Missions — a localist turn?
Last week saw the UK Labour Party’s publication of five missions that will guide the development of its manifesto and any future programme in office with elections due by early 2025 at the latest. The missons framwork is a continuation of a theme in UK governance. Last year’s Leveling Up White Paper was anchored in mission-orientated approaches and, whilst arguably both of these take some liberties with the policy literature, the essential features of long-termism, directionality, and the need to crowd-in resources and attention from the private, public and civic sectors are consistent and compelling. A lot of the intial response in last week’s announcement has focused on the politics and positioning of Labour as a party of government or, in the more geeky backwaters of policy discourse, on the lens of political economy and heterodox economics. I’m most interested in it from a public administration perspective and here a key distinction on this issue between the two main parties would now seem to be the centrality of missions to their statecraft and whether it forms a part of a governing philisopy that anchors a whole-government approach. For Labour, it now seems missions could be the northstar for a future administration (time will tell); for the Conservatives it could be policy framework that might begin and end within the department for local government without widespread support across government (again time will tell). But regardless, missions seem here to stay and be part of a discussion about how we are governed as well as how we grow our economy to meet wider social goals.
I’m most interested in the intersection with devolution, and here Labour’s announcement can be read alongside the publication late last year of Gordon Brown’s report on reform of the UK’s constitution. This was strong rhetorically on the role of local government, including its role in driving growth but also its constitutional status and how that could be bolstered to support more effective government, a more strategic centre, and a rebalancing between the regions.
If we assume missions are essential to Labour statecraft, and we are at the begining of new devolutionary wave, then its imporatant to see their relationship to each other. I think its useful to consider two broad scenarios for mission-orientated governance under the assumption that, to some extent it succeeds in driving long-termism, sets a clear direction and drives better policy through the 2020s. I think one of those, which integrates place, communities and a local government with renewed capabilities is preferable to the other, where missions approaches do nothing to shift the dial on centralisation or worse they provide a new rationale to resist a more devolved approach.
In scenario one, missions might galvanise government and create shared purpose and focus, mitigating departmentalism. A market shaping approach and deeper appreciation of the role of the state in innovation might lead to a more dynamic and mature relationship with the private sector and civic society. Treasury processes and behaviour might enable more long-term decision making. Measurement and evaluation might move beyond inputs and outputs and toward a theory of change with a more sophisticated understanding of the role of different actors and roles and accountabilities. However, the desire for a clear line of sight between levers pulled and progress towards the mission reduces the tolerance for complexity or uncertainty. A focus on sectors and vertical delivery vitiates against a focus on place and modern industrial strategy excludes local actors as an irrelevance at worst, a stakeholder at best. Whitehall continues to see local government as a creature of the centre (even if too polite to say it out loud), unsure about its role, and unconvinced it has the capacity and capability to be autonomous. Deal-making and conditionality define the relationship, now reframed as a contract around delivery of missions. Ultimately the gap between policy intent and frontline delivery is not closed. There is little sense of genuine collaboration, agency or empowerment even where there is some real progress on policy issues of the day.
A second scenario follows through on the rhetorical commitment to devolving decision-making and fuses missions and devolution as part of a governing framework. Roadmaps for each mission are developed and adapted overtime in partnership between different levels of government with an increasing focus on place, complexity and the stewarding role of local government. A legal commitment to ‘double devolution’ shares power and resources within communities, unleashing untapped resources of imagination and creativity. Cross-cutting mission delivery boards that replace Cabinet Committees are attended by council leaders and chief executives, giving the sector a day to day voice in Whitehall.
A constitutional basis for local government is entrenched in the UK’s constitution, and a revised civil service code requires Whitehall officials to collaborate with their partners in local government. New intermediary institutions like the Office for Local Government Improvement blend accountability with a serious commitment to building capacity for innovation.
Long-term funding settlements and the devolution of budgets to places, with freedom to decide how to deploy them, creates local and regional alliances to accelerate delivery. The capacity of local places is released and the centre becomes increasingly strategic, focused on foresight and long-term planning and tending to the ‘system of governing’.
As we understand more about Labour’s approach and the Government’s development of the levelling up missions, there are a number of things worth probing, questioning, and advocating for:
1) How does local government and its partners make the case for the role of place in missions? How do we hedge against a centralising turn?
2) How are missions validated and reinterpreted by local communities so they make sense in context (and have strong legitimacy) but contribute to national strategy?
3) What infrastructure and governing architecture needs to be in place to enable places to support delivery of missions e.g. new capabilities, place-based funding settlements, new functional powers etc
