This paper aims to present a case study of the Manchester metropolitan area's efforts at implementing a regional approach to economic policy making and metropolitan governance…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to present a case study of the Manchester metropolitan area's efforts at implementing a regional approach to economic policy making and metropolitan governance. Vis‐à‐vis an emerging proposal for a concerted and effective approach towards the development of a governance model for the Manchester City Region, the paper aims to discuss the competing proposals for a mayoral and more “federalist” model of coordinating local policies in the area..
Design/methodology/approach
The paper examines the roles of different agencies – business representations and local authorities – in working towards a form of coherent governance for the city region against the backdrop of the many current precedents of such arrangements across Europe.
Findings
The paper finds that local authorities in the Greater Manchester area tend to favour a federalist City Region approach with greater autonomy for each participating local government. Yet, the alternative mayoral model retains the advantage of a distinct identity and direct accountability. In any case, a strong and coherent private sector input on key issues affecting the economy and its development in the Manchester City Region are required, but, as yet, not always sufficiently articulated.
Originality/value
Finding an “appropriate” model of city‐regional governance is a very topical issue. The contribution of this paper is thus timely and offers a good insight into the practical side of coordinating public and private sector interests and ways of making policies as part of city‐regional governance.
Details
Keywords
During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed…
Abstract
During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.7 Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.8 However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.9 Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.