- Email: [email protected]
Cities, law and social policy: Learning from the British
Book reviews
are higher in the UK than in any other country, and that financial problems are worse (p 58); that peers cannot vote in local elections (p 34); that we did not need a RSG regression formula with 60 variables when three would do; that the old RSG formula meant that authorities could increase their grant by increasing their spending (p 76). More important, the book is built upon a foundation of expansive options which, at best, are unsubstantiated, and, at worst, really rather silly. The central message of the whole effort is stated with subtle elegance by the picture on the cover which shows large coins rolling out of the front door of the Town Hall and down the drain. In case you failed to get the point you can read in the introduction that local government in the UK is complicated and clumsy, expensive and unresponsive, corrupt and subverted by the political parties. Is the local government really expensive and and if so what and unresponsive, where is the evidence‘? Mr Hcnney provides none, but then I suppose this is something that every sensible chap knows. Where on earth is the evidence for the claim that it was widely believed that Glasgow City Corporation should have been broken up (p 30)? How does the author know that the US electorate is less gullible (p 73). particularly when another message is that the electorate knows all about, and is highly unsatisfied with the local government record? What weight should we attach to the businessmen’s claim that they pay too much in rates (pp 120-121)? As the old saying goes: don’t ask a barber whether you need a haircut. One could continue like this at length, but it is best to let Mr Henney himself make the point. He claims that much of the debate about local government has been misdirected and superficial. True, and in this respect the author somehow contrives to point to the trap and fall into it in the same manoevre. Best to lay the book politically aside, and say no more. Nationnl Interests und Local GOPernment is an altogether different kettle of fish. Derived from a seminar organized jointly by the National In-
266
stitute of Economic Affairs, the Policy Studies Institute, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, it consists of six expert essays, and a short introduction by the author, on the central question: ‘can national interests be pursued under conditions of pluralism and local autonomy?’ (p 7). Each of the six contributions is followed by a short, thoughtful commentary. By setting up the book in this form the editor has provided a simple model to be followed by central governments in their dealings with local governments ~ he has pursued the interests of the volume as a whole within a pluralist framework which gives maximum antonomy to the contributors and maximum value for money for the readers. It would not be sensible to pick out any one of the essays. They are all useful and considered contributions to the current agonizing over local government. covering the themes of finances (Diane Dawson), the law (Michael Elliot) education (Maurice Kogan). housing (Derek Fox), economic development (Murray Stewart), and the NHS (David Hunter). This is a book to be bought and read by anyone with more than a passing
interest in the way in which centrallocal government relations have developed in the UK over the past decade, and what could and should (but won’t) be done to push things in the right direction. A comparison of these two books in the same review raises a paradoxical question: how can it be that in a country which produces so much good and intelligent work on local government and its services, and which points to both the merits of the basic system and its evident difficulties and failures, can central government contrive to make such a dog’s breakfast of the whole issue? Is it because the government is determined to learn nothing and forget nothing, or are there explanations other than incompetence and ignorance‘? To put the same paradoxical question in terms of these two books, how can one of them be long-winded, sweeping and implausible, when we have in the other the latest example of a long line of relevant, well informed, and intelligent analysis?
K. Newton University of Dundee, UK
Planning procedures and practice: learning from the British CITIES, LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY: Learning from the British edited by Charles M. Haar Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, USA, 1984 This collection of papers, like the curate’s egg good in parts, has its origins in a transatlantic gathering of so-called experts in areas of public policy concerned primarily with town planning, housing and some of the social and physical impacts of deprivation, race and high unemployment. The title is misleading. It has little to say about cities, their past, present, or future. Nor is it really about the law or social policy in any broad sense. For the most part it is a workmanlike account of planning practice and
procedures by men who have worked within the system over a good many years. There are several significant exceptions; an analytical and critical account of problems of race and neighbourhood by a womem who is a professor and sociologist; an equally incisive account of a facet of public policy which is rapidly transforming the substantive concerns and procedures of the planning system, namely local employment initiatives in the context of enterprise zones, urban development grants, urban development corporations, freeports, derelict land grants and the rest. This four-part book is largely about the UK town and country planning system, its characteristic evolution and underlying premises and rationales. The first three parts, comprising nine chapters, are all by eminent British
CITIES August
1985
Book
academics, specialists in the law of town planning and housing , or simply town planning, and experienced planning practitioners. The final part by the editor, who is a distinguished American Harvard Professor of law, comprtses one chapter titled ‘what the United States can learn from the British.
Rationale It seeks to provide a rationale for the book but no explicit discussion of the conceptual and practical problems of comparative study prepares the reader. An adequate and robust framework for effective transnational comparison and learning is needed togetht:r with a clearer idea of the aims, objectives and issues it seeks to addres;. Much can be learned about the w,iy cities work by comparing cases. Hut this volume is often repetitive and covers much well worn ground. The offerings are generalized and not even the penetrating commentary b> Professor Haar makes amends for tht lack of structure and focus. Perhaps this is no more than a reflection of the state of the planning system being <,xamined. In which case there are lessons for the USA and much that can be learned by policy makers and managers of urban change on both sides oi‘ the Atlantic Despite these criticisms, there are several excellent essays on specific topics by academic lawyers. Patrick McAuxlan writes authoritatively about that peculiarly British preoccupation with ‘Compensation and betterment’. and David Yates likewise presents an excellent critical overview of ‘The British housing experience’. These are the firs* two essays of the second part of the book, ostensibly concerned with the implementation of goals.
Historical overview The first part consists of three contributions which provide an historical overview of the planning process and its historical evolution. Whilst some of the essays, notably Nathaniel Lichfield’s ‘The planning system’, remember that this is a book about learning from the British, others have been
CITIES August
1985
written without regard to the ostensible objective. As Desmond Heap observes in the opening essay which is a mere five pages long, it is doubtful whether the British system of development control - which is at the heart of the local planning system - would or could work in the USA. The assumptions on which the British system and the US system are based are quite different; differences between a unitary and federal system; of scale; of ideology. Contrast the new federalism with the rapid move towards central control of local government and local spending in the UK. If land development and land management and control are increasingly matters for state governments in the USA, in the UK the statutory system for effective regional planning has yet to be invented. These issues are not debated here.
Wishful thinking Not much in the USA is ‘patterned after British experiments’ despite the wishful thinking of many Americans who have admired the UK local government system and some of the perceived advantages of comprehensive land planning, especially in respect of new towns, green belts, and the renewal of central and inner areas of British cities. If this is correct it reinforces the argument that it should not be a question of what can be learned from the British so much as what can be learned from each other and, more importantly, what is transferable and what is not. Sheila Allen, Professor of Sociology at Bradford University, implicitly recognizes this. Whilst warning of the dangers when drawing parallels, she uses the US experience of ethnicity to draw contrasts with the British. In fact, her chapter on ‘Neighbourhoods: Ethnic and Race Relations’ is about the policy responses, or lack of them. to the different problems of race and discrimintion found in contemporary British society. This is not a comparative piece, rather a statement of the current issues as she sees them. The important conclusion for majorityminority relations is the need for an
reviews
appropriate research agenda on both access to resources and access to policy making and implementation by minorities. As is pointed out, the importance of the economy, and particularly the revival of the economies of the inner cities, cannot be overlooked; it is a vital element in minoritymajority relations.
Positive planning The third part is entitled ‘The New Positive Planning’. It brings together chapters on new towns and one on British enterprise zones. Walter Bor’s account of Milton Keynes new city specifically addresses the question that is most interesting in specific cases: ‘What lessons for and from the United States’. Whilst new towns have been an important instrument of public policy in the UK, they belong to a period of planning policy which ended with the recognition by government that priorities had changed. And with this change came a major policy shift in emphasis, objectives, and mechanisms. This dynamic shift is recognized contextually in part 1 but is not recognized adequately subsequent to this, either in the choice, grouping or presentation of individual chapters. In the final section and chapter by Charles Haar we have an apotheosis. But apart from a most skilful and penetrating summary and the recognition that the earthly Jerusalem is as elusive as ever, it remains unclear to this reader what learning from the British might mean in practice. This is a shame because there is much to learn from each other - most of all, just by seeing how similar processes of urban decline, for example, in older cities of the first and second industrial revolution can be managed in a similar manner in very different contexts during the third through which we are living now.
Edgar A. Rose University of Aston in Birmingham, UK and Cleveland State University College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland OH, USA
267
are higher in the UK than in any other country, and that financial problems are worse (p 58); that peers cannot vote in local elections (p 34); that we did not need a RSG regression formula with 60 variables when three would do; that the old RSG formula meant that authorities could increase their grant by increasing their spending (p 76). More important, the book is built upon a foundation of expansive options which, at best, are unsubstantiated, and, at worst, really rather silly. The central message of the whole effort is stated with subtle elegance by the picture on the cover which shows large coins rolling out of the front door of the Town Hall and down the drain. In case you failed to get the point you can read in the introduction that local government in the UK is complicated and clumsy, expensive and unresponsive, corrupt and subverted by the political parties. Is the local government really expensive and and if so what and unresponsive, where is the evidence‘? Mr Hcnney provides none, but then I suppose this is something that every sensible chap knows. Where on earth is the evidence for the claim that it was widely believed that Glasgow City Corporation should have been broken up (p 30)? How does the author know that the US electorate is less gullible (p 73). particularly when another message is that the electorate knows all about, and is highly unsatisfied with the local government record? What weight should we attach to the businessmen’s claim that they pay too much in rates (pp 120-121)? As the old saying goes: don’t ask a barber whether you need a haircut. One could continue like this at length, but it is best to let Mr Henney himself make the point. He claims that much of the debate about local government has been misdirected and superficial. True, and in this respect the author somehow contrives to point to the trap and fall into it in the same manoevre. Best to lay the book politically aside, and say no more. Nationnl Interests und Local GOPernment is an altogether different kettle of fish. Derived from a seminar organized jointly by the National In-
266
stitute of Economic Affairs, the Policy Studies Institute, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, it consists of six expert essays, and a short introduction by the author, on the central question: ‘can national interests be pursued under conditions of pluralism and local autonomy?’ (p 7). Each of the six contributions is followed by a short, thoughtful commentary. By setting up the book in this form the editor has provided a simple model to be followed by central governments in their dealings with local governments ~ he has pursued the interests of the volume as a whole within a pluralist framework which gives maximum antonomy to the contributors and maximum value for money for the readers. It would not be sensible to pick out any one of the essays. They are all useful and considered contributions to the current agonizing over local government. covering the themes of finances (Diane Dawson), the law (Michael Elliot) education (Maurice Kogan). housing (Derek Fox), economic development (Murray Stewart), and the NHS (David Hunter). This is a book to be bought and read by anyone with more than a passing
interest in the way in which centrallocal government relations have developed in the UK over the past decade, and what could and should (but won’t) be done to push things in the right direction. A comparison of these two books in the same review raises a paradoxical question: how can it be that in a country which produces so much good and intelligent work on local government and its services, and which points to both the merits of the basic system and its evident difficulties and failures, can central government contrive to make such a dog’s breakfast of the whole issue? Is it because the government is determined to learn nothing and forget nothing, or are there explanations other than incompetence and ignorance‘? To put the same paradoxical question in terms of these two books, how can one of them be long-winded, sweeping and implausible, when we have in the other the latest example of a long line of relevant, well informed, and intelligent analysis?
K. Newton University of Dundee, UK
Planning procedures and practice: learning from the British CITIES, LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY: Learning from the British edited by Charles M. Haar Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, USA, 1984 This collection of papers, like the curate’s egg good in parts, has its origins in a transatlantic gathering of so-called experts in areas of public policy concerned primarily with town planning, housing and some of the social and physical impacts of deprivation, race and high unemployment. The title is misleading. It has little to say about cities, their past, present, or future. Nor is it really about the law or social policy in any broad sense. For the most part it is a workmanlike account of planning practice and
procedures by men who have worked within the system over a good many years. There are several significant exceptions; an analytical and critical account of problems of race and neighbourhood by a womem who is a professor and sociologist; an equally incisive account of a facet of public policy which is rapidly transforming the substantive concerns and procedures of the planning system, namely local employment initiatives in the context of enterprise zones, urban development grants, urban development corporations, freeports, derelict land grants and the rest. This four-part book is largely about the UK town and country planning system, its characteristic evolution and underlying premises and rationales. The first three parts, comprising nine chapters, are all by eminent British
CITIES August
1985
Book
academics, specialists in the law of town planning and housing , or simply town planning, and experienced planning practitioners. The final part by the editor, who is a distinguished American Harvard Professor of law, comprtses one chapter titled ‘what the United States can learn from the British.
Rationale It seeks to provide a rationale for the book but no explicit discussion of the conceptual and practical problems of comparative study prepares the reader. An adequate and robust framework for effective transnational comparison and learning is needed togetht:r with a clearer idea of the aims, objectives and issues it seeks to addres;. Much can be learned about the w,iy cities work by comparing cases. Hut this volume is often repetitive and covers much well worn ground. The offerings are generalized and not even the penetrating commentary b> Professor Haar makes amends for tht lack of structure and focus. Perhaps this is no more than a reflection of the state of the planning system being <,xamined. In which case there are lessons for the USA and much that can be learned by policy makers and managers of urban change on both sides oi‘ the Atlantic Despite these criticisms, there are several excellent essays on specific topics by academic lawyers. Patrick McAuxlan writes authoritatively about that peculiarly British preoccupation with ‘Compensation and betterment’. and David Yates likewise presents an excellent critical overview of ‘The British housing experience’. These are the firs* two essays of the second part of the book, ostensibly concerned with the implementation of goals.
Historical overview The first part consists of three contributions which provide an historical overview of the planning process and its historical evolution. Whilst some of the essays, notably Nathaniel Lichfield’s ‘The planning system’, remember that this is a book about learning from the British, others have been
CITIES August
1985
written without regard to the ostensible objective. As Desmond Heap observes in the opening essay which is a mere five pages long, it is doubtful whether the British system of development control - which is at the heart of the local planning system - would or could work in the USA. The assumptions on which the British system and the US system are based are quite different; differences between a unitary and federal system; of scale; of ideology. Contrast the new federalism with the rapid move towards central control of local government and local spending in the UK. If land development and land management and control are increasingly matters for state governments in the USA, in the UK the statutory system for effective regional planning has yet to be invented. These issues are not debated here.
Wishful thinking Not much in the USA is ‘patterned after British experiments’ despite the wishful thinking of many Americans who have admired the UK local government system and some of the perceived advantages of comprehensive land planning, especially in respect of new towns, green belts, and the renewal of central and inner areas of British cities. If this is correct it reinforces the argument that it should not be a question of what can be learned from the British so much as what can be learned from each other and, more importantly, what is transferable and what is not. Sheila Allen, Professor of Sociology at Bradford University, implicitly recognizes this. Whilst warning of the dangers when drawing parallels, she uses the US experience of ethnicity to draw contrasts with the British. In fact, her chapter on ‘Neighbourhoods: Ethnic and Race Relations’ is about the policy responses, or lack of them. to the different problems of race and discrimintion found in contemporary British society. This is not a comparative piece, rather a statement of the current issues as she sees them. The important conclusion for majorityminority relations is the need for an
reviews
appropriate research agenda on both access to resources and access to policy making and implementation by minorities. As is pointed out, the importance of the economy, and particularly the revival of the economies of the inner cities, cannot be overlooked; it is a vital element in minoritymajority relations.
Positive planning The third part is entitled ‘The New Positive Planning’. It brings together chapters on new towns and one on British enterprise zones. Walter Bor’s account of Milton Keynes new city specifically addresses the question that is most interesting in specific cases: ‘What lessons for and from the United States’. Whilst new towns have been an important instrument of public policy in the UK, they belong to a period of planning policy which ended with the recognition by government that priorities had changed. And with this change came a major policy shift in emphasis, objectives, and mechanisms. This dynamic shift is recognized contextually in part 1 but is not recognized adequately subsequent to this, either in the choice, grouping or presentation of individual chapters. In the final section and chapter by Charles Haar we have an apotheosis. But apart from a most skilful and penetrating summary and the recognition that the earthly Jerusalem is as elusive as ever, it remains unclear to this reader what learning from the British might mean in practice. This is a shame because there is much to learn from each other - most of all, just by seeing how similar processes of urban decline, for example, in older cities of the first and second industrial revolution can be managed in a similar manner in very different contexts during the third through which we are living now.
Edgar A. Rose University of Aston in Birmingham, UK and Cleveland State University College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland OH, USA
267