Dealing with the Economic Reality of
London’s (wider) Functional Region
Ian Gordon
Geography Department,
London School of Economics
The London Government Conference,
LSE London, October 2005
The General Problem of
Metropolitan Government
• In all major city regions there is a big scale
difference between the sets of territories:
– that individuals:
• have direct experience of
• know they are connected to
• see as shaping residential QoL and property values;
versus
– those across which businesses/markets link to:
• provide key competitive assets for region’s businesses
• determine the real incomes and employment prospects
of its residents
• An especially great disparity for London
London’s Functional Region
• Continuous process of expansion of economically
functional city:
– Not just commuting also core businesses
• Current Greater London reflects reality of early 1930s
• Reality of 2001 =
– either 40 mile radius FUR (Reading- Medway, StevenageCrawley) as in EU’s GEMACA report
– or Greater South East (Cambridge- Swindon- BournemouthDover) as in Peter Hall’s ‘London 2001’
• Much less of an issue for Paris
– Almost all of FUR is in Ile-de-France
– No real equivalent of Greater South East
The London FUR & Greater London
The Current Administrative Structure
of the Super-Region
• Elected authorities:
– London Mayor; shire CCs; UAs + boroughs and districts
• Central Government, RDAs & Regional Assemblies:
– Three units within FUR – and within Thames Gateway!
• Linking Bodies:
– Advisory Forum on Regional Planning For London, the
South East and the East of England
– Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership
• broad membership: consultative (cf. Cabinet Committee)
• still lack economic development framework for whole TG
– ad hoc, issue-focused joint working groups, e.g.:
• joint research (e.g. on commuting)
• development of sub-regional development frameworks
(following EiP): but concern over lack of member role
Why Does This Matter ?
• Fragmentation:
– Encourages wasteful forms of competition
• And misleading beliefs about benefits of this to residents
– including the structurally disadvantaged
– Possibly distracting attention from real issues
– Encourages under-investment in assets of mutual
value (where free-riding seems possible)
• Including housing for metropolitan workers
– Obstructs efficient planning of integrated facilities
• Including metropolitan transport network
Routes Toward Making the (Wider)
London Region more Functional
• Formal integration? A Yet Greater London Authority?
– But: no current basis for democratic credibility;
•
•
existing GLA (at least) does ‘work’;
any ‘large enough’ YGLA would be unacceptable to CG
• Incentives (from above) for collaborative action
• more positive and/or fewer negative
• reward joint work by grant or in RDA funding formula
• assure infrastructure etc. funding to balance diseconomies from
taking on e.g. housing provision
• Promote supportive institutions
– e.g.annual conference, joint planning secretariat
• Merge GORs in a Super-Regional Office with real political
authority (= a Ministerial head)
– No clear virtue in current region-region ‘marking’
– Need clear position from which CG takes responsibility for assuring
required resources and incentives for development of capital region