Search results

The paper examines the anatomy of manufacturing change in the regions by focusing on the political economy of restructuring in the North East region. The broad context of change in the manufacturing sector in the regions at the national level is outlined. The remainder of the paper deals with the issues in more detail through examining the recent experience of the North East region. The paper argues that the somewhat ad‐hoc mixture of market‐led and ‘neo‐interventionism’ of UK government policy toward the manufacturing sector has had particular effects on the nature of restructuring in the regions which has constrained the framework within which industrial adjustment and regional renewal could be undertaken.

Whatever the outcome of the Maastricht ratification process, the process of European integration is creating new challenges for trade unions. The increased mobility afforded to capital by the existence of the Single Market, requires unions also to organise across national boundaries. At the same time, the European Commission is becoming increasingly involved in the regulation of employment conditions in an effort to establish a common labour market. Some trade unions have begun to alter their structures, for example through the creation of European Affairs Committees or the appointment of European Officers, in order to cope with these new demand and pressures. The activities of the ETUC and organisations such as EMB (European Metalworkers Federation) already seek to give a ‘European’ voice to trade union concerns, while the Economic and Social Committee gives at least a platform for the expression of some of these concerns.

In the UK regions that are structurally more vulnerable are less able to respond to economic shocks (McCann, 2017). An economic downturn for a poorer region like the North East of England (Jenkins, Pike, & Tomaney, 2019) will mean it enters recession earlier and emerges from recession later than significantly wealthier regions like London and South East region in England or Amsterdam City region in the Netherlands. We ask, what can be done to improve the impact of policy interventions that support and develop weaker regional economies? Behind this chapter sit two elements of research study: a question, which asks, what if you develop a “great” policy, that is well researched and designed; however, it fails because the people who deliver it don’t have the right culture, values, or knowledge? The second element is that the authors are interested in a range of factors that affect not only policy implementation including entrepreneurship but also economic culture and social capital, looking at the problem from different disciplinary viewpoints (Baker & Welter, 2018). This chapter makes a comparative study between the North East of England and the Amsterdam City region to explore how policy implementation might be improved as other factors of place cannot be easily altered, these factors include major infrastructure, political systems, and budgetary control as well as overall economic wealth. What this means is that practical research and studies have to find factors that can be improved in order to achieve change and a greater economic impact on Places in this context, the North East of England.

The North/South divide is an image frequently used to depict the territorial structure and the economic dynamism of England, and thus to describe the social and economic geography of the country. This image distinguishes a post-industrial North, which still faces economic and social difficulties, from a tertiary, rich and powerful South. It separates a central space (the South) from a periphery (the North). However, the recent economic changes in Britain question the relevance of this image, which is perhaps too simplistic to describe accurately the economic and social geography and the spatial disparities in the country.

Since the Thatcher years, this debate on the North/South divide has been constantly renewed, regardless of the political colour of the majority at Westminster, and the local and regional policy of the government in power has been systematically criticised. On the one hand, this reflects the persistence of territorial and social disparities in the United Kingdom and more specifically in England. On the other hand, this shows that the North/South divide is not just a geoeconomic question, but it also includes identity, societal and geopolitical issues.

Based on a geographical, critical geopolitical and cartographic approach, the aim of this chapter is to question the relevance and the significance of the North/South divide in 2017, after the impact of the 2008 Great Recession, as the United Kingdom is on its way to Brexit and when its unity is being challenged by Scottish nationalism. How can territorial disparities be described, evaluated and measured in England? How are they perceived by citizens and political leaders? This chapter will also study the policies proposed to close this gap and to meet the aspirations of peripheral regions.

Of the three ‘pillars of sustainability’, railways’ initial focus was on the economic pillar, having been developed in the nineteenth century to enable economic development and having struggled in the mid-twentieth century to maintain their economic sustainability in the face of competition from road and air transport. From the 1960s onwards, increased focus on and concern about social and environmental sustainability, together with rail’s comparatively high capacity and low environmental impact, has led to renewed interest in the role of rail in passenger and freight transport. Providing the necessary railway system capacity to enable a significant modal shift from air and (especially) road transport requires major investment, and there is a trade-off between the economic sustainability of these investments and the resulting social and environmental sustainability benefits. However, the railways should also benefit from the increased revenue resulting from improved services and could be supported by additional financial incentives to encourage modal shift. Similarly, there are different philosophies of and approaches to timetable planning and development, ranging from making the most economically sustainable use of resources to the provision of high-frequency, integrated ‘clockface’ timetables, providing passengers and freight users with an attractive range of travel and transport opportunities. Future sustainability, capacity, timetabling and other aspirations are set out in the Rail Safety and Standards Board’s Operational Philosophy for the GB Mainline Railway: these aspirations were developed in the context of Britain’s heavy rail system but are also more generally applicable.

This chapter considers the impact of Brexit on devolution within England, focussing particularly on the implications for the governance of the rural North of England. It captures how Brexit adds uncertainty and complexity to the devolution deal process that has been criticised for its lack of clear principles, lack of rural focus and the creation of artificial governance boundaries. In contrast, the chapter argues that Brexit has served to allow space for devolution to take shape locally – as the centre is preoccupied by ‘high’ politics – and has reinforced the importance of taking on the interests of rural areas and small towns more seriously.

In focussing on the recent developments in devolution in Northern England, including the Borderlands Growth Deal and the new 2019 North of Tyne Combined Authority, the chapter concludes by outlining how order is emerging out of chaos in terms of the decluttering of devolution governance, how new forms of place-making can emerge in the Northern Powerhouse and how more genuine rural devolution deals are achievable in the period ahead.

This paper aims to examine a pan‐regional initiative, The Northern Way. The argument is framed within the on‐going city‐region debate to demonstrate some of the challenges and difficulties of working in collaboration and partnership across associational networks. It seeks to highlight the importance of institutional and local legacies and politics for understanding the nature of this particular form of pan‐regional arrangement.

The paper draws on existing literature and other secondary source material from policy and guidance documents, participant observation in regional and sub‐regional meetings, and supplemented with primary interview data.

The Northern Way, promoted by central government to manage decline in the Greater North of England, demonstrated a continued legacy of regional disparities and an attempt to move city actors from inter and intra regional rivalry towards collaboration and partnership. As an associational network, the fluidity of scales and wide ranging social forces impacted on coordination and integration of processes, institutions, plans and strategies. This emergent governance form exemplified institutional turbulence, as powers were re‐configured continuously across scales and, across policy sectors and policy actors. The Northern Way was a very complicated arrangement of networks across regional and sub‐regional territories, and its lack of autonomy from central government hampered its overall effectiveness and strategic approach.

The paper provides a valuable insight for academics, practitioners and policy makers into some of the challenges and difficulties of managing across a pan‐regional associational network. It is original because most of the earlier literature focuses solely on city‐regions rather than a specific pan‐regional initiative such as the one under enquiry here.

The author sets out the development of the Northern Powerhouse initiative since it was launched by George Osborne in 2014. The chapter reflects on where the policy initiative and programmes are now in 2019 as we await Brexit. The new Conservative Boris Johnson premiership in 2019 has backed Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester, and in advance of the major UK Spending Review after Brexit and the smaller towns have been promised investment funds. This chapter presents the wicked issues involved in seeking to address the North–South divide and re-balancing the UK at a time of increasing and deepening social and economic inequalities. The chapter calls for the strengthening of the Northern Powerhouse initiative due to its phenomenal brand. This requires greater collaboration between the public, private and voluntary sectors across the North of England to address the key strategic policy issues and yet there is no one organisation driving the Northern Powerhouse initiative. The author argues the Powerhouse may well be both underpowered and ungovernable and that Politicians and what she calls the Policy Qualgecrats, need more compelling Imagineers of the North, if we are to benefit and make more sense of this new pan-regional scale of governance and turn it into a real force for rebalancing the North as a whole.