Suchergebnisse

There is increasing pressure on academics to show the impact of their research. At the same time, policymakers are expected to draw upon a wide base of evidence, including academic research, to develop innovative solutions to often intractable societal problems. Despite these complementary objectives of impact and use of evidence, the relationship between academics and policy-makers is often difficult. Some have characterized these groups as 'two worlds', each with differing objectives, methods and timeframes. This paper explores the issues associated with this problem and outlines a new approach to research which seeks to engage both government agencies and academics. It makes use of a publishing initiative of the Regional Studies Association (RSA) to produce research that is of value to both government officials and academic researchers. This method aimed to develop a shared understanding with the potential to benefit both groups. While the focus of the research was on place-based regional policy, comparable methods could be applied to many other questions of interest to both governments and researchers working in regional studies and other social science fields. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

This paper examines the leadership of places – cities, regions, communities – in Australia, Finland, Germany, Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom and explores the capacity of vignettes to generate new, theoretical and empirical insights. It uses vignettes to identify the features of place leadership evident in 12 case studies across six nations. The research finds significant commonalities in place leadership with respect to the importance attached to boundary spanning, the role of government officials in responding to the prospect of regional decline or growth and how the nature of the challenge confronting a locality determines the adequacy of the response.

Abstract
How can UK and devolved governments be more effective when addressing chronic problems like inequalities or crises like climate change? The dominant story is of pessimism: policymaking is bound to a Westminster tradition of short-termism, elitism, and centralization, and reform efforts are doomed to failure. We present a more cautiously optimistic account about the prospects for a more effective government, grounded in theory-informed lessons from two decades of UK and devolved government reform efforts. We describe a potentially more innovative and less blundering state and present a coherent Positive Public Policy agenda that can help to realize this potential.

AbstractOn 10 March 2024 the Commission on the Centre of Government published its final report: Power with Purpose. The aim of the commission had been to explore why Number Ten, the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury do not always work as well as they should and to explore what could be done to improve the centre of government radically. Perennial concerns about the existence of a 'hollow crown' at the centre of British government were, the final report recommended, to be resolved through the implementation of a 'radical' reform agenda. This article interrogates the commission's proposals from a critical perspective and builds upon existing concerns as to the viability of further centralising power in Whitehall. It achieves this by reflecting on an understanding of why history, criticality, governance, evidence and relationships matter when seeking to cope with complexity or when designing genuinely 'radical' new governance capabilities. It is argued that a full appreciation of these factors is essential to any project to strengthen the core executive and offers a more balanced, relational and systemic approach to nurturing strategic capacity in government.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study is made up of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two case study urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops and ethnography three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. We will: map the system of actors and processes involved in each case study; develop, test and refine the combined intervention; evaluate the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. We are testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.

It provides the first up-to-date and comprehensive picture of the state of regionalism in England. Charting the regionalisation of England that has occurred over recent years, the book: examines the background to the 'English Question'; outlines factors leading to regionalisation in England; presents a new region by region analysis of the social, economic and political conditions; considers the arguments for regional government. Policy makers, practitioners, academics, students, journalists and others who need to understand and keep up to date with the development of governance of the English regions will find this book to be an indispensable resource

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.