Thunderbolts and lightning, very, very frightening…

I’ve just finished reading the latest Smith Institute report on local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) entitled Changing gear – is localism the new regionalism which gives a fresh and interesting range of perspectives on the coalition government’s ideas on LEPs, localism, rebalancing and of course, the ultimate prize of economic growth.

As the report states in chapter six, the governance of economic development is subject to permanent revolution, whether it’s as a result of a change of government or a change in opinion about how to re-assemble growth.

It’s as if, every few years, the storm clouds gather at Westminster and what follows is a series of thunderbolts and lightning strikes which shock economic development into a new round of flux.  This flux sets off the process of partnership merry-go-rounds, fraying nerves, resource depletion and strategy reprints. Of course, in the spirit of localism, this episodic change is initiated and driven by the centre!

But while there has been plenty of turbulence, particularly recently with the overly hasty abolition of the RDAs, I’d suggest that economic development still needs a revolution. This time, it’s not a question of what structures to adopt or partners to work with, instead it’s a paradigm shift in how economic development thinks about its relationship with places and people. A revolution in thinking about the purpose of economic development, both now and in the future.

Because no matter how many acronyms we come up with or partnerships we invent, economic development is still too focused on growth as a virtue in itself, rather than how this expansion in scale, supply chains, investment and capital, links to the creation of a better place for people. There is a tendency to assume that if we can just get the growth in the door, then the rest will take care of itself. The market will provide.

While the emphasis on growth per se is understandable in the current context, we need radically new conversations and ideas about what we mean by growth, what kind of growth we want, how growth operates in the ecosystem of our place, why growth is often limited in its impact and why we’re often willing to accept growth, at any cost, even if it means rising inequality and further environmental damage, like some kind of demented gambler who stakes their remaining chips in the hope of just one more big win.

Economic development still assumes that the process of creating growth and quality of place is a linear process where – with the right investment, incentives and level of regulation – growth will automatically follow. In reality, as many of us know, growth is about the operation of markets. A much more chaotic and unpredictable process that often requires a good dose of creative, risky and alternative thinking, particularly in areas where growth is in decline, population is falling and optimism is low. Unfortunately, we tend to veer towards the usual, but comforting, menu of boosterism, inward investment, enterprise-ridden rhetoric and GVA measures.

Creative, and I’d argue more effective, thinking will come from LEPs who are brave enough to think long term about the future of their place, not simply in terms of the quick wins. It will be those who ask the difficult questions about likelihood of growth in the future and the types of trade-offs they are willing to accept in the pursuit of that growth. They will be willing to collaborate with partners rather than resort to wasteful competition. They’ll also explore the relationship between wealth creation and the quality of life in their communities and who make sure that as many people as possible benefit from the fruits of growth when it comes.

This time, the shock and awe tactics need to come from local leadership, rather than the centre. The government wants localism? It is time to deliver.