Is there anything characteristic about English Regional Governance? Sarah Ayres & Ian Stafford School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK Is there anything characteristic about English Regional Governance? 1st - 3rd September 2008 Provide background

Introduction Policy analysis requires an analysis of the substance of regional decision-making, in addition to outcomes. Exploring the process of decision-making is vital to be able to ascertain whether the chosen policy area, Regional Funding Allocations (RFAs), represents substance underpinned by robust collaborative governance arrangements or rhetoric. Key research questions: How can regional decision making activities be evaluated? Whose criteria should be used as the benchmark for success? What are the key issues faced in operationalising our approach?

Regional Funding Allocations Regions were invited to prepare advice on spending priorities in each policy area up to 2007-8 & indicative planning assumptions up to 2016 In 2006/7 RFA funding amounted to £4.1bn - only 14% of public expenditure in the 3 policy areas in regions RFA advice to be developed in partnership - build regional capacity, develop realistic & joined-up priorities tailored to local circumstances Regions able to vire funding across spending pots. Lack of policy manoeuvre due to existing commitments and level of resources within exercise.

How can regional decision making activities be evaluated? Obstacles to analysing decision-making activities e.g. complex networks, fragmented, multi-dimensional, informal/formal. Methodological tool drawing on Klijn and Koppenjan’s ‘actor, game and network’ framework Actor stage – identify key actors, their perceptions and positions Game stage – identify decision-making arenas and levels of progress/stagnation Network stage – identify interactions, relations and rules A network approach is more appropriate to other, more rational approaches to policy evaluation as it takes the multi-actor nature of the policy arena and the presence of diverging and sometimes conflicting objectives as the starting point for the analysis. Klijn and Koppenjan’s framework provides a broad tool for ‘the creation of a map of the environment’ that can be used to evaluate the process of regional decision making. FOR ACTOR, GAME AND NETWORK STAGES USE SHEET

Whose criteria should be used as the benchmark for success? Is there anything specific about English regionalism that lends itself to a specific set of criteria? Review of Labour’s regional policies since 1997 identified 8 key policy themes – for example, promoting policy co- ordination. Government’s guidance on RFAs Review of academic literature on policy networks and collaboration, particularly at the regional level, highlights a range of key concepts As part of this research, an extensive literature review of policy documents published between 1997 and 2007 has been undertaken. The search included key government documents that set out policy objectives for regional actors, including White Papers, departmental reviews and government documents on specific policy areas, such as housing and sustainable development. Example, Promoting Policy Co-ordination, particularly around sustainable development (RSDF), RFAs and more recently SRS. RFA 2005 guidance, four criteria: Evidence-based Agreed within the region Realistic Consistent 3. Supplement the ‘actor, game, network’ model with concepts from the policy networks and collaborative governance literatures that appear particularly pertinent to circumstances at the English regional tier, for example, the role of trust and leadership, collaboration etc…

What are the key issues faced in operationalising our approach? Applying a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis Detailed case studies of 3 regions – Interview schedule needs to be both policy relevant and satisfy ‘actor, game and network’ framework. Survey of 6 remaining regions – work in progress Produce a quantitative tool which addresses the same questions as the case studies and produces high quality data There is adapt the language used by Klijn and Koppenjan, for example, “Where are the decisions made that are important to the initiative/ policy game that is analysed? – also language of stagnation, mutual dependency etc… For example, some are straight forward, such as mapping the arenas: In what forums/meetings are decisions around RFAs taken? How often do these meetings take place? Is this adequate? How is membership/attendance of these meetings decided? More difficult are questions around network rules and perceptions that shape the policy game; Are formalised decision making procedures in place to deal with RFAs? If so, are they adhered to? 2. Key problem is making sure that the mainly closed-ended questions of the survey address the nuanced issues of the qualitative data, using likert, multiple choice etc… For example, What motives underpinned the Government’s introduction of RFAs in 2005? (e.g. contribution to PSA targets, improve policy coordination, improve the efficiency of public services, promoting territorial discretion etc)

Conclusions Overall, the Framework has worked well and has delivered high quality data in terms of decision- making processes. Can the Regional Governance Assessment Framework developed to evaluate RFAs be used to explore additional policy areas? How applicable is the Framework for exploring governance arrangements across Europe?