Search
Feeds
Recent Posts
- test
- The Standing of Sustainable Development in Government
- Leaders will be shocked into climate action
- US position on Copenhagen may be treaty-wrecking
- George Monbiot, The Guardian & population
- £10 million will fund best low-carbon community initiatives
- Cadbury fights for "principled capitalism"
- Sarkozy launches crusade against obsession with growth
- NHS 'Fit for the Future' Report
- My debt to Teddy Goldsmith
- Looking back on nine years at the SDC
- Sandbrook Lecture
- Ashden Awards
- Nuclear comes clean
Categories
- Aviation
- China
- Climate change
- Consumption
- Crime
- Economics
- Energy
- Government
- Health
- Housing
- News
- Politics
- Population
- SD History
- Society
- Sustainable Food
- Transport
- USA
- Waste
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
Articles
Other Blogs
News Links
Organisations
« Real Time Displays | Main | Boris and Ken »
Review of Sub National Economic Development and Regeneration… Part II
There is a remote possibility that I am just a touch obsessed with this particular bit of Government process, in which case apologies to those who are not touched by any such obsession. But I feel I have duty to update.
Previous SNR instalments have portrayed this innocuous-sounding review of economic growth and development at the regional level as a bit of a horror story – along the following lines:
"This Treasury-inspired confection popped out in July last year, after minimal consultation with either Defra or CLG, heralding the most radical changes in the English regions since the Regional Development Agencies were brought into being in 1999.
There was no serious reference to sustainable development, and no reference to the imperative of securing a low-carbon economy. It had one principal purpose: to get the English Regions and local authorities to focus on accelerated economic growth, including increased housing numbers. Out go those sad old Regional Assemblies, now deemed unfit for that particular purpose, with their regional planning functions to be dumped on the RDAs, even though they themselves are demonstrably unfit for such a role, lacking as they do any kind of democratic accountability. To describe the Sub National Review (or SNR) as a dog’s dinner is an insult to the culinary expectations of any self-respecting canine. "
I can’t attribute developments since then solely to the Sustainable Development Commission’s ire on the SNR, but a consultation document that was due out before Christmas 2007 somehow got delayed until April 2nd (under the friendlier title ‘Prosperous Places’) largely as a consequence of some pretty serious inter-departmental argy-bargy. So congratulations are due to all those who have been working so hard over the last few weeks to civilise this wretched document – a pretty good job done.
There will now be the usual 12 weeks for people to feed back their reactions and ideas, which might just conceivably lead to a little bit more civilising along the way.
The Sustainable Development Commission will obviously be producing its own response – just as soon as possible, to help inform others keen to get stuck in here. Fortunately, we’ll have plenty of good things to say (the whole tone of ‘Prosperous Places’, is completely different from the original, with none of the arrogance and macho-growthism), and many of the proposals about a new integrated regional strategy are very sound. But none of the serious governance issues have as yet been properly addressed. Regional Development Agencies will still take over the regional planning functions, once the Regional Assemblies have been put down, even though their Boards will remain ‘business-led’.
And then there’s all the rest of the original SNR that isn’t being consulted on at the moment. How much of that is the Government just going to try and sneak through? What happens, for instance, to the aggressive commitments the original makes to sweep away all other high-level targets for the RDAs apart from a “single over-arching growth objective”, including delivering on housing numbers?
Maybe that too has been consigned to some deep Treasury dustbin – to be replaced (miracle of miracles!) by a commitment to the following definition of “sustainable economic growth” to be found in a footnote in ‘Prosperous Places’:
“Sustainable economic growth is economic growth that can be sustained and is within environmental limits but also enhancing the environment and social welfare, and avoids greater extremes in future economic cycles.”
Clearly not the work of a lover of the subtleties of the English language, but just great to be getting along with!
Tags:
Posted by JP on April 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)
Not obsessed at all Jonathan, it is by these minutiae that big changes sneak in. What you describe sounds like good news but I'm interested to explore how the growth maximisers can be de-toxed from this obsession by the well-being/'happiness agenda.
Here in Manchester there is a right and proper priority to bring people out of low wages and this is propelled through pursuing economic growth. Obviously we'd agree that this must be tempered by a good definition of sustainability but funnily enough this gaining less prominence with the strategy-formers than the happiness agenda. Luckily, the two agendas travel in tandem very nicely but the link is rarely drawn. Fancy picking up the phone to Lord Layard?
Posted by phil korbel | April 16, 2008 2:18 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/51