Local Autonomy, Local Democracy andthe ‘New Localism’

Lawrence PratchettDe Montfort University

Most studies of local autonomy and local democracy fail to distinguish adequately between thetwo terms. As a consequence, there is an assumed bilateral relationship between them in whichchanges in one are always deemed to affect the other – particularly in policy formulations. Thisarticle develops a stronger analytical distinction between them by considering local autonomy inthree separate ways: as freedom from central interference; as freedom to effect particular outcomes;and as the reflection of local identity. Each of these conceptualisations raises different challenges forlocal democracy and its relationship to broader forms of democratic practice. When used to analysethe recent emergence of the ‘new localism’ as a policy approach within Britain, this separationalso shows significant limitations in current policies towards democratic renewal and central policies that are supposedly focused on outcomes rather than processes. Although localities arebeing afforded some autonomy, most initiatives are not supporting the enhancement of local democracy.

Local autonomy is a perennial issue in the study of sub-central government.Indeed, it is almost impossible to discuss the relationship between central and localgovernment, or the political context of local government more generally, withoutsubstantial reference to concepts of local autonomy.1 Such concepts have been used normatively, to defend local government (Layfield Committee, 1976; Jonesand Stewart, 1983), and empirically, as either a measure of constitutional change(Chandler, 1988; Rose 1990) or as a device for comparing local democracy acrossnations (Page and Goldsmith, 1987; Wolman and Goldsmith, 1990; Page, 1991).From Tocqueville onwards, there has been a strong normative argument withinpolitical theory that local self-government is a fundamental component of broaderdemocratic structures and practices (see, for example, Tocqueville, 1968; Mill,1991; Weir and Beetham, 1999). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, therefore,that local autonomy is a fundamental concept in political science, linked to boththe theory and practice of democracy more generally.

Despite the attention that it has received, local autonomy is rarely, if ever, distin-guished from local democracy. At best, local autonomy is seen to be a necessarybut not sufficient condition for local democracy to flourish. More often, especiallyin policy debates surrounding local government finance, the two terms are simplyconflated. I argue here that such a conflation not only oversimplifies the relation-ship between local autonomy and democracy, but also disguises deep ambiguitiesin the relationship between local democracy and broader democratic practice. Suchsimplification and ambiguity are problematic for both theoretical and policy pur-poses. At a theoretical level, oversimplification and ambiguity limit the ability tounderstand central–local government relations and its ongoing problems. At a

POLITICAL STUDIES: 2004 VOL 52, 358–375

© Political Studies Association, 2004.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 359

policy level, a failure to distinguish effectively between the two terms leads to con-fused policy aims and outcomes. I address both the theoretical and policy chal-lenges that arise from a clearer distinction between local autonomy and localdemocracy and offer a new framework for understanding its implications. From atheoretical perspective, autonomy must not only be conceptualised as freedomfrom higher powers, but also include the capacity for developing or expressing localidentity. Crucially, a conceptual separation of local autonomy from local democ-racy allows for the existence of locally determined differences within nation states.From a policy perspective, I then apply these concepts to the emerging debatearound the ‘new localism’ and analyse the limits to Labour’s democratic renewalpolicies at the local level.

My focus is on the institutions of elected local government as the primary locus ofdemocracy at the sub-central government level. This focus does not ignore the exis-tence of other quasi-democratic institutions that exist or are emerging in differentpolities. In England, proposals for elected regional government, elected boards forFoundation Hospitals and the existence of community-wide elections to the man-agement boards of New Deal for Communities all threaten (among other devel-opments) to challenge the hegemony of elected local government as the onlyinstitutions beneath parliament to have the political legitimacy of direct periodicelection (Loughlin, 1996). However, these new quasi-democratic bodies do notcarry with them the same representation of broad community interest or the rangeof opportunities for political engagement that are delivered by multi-purposeelected local government. Although some may argue that these new institutionsenhance democracy by extending ‘community control over many more areas ofthe public realm’ (Blears, 2003), it is also evident that they fragment communityfocus around concerns with particular service areas. If democracy is seen as aprocess through which competing interests are reconciled, then multi-purposeelected local government remains the primary institution of democracy at the locallevel: as such, it deserves special attention.

The first section briefly examines contemporary discussions of local democracy and the assumptions that are made about its role in a broader democratic polity.This examination is necessary not only to justify local democracy, but also toacknowledge its contribution to broader democratic institutions and practices. Thesecond section analyses different theoretical insights into the concept of localautonomy and develop a definition of local autonomy that is distinct from that oflocal democracy. Having developed a clear distinction between them, the thirdsection applies the framework that emerges from this analysis to recent develop-ments in English central–local government relations. Finally, a concluding sectionaddresses the tensions that exist between local autonomy and a broader democra-tic polity.

Local DemocracyNormative political theory holds a special place for local democracy and its in-stitutional embodiment – local government. Orthodox justifications for local government (Stoker, 1996a) include pluralist arguments that institutions of localdemocracy provide for a diffusion of power within society (Hill, 1974; Phillips,

360 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

1996), arguments that local democracy supports diversity and difference in the faceof an otherwise constrictively uniform set of central policies (Jones and Stewart,1983) and arguments of local responsiveness (Sharpe, 1970). Such justificationsare embedded in the European Charter of Local Self-Government, where it main-tains that decision-making for public policies should, wherever possible, be exer-cised ‘by those authorities which are closest to the citizen’ (Council of Europe,1985, article 4.3). In short, there are strong normative justifications for localdemocracy and local government.

More recently, however, there has been a revival of interest in the role of localdemocracy in facilitating and encouraging political participation as part of a broaderdemocratic polity (Stoker, 1996b). This argument has its roots in nineteenth-century political thought and maintains that local institutions of democracy are themost accessible locations for political skills to be acquired and practised. J. S. Millargued in 1861 that local democracy not only provided greater opportunities forpolitical participation but also that it was an instrument of social inclusion:

But in the case of local bodies, besides the function of electing, many citi-zens in turn have the chance of being elected, and many, either by selec-tion or by rotation, fill one or other of the numerous local executiveoffices ... It may be added, that these local functions, not being in generalsought by the higher ranks, carry down the important political educa-tion which they are the means of conferring, to a much lower grade insociety. (Mill, 1991, p. 413)

For Mill, local institutions of representative democracy provide an opportunity forpolitical skills to be developed among a much broader range of people than cen-trally organised institutions.

Whereas Mill was concerned with the way in which local government allows manymore people to participate in the process of representative government (as electedrepresentatives), more recent interest in local government has focused on its capac-ity to facilitate and enhance participatory democracy. This focus on participatorydemocracy argues that local government is closer to citizens and deals more directlywith the issues that impinge on them. Consequently, local government is moreaccessible and its institutions are easier to engage with (Pratchett, 1999; Stoker,2004). This argument of political accessibility and engagement is borne out empir-ically, especially where participatory (as opposed to representative) forms ofdemocracy are considered. As well as providing much wider opportunities for theelection of representatives, local democratic institutions are also closer to citizensand can encourage more participatory forms of engagement. A study of politicalparticipation in Britain found that

as many as 44% of all targets of people’s main action on their primeissues are to be found in local government, compared with only 15% incentral government and a further 11% either in other government orquasi-governmental institutions. (Parry et al., 1992, p. 268)

More recently, the Citizens’ Audit, a major survey of citizen participation in Britain,found that average trust in local government was higher than that for central

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 361

government and that local variations in such factors as trust and civic associationhave a significant effect on local government performance. As they put it, ‘servicesare affected – in positive ways – by local cultures of citizenship’ (Pattie et al., 2002, p. 15). In their study of participation in the US, Verba et al. (1995) found evenhigher levels of political participation at the local level, although their definitionof local in this context also included state government. Empirical evidence, there-fore, strongly supports the normative assertion that the local arena has the capac-ity to facilitate and encourage political participation beyond simply that ofparticipation in elections.

These arguments are more than simply a concern with the vibrancy and vitality oflocal democracy. On their own, they make a case for local democracy based on thepreference of individuals to engage with local rather than national institutions ofdemocracy. However, the other part of this argument links the opportunities forlocal political participation to the effectiveness of democracy at the higher level. Inshort, the argument is that, for democracy to be effective, there must be multiplechannels of engagement and multiple opportunities for democratic participation.As David Held argues, ‘direct participation and control over immediate locales ...can most realistically advance the principles of participatory democracy’ (1996, p. 269). Local democracy provides more than simply the opportunity for individ-uals to influence those decisions that affect their immediate social and economicenvironment. Local democracy also builds and reinforces notions of participatorycitizenship, because it is the primary venue in which most people practise politics.It follows that, without some form of local democracy, the opportunities for devel-oping democratic values and skills that can be used at broader institutional levelswould be severely limited. Consequently, local democracy provides the foundationfor strong national democratic institutions and practices. According to this argu-ment, without a vibrant participatory democracy at the local level, representativedemocracy at both the local and broader level cannot flourish. As Weir andBeetham state, ‘local participation does more than create self-confident citizens,and share out political power; it also contributes to a culture of democracy through-out society’ (1999, p. 243). It is partly for this reason that, as part of their criteriafor assessing and comparing democracies, they include a measure of the existenceand vitality of sub-central democracy (see also Beetham, 1999, 1994). For them,a democratic society underpins democratic processes. Sub-central or local democ-racy is a cornerstone of a democratic society.

The role of local democracy, therefore, is more than simply that of local self-government. Local democracy, in both its representative and participatory forms,is also an essential feature of a broader democratic polity. Within elected local gov-ernment, representatives develop and practise democratic skills and are held toaccount by citizens. The responsiveness of local representatives is, at once, bothcomplemented and challenged by the wider opportunities for political participa-tion that the local institutions of democracy offer citizens. It is at the local levelthat the relationship between representative democracy and widespread citizenparticipation makes most sense. Seeing local democracy as a fundamental compo-nent of a broader participatory democracy has important consequences for theunderstanding and application of local autonomy.

362 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

Local AutonomyLocal autonomy is often considered to be synonymous with local democracybecause, without some degree of freedom for exercising discretion, communitiesare unlikely to cultivate democratic practices. Although the argument above hasasserted a broader role for local democracy, there can be little dispute that localdemocracy is, fundamentally, about local self-government. It is the primary ratio-nale for local government. Institutions of local democracy are places where poli-tics is practised (Stoker, 1996b). In other words, these institutions are venues forcompeting values and priorities and for the collective resolution of such conflicts.If competing values and preferences are to be articulated and conflicts resolved,the institutions of local democracy and those engaged in them must have a degreeof power and authority to act – that is, some degree of local autonomy. For thisreason, Jones and Stewart (1983), the democratic audit (Weir and Beetham, 1999)and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Council of Europe, 1985) allemphasise ‘local freedom from central government interference’ as a fundamentalcomponent of local democracy. Local autonomy, therefore, is an issue of sover-eignty – if not sovereignty over everything within a territory, then at least sover-eignty over certain spheres of activity.

The issue of sovereignty makes local autonomy problematic, for within unitarystates such as the UK, sovereignty is vested in one authority only – the Crown inParliament. It is impossible to discuss local politics without acknowledging thatlocal government exists in its current form and with its current powers becauseparliament allows it to (Wilson and Game, 2002; Byrne, 1992; Stoker, 1991). Thus,the principle of ultra vires and the conceptual, as well as legal, constraints that itimposes on local authorities is important in understanding the limits to autonomythat exist within the British system of government (Leigh, 2000). Even in federalsystems, sovereignty is often carefully proscribed such that local self-governmentis greatly weakened by reference to higher authorities. The best example is Dillon’sRule in the US, which asserts that local government is a ‘creature of the state’ and,following a Supreme Court ruling of 1923, can have its powers and structures modified or withdrawn at the state’s discretion (Brown, 1993). In other words,local self-government in both unitary and federal systems occurs only because ahigher-level authority delegates some of its sovereign powers and responsibilities.These powers and responsibilities can be withdrawn or altered at the whim of thesovereign power. As Page defines it:

To be local implies some control over decisions by the community ...However, these notions of local government as control by the commu-nity contrast with the fact that local government is essentially a subor-dinate institution ... In principle its structures and powers are subject tohigher laws and can be changed by them. (Page, 1991, p. 1)

The issue of sovereignty, therefore, makes local autonomy a relative concept.Because local autonomy implies a degree of control over particular policy issues,if not over a territory as a whole, there will always be a tension between national and sub-central units of government over who has authority in particu-lar spheres.

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 363

To some extent, this tension is the problem that many studies of intergovernmen-tal and central–local government relations have sought to resolve. Marxist-inspiredanalyses of the topic have tended to focus particularly on the role of the local statein relation to national government (Cockburn, 1977). Thus, the ‘dual state thesis’of Saunders (1984, 1986) distinguishes local government’s focus on the politics ofconsumption from central government’s concern with the politics of production.This approach implies that local autonomy is constrained by capitalism’s overar-ching concern with production and that local issues will always be subjugated tothe national government’s concern for maintaining and improving the means ofproduction. In contrast, the power-dependence model (Rhodes, 1981) characterisesrelationships between different levels of government as being contingent on thepossession and exchange of resources. When applied to analyses of policy networks(Rhodes, 1988; Marsh and Rhodes, 1992), this approach has particular impli-cations for concepts of local autonomy, because it suggests that there will be significant differences in policy approach between policy areas. Consequently,power-dependence theories recognise that local autonomy may vary in both styleand extent across different policy areas. Levels of local autonomy and discretion,therefore, may alter over both time and issue, within the same constitutionalsystem of governance.

Although these broad theories provide a useful context for studying local autono-my, they are of less relevance when relating it to the practice of local democracy.There are three particular approaches that focus explicitly on local autonomy, itslimitations and its potential and have direct relevance to the study of local democ-racy. Firstly, it is possible to define and analyse local autonomy as freedom fromhigher authorities. Secondly, it is possible to define local autonomy by the effectsof local governance and its freedom to achieve particular outcomes. Finally, it is pos-sible to define and analyse local autonomy as the reflection of local identity – theability of communities to reflect their own sense of place and meaning within local-ities. Each of these has different implications for the way in which local autonomyis perceived to relate to local democracy.

Freedom From

‘Freedom from’ approaches to local autonomy are based on constitutional and legalunderstandings of central–local relations. This approach represents the classicpolitical science perspective on the topic and defines local autonomy as the degreeof discretion that local authorities have from central government. Consequently,the focus on local autonomy is largely top-down, examining the extent to whichnational governments are prepared to delegate power and authority to sub-centralunits of government. Different authors address this notion of ‘freedom from’ indifferent theoretical and empirical ways. All, however, conceptualise local autono-my as being primarily about freedom from higher authorities.

Clark (1984) provides the most developed theory in this context. He draws on theideas of Jeremy Bentham to develop a theory of local autonomy based around thedual principles of initiation and immunity. According to Clark, initiation is essen-tially permissive and refers to the ‘power to act, whatever the circumstances, pro-vided that prior rights to do so exist’ (1984, p. 197). In contrast, immunity

364 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

is essentially the power of localities to act without fear of the oversightauthority of higher tiers of the state. In this sense immunity allows localgovernments to act however they wish within the limits imposed by theirinitiative powers. (Clark, 1984, p. 198)

By distinguishing between initiation and immunity, Clark is able to develop a fourfold typology with which to compare different local authorities, the mostautonomous of which have both powers of initiation and immunity from over-sight, whereas the least autonomous are heavily constrained in both respects. Thistheory has attracted considerable interest (Goldsmith, 1995), not least becauseClark’s application of it tends to point to low levels of autonomy in most systemsof local government.

Empirical applications of the ‘freedom from’ type approaches to local autonomyhave been both country specific and comparative. Within the UK, Jones andStewart (1983) have pointed to the centralising tendencies of successive govern-ments and the negative effects that this control has on various dimensions of localautonomy. At a comparative level, Page and Goldsmith (1987), Blair (1991) andPage (1991) have all adopted a focus on local autonomy in the context of freedomfrom higher authorities. Variations on this theme have been service specific. Kröger(1996), for example, compares child day-care policies in Scandinavian countriesand finds a significant absence of local autonomy in the different countries, despitea supposedly strong tradition of local self-government.

More-developed theories of local autonomy also consider the local state in relationto neo-Marxist arguments of relative autonomy, examining the extent to whichlocal government has autonomy from broader capitalist forces, as well as fromother state institutions (Cockburn, 1977; Gurr and King, 1987). The conclusionfrom all of these studies, however, is that local autonomy is greatly constrained bya range of political and economic factors.

Although the range of theoretical and empirical approaches to local autonomy asfreedom from higher authority is broad, their conclusions and implications tend tobe similar. Two factors stand out. Firstly, there is a common focus on the consti-tutional/legal position of sub-central government in different countries and theway in which constitutions affect opportunities for local autonomy. This focus leadsto a concern with a range of different central–local relationships: the division offunctions between tiers of government (Page and Goldsmith, 1987); the legal basisof such divisions (Pierre, 1990; Page, 1991); and the financial regime that under-pins such relationships (Layfield Committee, 1976; Blair, 1991; Jones and Stewart,2003). Although all are considered important, the financial independence of localgovernment is often deemed the most significant. Indeed, financial autonomy (theright to raise revenue and set spending priorities independently of central govern-ment) lies at the heart of competing ideological commitments to local autonomy,from Margaret Thatcher’s failed attempts supposedly to increase local governmentaccountability through the poll tax (Butler et al., 1994), through to the ‘localist’argument for financial autonomy as the basis of local self-government (Jones andStewart, 1983). In short, the argument of financial autonomy rests on the notionthat legal, political and organisational autonomy is meaningless without theresources to realise the benefits of such autonomy. This argument persists in

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 365

current debates about central government policies towards local government(compare with Richards, 1996; Hale, 2001).

Secondly, the focus on financial constraints leads to a common concern with thecentralising tendencies of different national governments. If financial autonomy isseen as being the key to local autonomy more generally, then there is an inevitabletension between central government’s concern with overall economic managementand local government’s demand for policy discretion (Goldsmith, 1986). However,financial autonomy is not the only feature in studies of increasing centralisation.Michiel de Vries (2000) charts the changing interest in decentralisation policies infour European countries and concludes that support for decentralisation ariseslargely from self-interested local elites rather than from a normative or ideologicaldisposition towards local self-government. Thus, centralisation is a natural ten-dency when there are no strong arguments being advanced to the contrary. Indeed,in defining local autonomy as freedom from higher authorities, there is, inevitably,a systemic concern with centralisation. If attention is focused on a relative level ofindependence from central government, it is inevitable that the primary concernof any study will be the limits of such independence. This concern is a problem forsuch studies, because it accepts the normative value of local autonomy withoutexamining its consequences.

Defining local autonomy as freedom from higher authority, therefore, is problem-atic for local democracy, because it accepts the assumption that local autonomyand local democracy are bilaterally linked. Implicit in the findings of all of thesestudies is a derogatory use of the term ‘centralisation’ and a tacit argument thatany loss of local autonomy is a threat to local democracy. Although such concernsmay be true in many circumstances, the conflation of local autonomy and localdemocracy ignores the potential distinction between the two concepts and theargument that changes in the nature or extent of local autonomy may have nobearing on democratic practices and vice versa.

Freedom To

To some extent, the problem can be addressed by focusing on the outcomes of dif-ferent constitutional and political arrangements for sub-central government. The‘freedom to’ approach is adopted by Wolman and Goldsmith (1990) in their com-parison of local autonomy in the UK and the US. Their unique contribution to the study of local autonomy is to redefine it as its impact and consequences forlocalities:

By local autonomy we mean much more than the traditional concernfor the ability of local governments to act unfettered by constraints fromhigher levels of government, a concern dominating the literature of inter-governmental relations and local governments in the United States andBritain ... Instead, we ask a much different and, to our minds, more fun-damental question: Do local governments in urban areas have autonomyin the sense that their presence and activities have independent impactson anything important? Does urban politics matter? (Wolman and Goldsmith, 1990, p. 3)

366 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

This redefinition of autonomy is similar to Clark’s concept of initiation, in as far asit deals with the rights and obligations of local authorities to undertake particularactivities in the interests of their citizens. It goes further than Clark’s, however,because it focuses attention not only on constitutional and legal freedoms fromcentral interference, but also on the consequences of such freedoms. In otherwords, it addresses the outcomes of providing local government with the freedomto undertake particular initiatives. Their approach moves the debate away from thedegree of discretion afforded to units of local government and places much greaterattention on their capacity to influence central government. Thus, their redefini-tion of local autonomy concentrates on the residual ability of local authorities,when all extraneous economic and political variables are taken into account, toaffect the well-being of their localities. Their argument suggests that local politicsmatters, in as far as it can exert pressure on central government. Consequently,they are able to compare local government in the UK and the US not simply onconstitutional grounds but also by the different impacts that local political processeshave, potentially, on their areas. This novel approach lends a new dimension tothe study of local autonomy, although its conclusions are similar to those of earlierstudies. By treating local autonomy as a residual phenomenon – as the scope leftto local government after the ‘primary determinants’ (p. 24) have been taken intoaccount – Wolman and Goldsmith discover that local autonomy is heavily cir-cumscribed by central governments and other broad socio-economic factors.

The ‘freedom to’ approach is important in the relationship between local auton-omy and democracy because it acknowledges variations in local autonomy withinparticular systems of government. It suggests that, although local governmentexists within broad constitutional, economic and political constraints, individuallocal authorities can, nevertheless, achieve different outcomes for their localities.The approach is limited, however, because it focuses on the ability of local politicsto influence central government, rather than on elements of discretion or autono-my within formal relationships. Consequently, although some units of local gov-ernment may have the capacity to influence central government, their influencedoes not necessarily equate to autonomy. This capacity can only be transformedinto autonomy when local governments are given greater discretion to govern intheir localities.

Reflection of Local Identity

The final approach conceptualises local autonomy as being a bottom-up phenom-enon (Lake, 1994), in which localities reflect and develop a sense of place throughpolitical and social interaction. Local autonomy, from this perspective, is notfreedom in relation to particular legal or other constraints, but is, more broadly,the capacity to define and express local identity through political activity. Althoughthis approach does not deny the importance of the nation state in circumscribingaction, it argues that localities ‘are made powerful or powerless not by a sovereign,but by those who represent them through events in social life’ (Brown, 1993, p. 264). Consequently, it places much more emphasis on the activities of commu-nities in defining their own autonomy. From this perspective, the degree of localautonomy found in any given locality depends on what that locality is striving to

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 367

achieve and what it is seeking to be autonomous from. This approach concentratesnot on the potential of areas to be different, but on the way in which they seek todefine their own differences. Differences may be obvious variations in policy out-comes, where they reflect particular social or political preferences. However, theymay also be more subtle expressions of local difference, associated more with politi-cal processes and ‘the way things are done’ than with just the eventual outcomes.Local autonomy in this approach, therefore, is about the discretion to practise pol-itics in preferred ways and the freedom to express and develop local identitythrough political processes. Autonomy is intrinsically linked to the institutions oflocal representative democracy, in as far as these institutions provide the forum inwhich politics can be practised and local identity expressed.

Focusing on the expression of local identity does not deny either the role of thenation state or other factors in shaping the opportunities for local autonomy.Indeed, much of the work in this vein builds from an understanding of power rela-tions between localities and their broader environment:

autonomy is not a discrete commodity that is possessed or not possessed by individuals or localities. Instead autonomy is a set of powerrelations. A locality therefore cannot have autonomy, since autonomy can only be realized through the social, political, and economic rela-tionships that those within the locality are engaged in with the extra-local world. (DeFilippis, 1999, p. 976)

Understanding local autonomy in this way has great appeal for the study of localdemocracy, because it brings participatory democracy, and its potential relationshipwith the institutions of representative politics at the local level, into the analysis.Local autonomy, under this definition, is not simply about the discretion of electedlocal government, but is also about the wider social and political relations that occurwithin a community. Widespread political participation, not only in the electoralprocess of representative government, but also more broadly, is crucial to thenotion of local identity where it is to be expressed through local politics. The insti-tutions of elected local government remain fundamental to this approach however,because they are the means by which social relations within a locality are con-solidated, and the conduit through which relations with extra-local bodies are conducted. In other words, if local autonomy is primarily about empowering local communities to define their own sense of place, then political institutions,and particularly democratic institutions, lie at the heart of any attempt to justifyor enhance local autonomy.

The problem with this approach lies in understanding the definition of place in thiscontext. Political geography has a much more fluid conception of place that is notnecessarily coterminous with the jurisdictional boundaries of conventional localgovernment. In many respects, this bottom-up approach asserts that communities,if they are to express their own identity and sense of place, must first define them-selves as communities. This contrasts with traditional constitutional approaches to public administration, and indeed reality, which acknowledge the rights of sovereign states to define and redefine the functional boundaries of sub-centralgovernment. This contrast does not invalidate the notion of local autonomy as thesocial and political reflection of place, but it does raise an important problem: if

368 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

local autonomy is not about the relative independence of centrally defined insti-tutions of sub-central government, at what level is local autonomy appropriate? Iflocal autonomy is concerned with social and political identity, it may occur atvarious levels, both beneath and above that of traditional local government. Theproblem really is that, within the liberal tradition of political thought, autonomyis essentially about the freedom of the individual – in contrast with democracy,which is essentially about collective decision-making. Once the analysis of autono-my moves away from a focus on the organisations of local government, it becomesan ambiguous and mutable concept that has limited value in understanding therealities of democratic practice in localities.

The ‘New Localism’: Realising Local Autonomy?The ‘new localism’ argument is more than simply a normative reworking of con-cepts around local autonomy and democracy: it also has practical implications forcentral–local relations and, in particular, central government polices towards localgovernment. To explore these implications, the article will now turn to recentdevelopments in sub-central government relations in England and the emergenceof a so-called ‘new localism’ that supposedly informs central government policiestowards localities (compare with Corry and Stoker, 2002; Walker, 2002). In sodoing, the analysis not only applies the concepts developed so far to the emergingpolicy context, but also uses the framework to begin an evaluation of the prospectsand limitations of recent attempts to renew local democracy.

The policy context is one of extensive central government attempts to enhancelocal democracy as part of a wider project of constitutional and democratic mod-ernisation. Since its election in 1997, the Blair government has made ‘modernisa-tion’ a watch word for virtually every aspect of its policy reforms, including localdemocracy. As well as high-profile devolution policies in Scotland and Wales, pro-posals for elected regional assemblies in England, and the creation of a directlyelected mayor and assembly in London, less glamorous but nevertheless importantreforms have also taken place within local government. These reforms have rangedfrom the ‘modernisation’ of internal political management structures, experimen-tation with new electoral processes and technologies, through to exhortations forgreater citizen involvement and engagement in local affairs.2 Although the detailof this democratic renewal programme does not need to be set out here, it is worthnoting the substantial commitment that New Labour has made to local democracythrough a range of initiatives. Despite this commitment to local democracy,however, the same government has also been heavily criticised for its continuingcentralisation strategies and its ‘control freakery’, especially over local government(Wilson, 2003). Furthermore, extensive criticisms of the financial regime in whichlocal government operates and the limits to local autonomy that this regime sup-posedly imposes have also been prominent in recent debates (Stoker, 2004). Thereremain, therefore, significant tensions within the UK as regards local democracyand local autonomy. Indeed, recent policies have exacerbated these tensions byhighlighting the absence of local autonomy (defined as freedom from central government) while seeking to extend local democracy.

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 369

An even more recent development, however, has been the emergence of the ‘newlocalism’ as a way of conceptualising central–local relations and understanding thelimits to local autonomy. Indeed, if seen as a set of guiding principles for centralgovernment, it helps to explain much of the current tension between increasingcentralisation and enhanced local democracy within contemporary policy. Super-ficially, the ‘new localism’ offers many of the characteristics of local autonomydeveloped in this article. It has two key features. Firstly, it recognises the impor-tance of national standards and priorities as a driving force for public policy. Centralgovernment has a primary role to play in ensuring territorial justice, equity andthe collective provision of public goods. In this respect, the centre can be expectedto emphasise particular policy outcomes and to focus attention on particular pri-orities, especially where it has manifesto commitments to specified policies or out-comes. An explicit recognition of such roles and responsibilities circumscribes localautonomy, making it a secondary concern to national demands. Secondly, however,the ‘new localism’ also recognises the primacy of the institutions of local gover-nance in delivering public services on behalf of the centre, as well as wider argu-ments for locally sensitive policy implementation and community leadership. Theadvocates of the ‘new localism’, therefore, argue that diversity, choice and localdifference should lie at the heart of policy developments. As Corry and Stoker putit, ‘there are no decent reasons for saying each locality must have exactly the sameset of objectives’ (2002, p. 22). Consequently, expressions such as ‘constrained dis-cretion’ and ‘earned autonomy’ lie at the heart of the ‘new localism’ vision. It is acombination of local variations in the process of implementing nationally pre-scribed outcomes. The Government’s commitment to the ‘new localism’ is evi-denced in a range of policy documents and ministerial statements, from the 2001local government white paper (DTLR, 2001) through to statements made by theChancellor of the Exchequer (quoted in Corry and Stoker, 2002). Indeed, theweekly news magazine that focuses on local government issues, Local GovernmentChronicle, goes as far as to suggest that the ‘new localism’ could be one of the bat-tlegrounds of the next general election, as political parties compete to demonstratehow they will secure greater local autonomy and democracy across communities(‘Localism Crosses the Police Line’, 2003).

The ‘new localism’ is more than simply policy rhetoric. Its effects can be seen acrosslocal government and beyond. For example, local Public Service Agreements havesought new, locally sensitive ways of implementing carefully defined national pri-orities (DTLR, 2001; Pratchett, 2002). The recently introduced comprehensive per-formance assessment for local authorities extends this process, allowing the ‘best’councils to earn new freedoms, including a new prudential borrowing regime(Lowndes, 2003; Pratchett and Leach, 2003). Outside of traditional local govern-ment, the creation of Foundation Hospitals within the NHS will offer extensiveopportunities for localities to develop distinctive policy processes that reflect localpreferences operating within a quasi-democratic framework. The possibility ofother key local bodies, such as police authorities, having direct elections is also on the agenda (‘Localism Crosses the Police Line’, 2003). In the most deprived parts of the country, the New Deal for Communities has also enabled locally led responses to national priorities following another quasi-democratic process

370 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

(Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002). All of these central initiatives allow for local diver-sity and variation within carefully articulated national standards. The ‘new local-ism’ is not simply an analytical construct, but is also a policy reality, beingimplemented across a range of government policies.

As a policy approach, the ‘new localism’ is not without its critics. Walker (2002, p. 2), for example, is concerned with the possibility that ‘along with local differ-ences, go inequality, under provision of vital services and capriciousness in theirdelivery’. In short, he argues not only that central government has a role to playin ensuring equality across areas, but also that encouraging local differences willexacerbate variation and inequality. It is also possible to question the extent towhich local variation is really gaining precedence over central goals. Many of thefreedoms granted to even the best-performing local authorities have been criticisedas being derisory and meaningless in the face of an overwhelming raft of centralgovernment targets, inspections and standards. The extent to which the ‘new local-ism’ has been grasped by different central departments is variable. Although themain local government department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, hasgone some way in this direction, others seem more reluctant. From this perspec-tive, flexibility is minimal and limited to a few carefully proscribed policy imple-mentation choices.

It is too early to undertake a full evaluation of the ‘new localism’. It may be apassing policy fad or it could become an overarching vision for central–local rela-tions that recasts localities in a new role for decades to come. However, using theframework of local autonomy and local democracy developed earlier, it is possibleto pose two types of questions that need to be asked of the ‘new localism’ to beginto understand its long-term future and implications for sub-central government.

The first set of questions concern the type of autonomy that the ‘new localism’ ispotentially fostering and its implications for central–local relations. The policydebate has moved beyond a straightforward focus on ‘freedom from’ type con-ceptualisations of autonomy. This observation does not deny that this type ofautonomy remains important: the 2001 white paper (DTLR, 2001) supposedly freeslocal authorities from a host of centrally required plans and inspections, but it isonly part of the story. Policy attention has begun to focus much more on ‘freedomto’ types of autonomy. New powers allowing local authorities to promote the social,economic and environmental well-being of their areas, granted by the Local Gov-ernment Act 2000, are an illustration of such a focus. Indeed, much of the policydiscussion has been around exhorting local authorities to grasp opportunities ratherthan requiring them to do so, particularly in processes such as democratic renewaland public participation. Even where policies are directive, they allow considerableflexibility in how they are implemented in the locality. This flexibility is evident inthe creation of local strategic partnerships, all of which have emerged in differentways to reflect differing local needs and involvement (Stewart, 2003). In thisrespect, various central initiatives have actively promoted greater discretion.

The extent to which the ‘new localism’ supports the reflection of local identity asan ideal form of local autonomy, however, is more questionable. It is not that the‘new localism’ prevents local difference. Indeed, many of the policies, from edu-cation to the health service, actively encourage a degree of local variation in the

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 371

processes of policy implementation. It is more that current enactments of the ‘newlocalism’ do little to shift power relations in favour of localities. If anything, currentpolicies have reinforced the centre’s power over localities, enabling it to definewhat is best practice and to penalise those who do not meet with this definition.Under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment that each local authority isnow subjected to, the centre not only defines the outcomes required in particularpolicy areas but also what constitutes good practice in a host of managerial con-texts. The criteria and methods adopted to measure success are centrally set andcontrolled. Yet this same process also decides which communities, through theirlocal authorities, will be granted the greatest freedom from central interventionand receive the greater financial rewards. The centre has developed a more sophis-ticated tool for ensuring that localities deliver its priorities by enabling it to iden-tify and focus attention on those deviant areas that are not meeting the centrallyset standards for one reason or another. The discourse in which central–local rela-tions is played out remains centrally defined and controlled. Questions need to beasked, therefore, about how effective contemporary policies are in facilitating theexpression of local identity and altering power relations between the centre andlocalities.

The second set of questions focuses on how emerging policy towards local autono-my links with local democracy and, especially, democratic renewal. In particular,it concerns the way in which competing aspects of the local government mod-ernisation agenda enhance or inhibit particular features of democratic practice atthe local level. Different components of the modernisation agenda simultaneouslyseek to improve the practice of representative democracy (through, for example,strengthened and more transparent political leadership); to enhance local partici-pation and engagement; to develop different democratic practices and institutionsat the local level; and to impose greater central regulation and standards on local-ities. Any evaluation of the ‘new localism’, therefore, must ask questions about thetype of democracy that different initiatives are fostering.

Michael Saward argues there is little to be gained in continuing to debate the valueof competing democratic principles or models to advance democratic theory(Saward, 2003). Rather, the way that democracy is enacted in particular social andpolitical contexts is what matters. Within the context of local democratic renewal,this argument is particularly prescient, recognising the ambiguity and multiplicityof objectives that remain in the concept of local democracy. A primary problem isthat the core values of local government in Britain remain implicit, rather thanbeing explicitly stated in any policy context. Although committees of enquiry suchas the Layfield Committee (1976) have sought to clarify the meaning of localdemocracy within the UK constitution (for a discussion, see Jones and Stewart,2003), it seems fair to argue that policy responses have never fully accepted suchclarifications and have remained ambiguous. Probably the closest to such clarifi-cation appeared in the 1998 local government white paper (DETR, 1998), but eventhis document offered a combination of different democratic possibilities ratherthan a clear statement of the role and value of local democracy. Knowing whatdemocratic values are being prioritised and what form democracy is supposed to take in localities seems fundamental to any process of democratic renewal,whether it is led from above or below. Current policy appears to support a range

372 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

of different forms and priorities, which, while not necessarily in direct competitionwith one another, are nevertheless not wholly consistent. Although such a plural-ity might seem healthy, it does not necessarily mean that democracy is enhanced.

In the absence of a clear articulation of democratic priorities and values, it is notinevitable that a range of values will be supported and that a mutually consistentform of democratic practices will emerge. An alternative is that deeply embeddedinstitutional norms will capture particular democratic innovations to reinforceinstitutional priorities and values. Although this alternative will not necessarily leadto non-democratic outcomes, equally it does not automatically support democra-tic enhancement. If democratic renewal is not explicit about the values that itwishes to enhance, implicit norms are likely to dominate. The ‘new localism’ hasthe potential to extend local democracy by providing greater clarity of its role andpurpose. On the other hand, it also has the potential to obfuscate even further thevalue of local democracy by introducing new institutional structures and practicesthat implicitly support particular values and priorities. The particular practices thatare supported in localities, therefore, have a material effect on the way in whichdemocracy is enacted.

Conclusions: Local Autonomy and Democratic TensionsLocal autonomy poses tensions for broader democratic structures and practices,because, conceptually, it has the potential to challenge the sovereignty of nationstates. The earlier discussion identified strong justifications for local democracybased not only on liberal concepts of local self-government, but also on the argu-ment that local democracy fosters democratic practices throughout society. Nationaldemocracy can flourish only if it is underpinned by strong democratic foundationswithin localities. To the extent that this argument is sustainable, it provides onenormative justification for high levels of local autonomy. If democracy is to thrivewithin localities, it requires autonomy not only as freedom from higher author-ities, but also as freedom to undertake particular initiatives and for communitiesto be able to reflect or express their own political identity. As has already beenobserved, local autonomy requires an acceptance of difference between areas inboth democratic processes and political outcomes. This challenge is significant forthe ‘new localism’ vision.

The problem for democracy at the level of the nation state is that differences indemocratic processes and political outcomes are often unpalatable. The distinctionbetween ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom to’ is useful here, not only because it pro-vides a helpful analytical distinction between types of liberty, but also because itsuse draws parallels with the autonomy of the individual. Autonomy is about liberty,whether of the individual person or the individual organisation. In contrast,democracy is a collective process through which conflicts and differences are articu-lated and resolved. Tensions exist because, in allowing for a degree of local autono-my and local democracy, nation states automatically generate multiple levels ofcollective decision-making. The democratic collective at the level of the nationstate, as represented through elected governments and parliaments, will inevitablyseek to pursue a discrete set of policies across the whole of its sovereign territory.Even where differences between areas are acknowledged, central governments

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 373

can be expected to try to structure them within a broad framework that suits its national priorities. From this position, local expressions of difference andautonomous attempts to reflect specific local identities can be perceived as threatsto the sovereignty of national government. Consequently, local autonomy anddemocracy can be in conflict with the institutions of national democracy.

National governments are caught, therefore, in a paradox. On the one hand, stronglocal autonomy is essential to maintaining the local democracy practices thatunderpin broader democratic cultures within the polity. On the other hand, localautonomy threatens the viability of democratically supported national priorities.Too much local autonomy, in this sense, can destabilise the national institutions ofdemocratic government. This argument holds only in as far as local democraticpractices are dependent on a degree of local autonomy. However, as the earlier dis-cussion recognised, although there are limits to the dependence between these twofactors, there is nevertheless a clear but complex relationship between them. Thereis an inevitable dilemma between local autonomy, local democracy and the main-tenance of a broader democratic polity. Although the ‘new localism’ may havemanaged to clarify some of the complexities that bedevil central–local relations, itscapacity to resolve this dilemma seems limited.

(Accepted: 13 January 2004)

About the Author

Lawrence Pratchett, Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort University, Leicester LE19BH, UK; email: lap@dmu.ac.uk

NotesI am grateful to Vivien Lowndes, Josie Kelly, Gerry Stoker and Melvin Wingfield for their comments onworking drafts. I am also grateful to the three anonymous referees for their supportive and constructivecomments.

1 See, for example, Sharpe, 1970; Page, 1982; Goldsmith, 1986; King and Stoker, 1996; Jones andStewart, 2003.

2 Compare with Pratchett, 1999; Rao, 2000; Leach and Percy-Smith, 2001, Stewart, 2003; Stoker, 2004.

ReferencesBeetham, D. (1994) ‘Key Principles and Indices for a Democratic Audit’, in D. Beetham (ed.), Defining

and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage, pp. 25–43.

Beetham, D. (1999) ‘The Idea of Democratic Audit in Comparative Perspective’, Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 567–81.

Blair, P. (1991) ‘Trends in Local Autonomy and Democracy: Reflections from a European Perspective’,in R. Batley and G. Stoker (eds), Local Government in Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 41–57.

Blears, H. (2003) Communities in Control: Public Services and Local Socialism. London: Fabian Society.

Brown, M. P. (1993) ‘The Possibility of Local Autonomy’, Urban Geography, 13 (3), 257–79.

Butler, D., Adonis, A. and Travers, T. (1994) Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Byrne, T. (1992) Local Government in Britain, Fifth edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Chandler, J. (1988) Public Policy Making for Local Government. London: Croom-Helm.

Clark, G. L. (1984) ‘A Theory of Local Autonomy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 195–208.

374 LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

Cockburn, C. (1977) The Local State. London: Pluto Press.

Corry, D. and Stoker, G. (2002) New Localism: Refashioning the Centre–Local Relationship. London: New LocalGovernment Network.

Council of Europe (1985) ‘European Charter of Local Self-Government’,http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/122.htm.

DeFilippis, J. (1999) ‘Alternatives to the “New Urban Politics”: Finding Locality and Autonomy in LocalEconomic Development’, Political Geography, 18, 973–90.

DETR (1998) Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, Cmnd 4014. London: Stationery Office.

DTLR (2001) Strong Local Leadership: Quality Public Services, Cmnd 5327. London: Stationery Office.

Goldsmith, M. (1986) ‘Managing the Periphery in a Period of Fiscal Stress’, in M. Goldsmith (ed.), NewResearch in Central–Local Relations. Aldershot: Gower, pp. 152–74.

Goldsmith, M. (1995) ‘Autonomy and City Limits’, in D. Judge, G. Stoker and H. Wolman (eds), Theo-ries of Urban Politics. London: Sage, pp. 228–52.

Gurr, T. and King, D. (1987) The State and the City. London: Macmillan.

Hale, R. (2001) ‘Tightening the Reins?’, Local Government Chronicle, 2 February, p. 13.

Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy, Second edition. Cambridge: Polity.

Hill, D. (1974) Democratic Theory and Local Government. London: Allen & Unwin.

Jones, G. and Stewart, J. (1983) The Case for Local Government. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jones, G. and Stewart, J. (2003) ‘Central–Local Relations since the Layfield Report’, in P. Carmichael andA. Midwinter (eds), Regulating Local Authorities: Emerging Patterns of Central Control. London: Frank Cass,pp. 7–28.

King, D. and Stoker, G. (eds) (1996) Rethinking Local Democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Kröger, T. (1996) ‘The Dilemma of Municipalities: Scandinavian Approaches to Child Day-Care Provi-sion’, Journal of Social Policy, 26 (4), 485–507.

Lake, R. W. (1994) ‘Negotiating Local Autonomy’, Political Geography,13 (5), 423–42.

Layfield Committee (1976) Local Government Finance, Cmnd 6453. London: HMSO.

Leach, R. and Percy-Smith, J. (2001) Local Governance in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Leigh, I. (2000) Law, Politics and Local Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

‘Localism Crosses the Police Line’ (2003) Local Government Chronicle, 20 June, p. 8.

Loughlin, M. (1996) ‘The Constitutional Status of Local Government’, in L. Pratchett and D. Wilson (eds),Local Democracy and Local Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 38–61.

Lowndes, V. (2003) ‘Between Rhetoric and Reality: Does the 2001 White Paper Reverse the Centralis-ing Trend in Britain’, Local Government Studies, 28 (3), 135–47.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (eds) (1992) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1991) Considerations on Representative Government [1861]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page, E. (1982) ‘The Values of Local Autonomy’, Local Government Studies, July/August, 21–42.

Page, E. (1991) Localism and Centralism in Europe: The Political and Legal Bases of Local Self-Government.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page, E. and Goldsmith, M. J. (eds) (1987) Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysisof West European Unitary States. London: Sage.

Parry, G., Moyser, G. and Day, N. (1992) Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pattie, C., Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2002) ‘Does Good Citizenship Make a Difference?’, paper presentedat the annual conference of EPOP, University of Salford, 13–15 September,http://www.shef.ac.uk/politics/citizenaudit/publications.htm.

Phillips, A. (1996) ‘Why Does Local Democracy Matter?’, in L. Pratchett and D. Wilson (eds), Local Democ-racy and Local Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 20–37.

Pierre, J. (1990) ‘Assessing Local Autonomy’, in D. S. King and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to Local Government. London: Sage, pp. 37–54.

Pratchett, L. (ed.) (1999) Renewing Local Democracy? The Modernisation Agenda in British Local Government.London: Frank Cass.

THE ‘NEW LOCALISM’ 375

Pratchett, L. (2002) ‘Local Government: From Modernisation to Consolidation’, Parliamentary Affairs, 55(2), 331–46.

Pratchett, L. and Leach, S. (2003) ‘Local Government: Selectivity and Diversity’, Parliamentary Affairs, 56(2), 255–69.

Rao, N. (2000) Reviving Local Democracy: New Labour, New Politics. Bristol: Polity.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1981) Control and Power in Central–Local Government Relations. Aldershot: Gower.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1988) Beyond Westminster and Whitehall. London: Unwin Hyman.

Richards, S. (1996) ‘Town Halls Want Control, Not Cash’, New Statesman, 126 (4323), 30–2.

Rose, L. E. (1990) ‘Nordic Free-Commune Experiments: Increased Local Autonomy or Continued CentralControl’, in D. S. King and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to Local Government. London: Sage, pp. 212–41.

Saunders, P. (1984) ‘Rethinking Local Politics’, in M. Boddy and C. Fudge (eds), Local Socialism? London:Macmillan, pp. 22–48.

Saunders, P. (1986) ‘Reflections on the Dual Politics Thesis’, in M. Goldsmith and S. Villadsen (eds),Urban Political Theory and the Management of Fiscal Stress. Farnborough: Gower, pp. 1–40.

Saward, M. (2003) ‘Enacting Democracy’, Political Studies, 51 (1), 161–79.

Sharpe, L. J. (1970) ‘Theories and Values of Local Government’, Political Studies, 18 (2), 153–74.

Stewart, J. (2003) Modernising British Local Government: An Assessment of Labour’s Reform Programme. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoker, G. (1991) The Politics of Local Government, Second edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Stoker, G. (1996a) ‘Introduction: Normative Theories of Local Government and Local Democracy’, in D.King and G. Stoker (eds), Rethinking Local Democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 1–27.

Stoker, G. (1996b) ‘Redefining Local Democracy’, in L. Pratchett and D. Wilson (eds), Local Democracyand Local Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 188–209.

Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002) Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Tocqueville, A. de (1968) Democracy in America [1835]. London: Fontana.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and Equality. Cambridge MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Vries, M. de (2000) ‘The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis of Arguments andPractices in European Countries’, European Journal of Political Research, 38, 193–224.

Walker, D. (2002) In Praise of Centralism: A Critique of the New Localism. London: Catalyst Forum.

Weir, S. and Beetham, D. (1999) Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain. London: Routledge.

Wilson, D. (2003) ‘Unravelling Control Freakery: Redefining Central–Local Government Relations’,British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5 (3), 317–46.

Wilson, D. and Game, C. (2002) Local Government in the United Kingdom, Third edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wolman, H. and Goldsmith, M. (1990) ‘Local Autonomy as a Meaningful Analytic Concept’, Urban AffairsQuarterly, 26 (1), 3–27.