ABSTRACT
For some time the English regions have lagged behind the ‘leading edge’ experience of Wales, Scotland and other mainland European regions in terms of their regional development agency experience (Mawson, chapter 2). The establishment of the new English RDAs may go some way towards offsetting what has generally come to be regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a degree of competitive disadvantage within the UK. However, coherent organisational arrangements are only one part of the increasingly complex regional economic development equation. Moreover, inadequate, poorly conceived, undemocratic or misdirected RDAs may in some ways do more damage than good. We are not suggesting here that this is the case currently in England, but progress with the creation of the RDAs has not been without its problems. Those observing the process could be forgiven for thinking that the debate around the nature and role of the English RDAs in the first year of their operation has been dominated more by concerns of a constitutional and political nature than by questions about regional economic development per se. According to Derek Mapp, Chair of the East Midlands RDA, responsible until recently for coN ordinating all RDA links with government, apparent uncertainty at the heart of Whitehall early in 2000 regarding the approach to be taken on the more general question of English devolution is not helping the RDA boards to tread the delicate path between politics and executive action:
In looking to understand better the style and nature of the strategic processes at work it is instructive to note the timetable for the preparation of the first round of regional economic strategies. Driven by political imperative, Whitehall imposed an overly compressed timetable on the RDAs through what became known as the ‘summer of consultation’ by allowing only three months or so between July and September 1999 for intra-regional consultation over the draft RES approach. Although provision is made in the RES arrangements for the review of design and delivery of economic development activity, this initial timetable arguably led to the preparation of ‘rushed’ regional economic strategies for the English regions. At the very least, it can be suggested that because of these time constraints, there may not have been the opportunity for a full and considered assessment by local consultees of all the economic development options or scenarios on offer. That central government should appear to place concerns over the legal and political form of the RDAs and related institutional matters before RES procedure and content is not wholly unsurprising at the beginning of a new administrative venture of this kind. It is, however, a worrying sign for the future inasmuch as it is an indication of Whitehall’s decision-making being driven by short-term political considerations which can override the longer-term needs and aspirations of the English regions. This is a habit which will need to be broken if the RDA project is to succeed in the long term. Bearing this strategic political context in mind, we now move on to set out and discuss a number of more practical themes and features impinging on the day-to-day activities of the RDAs.
