Introduction The impact of the 2008-09 economic and financial crisis at the local and regional levels and the responses of local authorities and regional agencies have generated a wide range of publications in the UK, Europe and globally.1 Such work on this most recent downturn is striking in a number of ways. First, we can see a much broader range of issues and responses being covered by researchers in relation to this downturn and its impact than was the case during and after previous recessions. Indeed, while much previous work highlighted the impacts of earlier recessions on UK cities and regions (Gillespie and Owen 1981; Green 1983; Owen et al. 1983; Townsend 1983; Henley Centre 1991; Green et al. 1994), far less was written about local and regional responses during those downturns. The scarcity of information on responses may well be explained by the fact that, overall, local and regional actions were quite modest in comparison with national interventions at the time – see, for example, Townsend (1983) on the 1980s recession in the UK, and Sawicky (2002) on the United States’ 2001 recession. Another explanation may be that the specific impacts of previous recessions on the local and regional scale, and responses, have in the past often been studied via a focus on highly specific examples of recessionary impacts, such as plant closures (see, for example, O’Farrel and Crouchley 1983; Hinde 1994) or – if undertaken with a broader frame of reference – as part of the debate on local authorities and economic development (Mills and Young 1986; Collinge 1992; Tallon 2010). Given trends of decentralisation and a shift towards multilevel governance (or at least participation) over the past 20 years, along with the reform of local government in some countries with the aim of fostering local democracy and efficiency (Kersting and Vetter 2003; Baldersheim and Wollman 2006; Pike et al. 2006; Tomaney 2009), we might expect to find that local and regional authorities were in a better position to counteract the impacts of the 2008-09 recession as compared with previous recessions, as long as strategic capacity to act at the local and regional levels was actually developed. Understanding the way local and regional governments have been able to respond to this latest economic shock and, in so doing, what difficulties they have encountered may in fact shed

some light on the extent of regionalism and localism, and what capabilities have been developed. Building such an understanding may also give an advance indication as to how local and regional governments might be able to deal with forthcoming public spending cuts and – in countries such as the UK and France – with significant changes in local and regional governance arrangements that are forthcoming. In the English case, for example, the coalition government has announced the scrapping of Regional Development Agencies and their replacement with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Whilst welcomed by some for the its possible decentralisation and ‘localism’ agenda, the shift towards LEPs raises a number of issues in terms of a real recentralisation of powers (on industrial policy, for example) to Whitehall, a cut in resources available for economic development in the English regions, the possible fragmentation of development functions and powers, the loss of skilled RDA staff especially in relation to accessing European funding, and the lack of strategic capabilities and partnership working at the local level (House of Commons 2010; Bailey 2011). Given both recent experiences and future challenges, therefore, a thorough examination of local and regional responses to the 2008-09 recession appears of particular relevance, and the following questions are especially pertinent: How has the recession impacted on different local and regional authorities, and how have these impacts been affected (mitigated or exacerbated) by the state of their local economies? Did local and regional governments put in place appropriate measures to counteract the local and regional impacts of the 2008-09 recession? Were they able to put in place effective local and regional partnership approaches in so doing? Did they have sufficient financial resources and autonomy and/or were they able to take advantage of national recession response programmes? Finally, how did these responses fit into localities’ long-term development strategies, and how were the latter reviewed in the wake of this experience? A start on exploring some of these issues has been made by the wide range of work published on the recession noted above. However, a number of significant gaps remain in our understanding of local and regional impacts and responses. This is partly because much of the immediate work on the recession and responses was policy-oriented, and did not always link to the existing academic literature and theoretical frameworks. Work published in the midst of the recession often tended to focus on short-term impacts and responses, characterised by a ‘fire-fighting’ mode. Some presented the overall impacts of the recession on local authorities using empirical evidence such as surveys of local government (see work by the UK Local Government Association, for example, as well as the work from the OECD (Clark 2009)). Towards the end of the recession, it was understandable that work often shifted towards highlighting the importance of planning for recovery and regeneration. As a result, much of this work has provided useful snapshots of information as the recession unfolded. While some of this literature did not distinguish between local authorities, other work focused more specifically on medium-sized cities (Clayton and Morris 2010), core cities (Hutton and Jones 2010) or large metropolitan areas (Clark 2009), leaving aside

the impacts of the recession on smaller cities and rural areas. Finally, it should be noted that while international publications often emphasised the differential recessionary impacts and responses across countries due to differences in local, regional and national economic contexts and governance arrangements (CEMR 2009a, 2009b; UCLG 2009; Commonwealth Secretariat 2010), they rarely provided any detailed accounts and understandings of how these differences have played out over time – this is partly explained by their generic scope.