Governing London's resources in a just, fair and sustainable way seems remote

Our Second Provocation looked at governance issues, the relationship between institutions and outcomes, the kinds of capacities and capabilities that will be needed - and by whom - to meet the challenges ahead. The Coalition‘s reductions of public spending are coming into effect. What are the implications for London’s use and management of resources?

Mark Twedwr-Jones & Yvonne Rydin challenged the capacity of London local government to meet current demands. They argued that to do so the GLA must develop new roles and skills and a new form of intellectual capacity. But at the same time some Boroughs are examining the potential of merging as a super council. They feared this may reignite tensions with the Boroughs “and lead to turf war skirmishes”.

The Future of Governance in London - Mark Tewdr-Jones & Yvonne Rydin

London Remade Board member and Chair of London Waste Action, Doug Benjafield, argued that London‘s fragmented approach cannot exploit the commodity value of London’s waste. He argued that the only organisations with the resources, skills and commercial incentive to exploit London's resources fully are the waste companies. Most have European-wide experience of managing and trading materials. Two conditions would have to be met for the private sector to take responsibility: a) direct contractual relationship with households & businesses - so that they can be incentivised to improve the quality and quantity of materials they provide for recycling; and b) sufficient sites on which to build processing plant. Local government would focus on regulating public health standards. The Environment Agency would move from rigid definitions of waste to enabling materials to be traded which people will pay for in genuine transactions.

Unlocking the value will lead to the management we need

Anna Coote of the New Economics Foundation assessed the potential of the ‘Big Society’ programme to transfer responsibility for meeting needs and managing risks from the state to civil society. Allied with the spending review, the potential changes are enormous. It will overturn the post-war welfare state and will, as the Cabinet Office says, ‘turn Government upside down’. Functions funded by taxes will be exercised through self-help, mutual aid, charity, philanthropy, local enterprise and big business. The retreating state will open the door for global corporations and voluntary organisations to provide backroom support and to run services. This brings big, impersonal providers as well as local knowledge and personal connections to the fore. She questioned how much room there will be for both and who will be accountable for what happens.

The Big Society and the new austerity

David Fell of Brook Lyndhurst contrasted the way established un-democratic bodies sustain long-term asset management with the rather short-term character of democratic institutions. Community-led entities are caring and inclusive but seem ill-equipped to tackle the sheer scale of change. Giant institutions frequently manage assets well but are immune from accountability. Which is the better type of governance and must we create new hybrid arrangements?

Sustainability, governance and the long-run management of assets

The summary of the debate finds three themes running through the essays. First - capacity - whether a corporation can handle waste, or a community can run services or a borough can develop and enforce contracts or an institution can care for a valuable public asset in the long run. If they do it, can they do it well - because a more sustainable London needs to be well run. When services and resources are managed poorly it creates ‘waste’. The Big Society agenda wants re-distribute more responsibility to communities and companies. However there is no agreed mechanism for ensuring there is capacity to participate. Second - accountability - a sustainable city implies millions of people changing their behaviours, becoming reconnected with their resource use and with the consequences of their choices. It implies a re-distribution of accountability. The more disconnected citizens are - the less pressure there is for institutions to account for their management of resources. The lack of accountability of very large businesses, of the church, of entities such as the Corporation of London, would seem at odds with the notion of a more engaged citizenry. Third - justice - refers to the allocation of resources. The distribution of resources in London is highly skewed. Dominant economic models suggests that it is only if there are continuous encouragements to the consumption of resources that progress is made which emphasises the skew. Is it heresy to ask whether this is sustainable in a world of finite resources and chronic injustice and where climate change poses a system-level threat?

Governing for a Sustainable London

Comment below. You can also add your own essay: click this link to the debates page.