ABSTRACT
The concept of competitiveness is demonstrably a chaotic one, yet undeniably pervasive, and has become particularly prominent for regions. Indeed, according to Lagendijk (2007: p. 1201), competitiveness is one of a number of key ideas and issues that have become ‘sutured into the canvass [sic] of the region’. Competitiveness is an exemplary neoliberal discourse which has acquired ‘hegemonic’ status in that it is a central system of practice and value ‘which we can properly call dominant and effective’ (Williams, 2005: p. 38). This begs the question as to how and why a concept with ostensibly confused, narrow and ill-defined content has become so salient in regional economic development policy and practice as to constitute ‘the only valid currency of argument’ (Schoenberger, 1998: p. 12). This chapter will argue that critical to understanding the competitiveness
hegemony is developing an understanding of the policy process, which refers to all aspects involved in the provision of policy direction for the work of the public sector. This therefore includes ‘the ideas which inform policy conception, the talk and work which goes into providing the formulation of policy directions, and all the talk, work and collaboration which goes into translating these into practice’ (Yeatman, 1998: p. 9). A major debate exists in the policy studies literature about the scope and limitations of reason, analysis and intelligence in policy making – a debate which has been reignited with the recent emphasis upon evidence-based policy making (see Davies et al., 2000). Keynes is often cited as the main proponent of the importance of ideas in policy making, since he argued that policy making should be informed by knowledge, truth, reason and facts (Keynes, 1971, vol. xxi, 289). However, Majone (1989) has significantly challenged the assumption that policy makers engage in a purely objective, rational and technical assessment of policy alternatives. He has argued that, in practice, policy makers use theory, knowledge and evidence selectively to justify policy choices which are heavily based on value judgements. It is thus persuasion (through rhetoric, argument, advocacy and their institutionalization) that is the key to the policy process, not the logical correctness or accuracy of theory or data. In other words, it is interests as much as ideas that shape policy making in practice.
