement as a lever to create local economic wealth and importantly create jobs.  In this, there are a number of concerns.

First, procurement is not simply a transaction. It is a process which goes right from the design and commissioning of a service through to the monitoring of the impact of that spend in economic, social and environmental terms. There should therefore be a defined understanding of the key considerations of what an effective purchase is, regardless of whether it is being undertaken by central government, local government, an NHS Trust or a private business. Of course cost should be a key factor, but so should providing a great future role for our public services, as well as fairness, equality, and the opportunity to create local employment and develop local businesses.

Second, procurement is not the same everywhere you go. Different services and goods lend themselves to different means of purchasing and a localised approach is not always the most efficient or effective. Some goods in particular need to be purchased in bulk to enable economies of scale (energy, communications, stationary etc); while others lend themselves to a process where wider local economic and social value can be achieved. There should therefore be a defined understanding of what constitutes ‘influenceable’ and ‘non-influenceable’ spend.

Third, procurement is not just the domain of local government in place. There are a range of anchor institutions within a locality which purchase goods and services to a significant value (NHS trusts, universities and colleges, housing organisations, police authorities, and a host of others). There is a need for a place-based vision and approach to procurement and the creation of wider local economic and community wealth that sits across those organisations and importantly local enterprise partnerships. Cles is currently working on such a vision with Preston council and a range of institutions in the city to increase levels of spend with local business and potentially create co-operatives to deliver appropriate public services.

Procurement should not be a narrow corporate function restricted to local government, nor is localism its primary concern. It sits at the heart of what we want and need from our public services in the future.  Of course it needs to focus on efficiencies, but effectiveness in supporting growth, addressing poverty and inequality and creating great places is the real prize.

 

Comments

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Cooke
Simon Cooke
10 years ago

This is again little more than local preference – essentially a system of local protectionism. If the mission creep proposed is incorproated into procurement models the only result will be higher costs. And that will mean either or both of poorer local services or higher taxes. The losers would be the very communities – and especially poorer communities – that you claim you are trying to help.

http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/procurement-and-local-protectionism-how.html

Anonymous
Anonymous
10 years ago

Well said Simon and I look forward to cles’ response to the issues raised. protectionist policies also restrict new skills being brought into the economy by championing the same old.

Matthew Brown
Matthew Brown
10 years ago

I would suggest Simon take a look at the New Economics Foundation’s seminal work ‘Clone Town Britain’. Though not mainly around procurement it does highlight well the principle of the local economy being like a leaky tap i.e. wealth leaks out once companies who have no links with the area maintain dominance in locality and place.

Nobody is saying and least of all CLES that there is never any role for outside companies and investment. However, it makes bad environmental sense to source goods and services from miles away or abroad when you can do so in localities. It is also undemocratic if a local economy can suffer based upon investment decisions taken by people who are not living or working within it.

If you look at the democratic economies of Mondragon and Emilia Romagna in which the local economy is mainly organised in democratic cooperatives as well as closer to home places like York and Manchester in which anchor institutions are beginning to reap social benefit communities are stabilised and less vulnerable to economic shocks.

The work of CLES continues to impress me and be groundbreaking and especially relevant in times of economic austerity. You may call it protectionism but I believe it is more akin to democracy and community wealth.

Matthew Jackson
Matthew Jackson
10 years ago

Thank you all for the constructive thoughts on the blog. Our thought on public procurement has always been that each decision should be made on the basis of providing the best value good or service for the user. In some cases this may be delivered by a local small business and others by a multi-national. We simply believe that there is scope for procurement to be much more closely aligned to the function of local economic development. So procurers should always be aware of where their spend goes in geographical terms, what value suppliers are providing beyond delivery, and whether there is a more cost-effective alternative when it comes to re-letting a contract. This is where intelligence about a local business base is important. It makes public authorities more aware of the organisations which are based in their boundary and their capabilities and through engagement in tendering processes it makes business more competitive and importantly more capable to grow. These business may or may not win a contract in the locality which they are based, but as part of the process they are developing skills which will enable them to bid elsewhere, develop products and innovate.

Our work on procurement has always been about evidencing where public spend goes, shifting cultures in local government so that public spending and service provision is not simply a financial transaction, and influencing the behaviour of suppliers (regardless of size or geography) so that they bring benefit for service users and places. In many localities it has brought procurement to the forefront of corporate policy and the remit of elected members who ultimately want to see enhanced benefit for the communities which they represent from public spending.

Help us break the news – share your information, opinion or analysis
Back to top