Rethinking City-Regionalism As the Production of New Non-State Spatial Strategies: the Case of Peel Holdings Atlantic Gateway Strategy

51(11) 2315–2335, August 2014 Special issue article: City-region governance, 10 years on

Rethinking City-regionalism as the Production of New Non-State Spatial Strategies: The Case of Peel Holdings Atlantic Gateway Strategy

John Harrison

[Paper first received, March 2012; in final form, July 2012]

Abstract City-regions are widely recognised as key to economic and social revitalisation. Hardly surprising then is how policy elites have sought to position their own city-regions strategically within international circuits of capital accumulation. Typically this geopolitics of city-regionalism has been seen to represent a new governmentalised remapping of state space conforming to the prevailing orthodoxy of neoliberal state spatial restructuring. Through a case study of the Atlantic Gateway Strategy, this paper provides a lens on to an alternative vision for city-region development. The brainchild of a private investment group, Peel Holdings, the Atlantic Gateway is important because it points towards the production of new non-state spatial strategies. Examining Peel’s motives for invoking the city-region concept, the paper goes on to explore the tensions which currently surround the strategy to further identify the potential and scope for non-state spatial strategies. Connecting this to emerging debates around the key role of asset ownership and the privatisation of local democracy and the democratic state, the paper concludes by suggesting that the key question arising is can and will the state maintain its degree of governmental control over capital investment in major urban regions in an era where persistent underprovision of investment in urban economic infrastructure behoves institutions of the state to become ever more reliant on private investment groups to deliver the deliver the jobs, growth and regeneration of the future.

Organization is at the center of attempts to The problem is one of conceptualizing the defend, enhance the interests of those depen- relation between place-specific interests and dent on some particular place-specific power centres. Both have scalar expressions, conditions—to defend or enhance a space of and those with interests have powers (Cox, dependence (Cox, 1998, p. 15). 2010, p. 219).

John Harrison is in the Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Martin Hall Building, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. Email: [email protected].

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online Ó 2013 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098013493481 Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2316 JOHN HARRISON

Introduction: City-regions as England is a vivacious setting within which Political Constructs to pursue city-regional research owing to the smorgasbord of initiatives, policies, stra- Amid globalisation, city-regions are widely tegies and institutional frameworks which recognised as key to economic and social have been summoned up by policy elites in revitalisation. In fact, orthodoxy has devel- recent years to operate across a variously oped around the belief that city-region- defined, city-regional scale (Harrison, 2012). scaled spatial agglomerations are the pivotal This hive of city-regional activity is sympto- social and political-economic formations in matic of how devising new—generally the era of globalised capital accumulation accepted to mean more flexible, networked (Scott, 2001). This is derived from geo- and responsive—forms of planning and gov- economic arguments which confer upon ernance at the scale of city-regions has city-regions the status of competitive terri- ascended to become an officially institutio- tories par excellence. In this respect, we nalised task for political strategists and should not be surprised that policy elites policy elites the world over (OECD, 2007). have looked enviously upon these major Yet for all of the international support, fer- urban and regional growth economies and, vent posturing and triumphalism being captivated by their position at the apex of marshalled by those advocating city-regions the post-Fordist growth dynamic, have as the ‘‘ideal scale for policy intervention in sought to position their own city-regions aglobalizedworld’’(Rodrı´guez-Pose, 2008, strategically within international circuits of p. 1029), critics ultimately believe a ‘thin’ capital accumulation by creating the condi- approach is being adopted (Harrison, 2007; tions necessary to attract transnational Jonas and Ward, 2007). In England, for capital (Brenner, 2009). Accordingly, city- example, the lack of a coherent master plan regionalism no longer refers simply to the has resulted in a set of ‘‘reactionary and geo-economics of city-regions but is incremental adjustments that lack strategic increasingly focused on what Jonas (2012, direction, buy-in and focus’’ (Ayres and p. 823) calls the ‘‘contingently produced Stafford, 2009, p. 619). Stated more bluntly, geopolitical project’’ of late capitalism. initiatives branded as city-regional have pro- From this perspective, emphasis is rightly duced nothing more than a patchwork quilt placed on the need to analyse new modes of assorted, weak and often contradictory of governance and political participation at and overlapping initiatives that have failed the city-region level, alongside the distribu- to live up to expectation. Nonetheless, a tional struggles within city-regions which decade on the enduring appeal of city- shape city-regional institutions and politics. regions remains undiminished among policy Only by doing this, it is argued, can we elites. come to understand ‘‘the contested role of To be sure, the allure of city-regionalism city-regions’’ and as a consequence better as a geopolitical project was embellished in ‘‘theorize capital–state–space relations’’ 2010 when the new Coalition government (Jonas, 2012, p. 827). announced the abolition of the regional tier Notwithstanding the fact that each geo- of governance in England, declaring their political project is specific to the national intention instead to establish Local context within which it is located (Jonas, Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)—joint local 2013), this paper focuses on recent develop- authority–business bodies supporting local ments in England to enunciate further the economic development by operating across geopolitical construction of city-regions. ‘functional economies’: city-regions in

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2317 other words (HM Government, 2010; BIS/ million and an economy worth upwards of DCLG, 2010). Today, the map of local and £50 billion (gross value added) per annum, regional economic development in England the Atlantic Gateway is England’s largest is divided into a mosaic of 39 sub-national economic metropolitan area outside units (LEPs), each bearing some, little, or London and has the critical mass necessary no resemblance to city-regions. Yet despite to (at least) be considered a ‘global’ city- the change in political orientation at the region (Scott, 2001). Yet it remains one of centre of UK politics, there is little chance the most socially and economically to celebrate. Early indications suggest only polarised. Four of the seven districts with minimal change to the trajectory or fabric the highest local concentration of depriva- of the city-regionalism project in England tion in England (eight out of the top ten if you include areas within 20 miles of the [Despite being] launched with similar ‘can- Atlantic Gateway) and three of the four dis- do’ business and community empowerment tricts with the highest overall levels of depri- bravado, LEPs are likely to fail. Their modus vation are contained within it (DCLG, operandi involves rolling forward existing 2011a). centrally-orchestrated policy regimes, deploy- In an era of state underprovision— ing limited levers and mechanisms to influ- certainly relative to the investment in ence the business community, and ultimately infrastructure and state subsidy that once being unable to correct deep-rooted market characterised the Fordist/Keynesian state— failures (Jones and Jessop, 2010, p. 1144; the Atlantic Gateway represents an impor- emphasis added). tant window onto what may ultimately turn out to be the next stage of city-regionalism So despite the allure of city-regionalism as as a geopolitical project (see Jonas, 2012, a geopolitical project in England, as else- 2013). To develop this argument, the paper where, there remains limited hope that it begins by situating the AGS within the will achieve the ambitious goals—growth broader framework of how city-regionalism and competitiveness, meaningful economic has emerged as a geopolitical project in prosperity, expected affluence, ability to England. This is important because it shows tackle entrenched inequalities, scope to how the AGS is unusual in that its genesis encourage smart planning, enable piece- occurred outside the formal structures of meal democratic rights—that its academic the state—what, following and extending and non-academic architects and propo- Brenner (2004), we might conceive to be a nents purport.1 new non-state spatial strategy. More sub- Launched in 2008, the Atlantic Gateway stantively, it goes on to raise important Strategy (AGS) provides a radical alternative questions about the changing nature of the to the prevailing orthodoxy of neoliberal state, in particular the role of the state in state spatial restructuring and governmenta- regulating local and regional development lised remappings of state space which have when key assets (for example, land, infra- characterised previous, and indeed current, structure) and contracts for service delivery city-region initiatives in the UK. The brain- previously the preserve of government (for child of Peel Holdings, a private investment example, health, education, local govern- company, the AGS is a bold and unique ment) are owned increasingly by non-state vision which aims to establish Liverpool– private industry actors. Rethinking city- Manchester as a globally competitive urban regionalism along these lines, section 3 then area. Encompassing a population of six draws on Cox’s (1998) distinction between

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2318 JOHN HARRISON spaces of dependence and spaces of engage- development and planning issues (HM ment to analyse the motivation and ratio- Treasury, 2009); Local Enterprise nale for Peel constructing the Atlantic Partnerships (HM Government, 2010; BIS/ Gateway spatial concept, before section 4 DCLG, 2010); and, most recently, Economic reveals how and why Peel are invoking the Prosperity Boards and Combined Autho- city-region concept and the tensions which rities in areas where there is demand for a currently surround the Atlantic Gateway single formal metropolitan administrative initiative as Peel seek to defend and enhance authority to replace a range of single-purpose their interests in the region. The final sec- joint boards and quangos (DCLG, 2010).2 tion concludes with some broader reflections Alongside the global appeal to city- on what an analysis of the Atlantic Gateway regions (see Herrschel, 2013; Segbers, 2007; initiative can contribute to our understand- Vogel et al., 2010; Xu and Yeh, 2010), a clear ings of city-regionalism as a geopolitical policy rationale underscores endeavours to project of late capitalism, and the produc- construct these new institutional structures, tion of new non-state spatial strategies more infrastructures, territorialities, statutory fra- generally. meworks and supports in England. There are at least five broad agendas that warrant mention. First, indicative of Rodrı´guez-Pose City-regionalism: England’s and Gill’s (2003) axiom on devolution,3 pre- magic bullet? vious initiatives championed as devolving activity to sub-national tiers of government It is now over 10 years since Is there a ‘miss- devolved responsibilities but failed to ing middle’ in English governance? (NLGN, empower those institutions with meaningful 2000) became the antecedent to a resurgent resource, ensuring England remains highly interest in city-regions as spaces for sub- centralised (particularly in relation to national planning and governance in Scotland and Wales where greater resource England. Against the backdrop of ascending was devolved). Secondly, persistent and city-region orthodoxy, the case for new increasing gaps in the growth rates between planning and governance arrangements regions place increased pressure on the cen- resulted in a host of initiatives, including: tral state to be seen taking measures to reba- the Sustainable Communities Plan, which lance the economy.4 Thirdly, accelerated identified cross-regional growth areas in urbanisation in the latter half of the 20th south-east England (ODPM, 2003); Making century has left cities in England under- it Happen: The Northern Way, a growth bounded. Manchester, for instance, has a strategy centred around eight interacting, metropolitan population in excess of 2.5 yet hierarchically differentiated, city- million yet the local government boundary regions (ODPM, 2004; NWSG, 2004); means that only an area containing 450,000 Economic Development Companies, city- residents is under the direct influence of the or city-region-wide development compa- city authority. nies formed to drive economic growth and Following on from this, fourthly, rela- regeneration (DCLG, 2006a); Multi-area tions between those local authorities oper- Agreements, bringing together local authori- ating within a functional economic area or ties to enable more effective cross-boundary metropolitan landscape have generally working (DCLG, 2006b); Statutory City- resulted in more municipal competition Regions, enabling increased responsibility than collaboration. The UK government’s and financial flexibility over economic measuring of local authority performance

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2319 exclusively by the services delivered within was required’’ (DCLG, 2007, p. 3); and in their authority means that traditionally the broadest sense, this was to be guided by there has been little or no incentive to the need (for political elites) to respond to co-ordinate service delivery across the city- the five barriers preventing effective sub- region. One area where cross-border colla- national governance outlined earlier.5 boration and policy integration is emerging, Swept along by a wave of international however, is in spatial planning and this is support,6 city-regionalism appeared as the fifth point. Recognising that growth is England’s magic bullet for its urban and being constrained by the formal territorial regional ills. For a period of two or three structures of the state, spatial planning is years, city-regions were the fashionable increasingly conducted through new inter- concept, the newfangled ‘must have’ strat- regional initiatives in what are termed ‘soft egy for policy elites. The Northern Way spaces’ (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009; (and its offspring, the Midlands Way Harrison and Growe, 2012; Heley, 2013). and Regional Cities East), Economic Established as part of the 2003 Sustainable Development Companies and Multi-area Communities Plan, Thames Gateway in Agreements were all launched during this south-east England is often put forward as period. Government departments commis- an exemplar, showcasing how these soft sioned report after report (ODPM, 2006; planning spaces are requiring new policy DCLG, 2006a); their Ministers eulogised at and governance arrangements as they do length about how city-regions were driving not share boundaries with other statutory forward competitiveness (Kelly, 2006); and bodies (Allmendinger and Haughton, academic and policy think-tanks went into 2009). overdrive producing a corpus of pamphlets Now on reflection many of these policy and sound bites for both political and pop- agendas are not unique to England, although ular consumption (Centre for Cities, 2006; some clearly do appear more pronounced in Institute of Public Policy Research, 2006; England than in other contexts. What makes LGA, 2005; NLGN, 2005). England somewhat exceptional, and perti- Nevertheless, while it is widely accepted nent to researching city-regionalism as a that England is seeking greater engagement geopolitical project, is the trigger which with city-regionalism as a geopolitical proj- thrust these policy agendas into sharper ect, contradictions exist in policies aimed at focus. The trigger to which inference is made increasing the institutional capacity of city- is the ill-fated plans of the previous Labour regions. The first of these is the geography of government to establish a regional tier of city-regionalism. Various empirical studies government in England (1997–2004). In suggest that city-regions, as politically con- what would have marked the insertion (or structed, do not conform to mappings of the more accurately, the beginning thereof) of new urban economy which map city-regions the final piece of the devolution and consti- according to labour market analysis, travel- tutional change jigsaw, the rejection on 4 to-work areas and so on (Harrison, 2010). November 2004 of plans to establish the first The second is mission creep. This has seen elected regional assembly in North East policies launched as ‘city-regional’ become England provided a watershed moment for wider in scope as elected politicians open sub-national governance in England. The them up to all areas (those excluded or are importance attached to this event is three- on the fringes of city-regionalism) by fram- fold: it derailed the regional agenda; consen- ing them as ‘sub-regional’ (Harrison, 2012). sus suggested that ‘‘a new regional policy Third is the ambivalence of the central state.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2320 JOHN HARRISON

Evident from points one and two, that economic, let alone city-regional, area. For city-regionalism was then to disappear from in spite of the economic boosterism which the political radar during 2007–08 was fur- accompanied their launch, the starting- ther indication of how this project was not a point for most individual LEPs was political government priority. This was despite the not economic. The result is sub-regional, as UK government launching a major review opposed to city-regional, functional eco- of sub-national economic development and nomic areas averaging populations of just regeneration in this period which from ini- 1.5 million. One might therefore imagine tially stating a desire to respond, in part, to that if LEPs were being constructed from the city-region agenda ultimately provided established political power structures (for only a limited, somewhat implicit endorse- example, counties, sub-regions) they would ment of city-regions (HM Treasury et al., be coherent spaces but, according to the 2007). The lack of tangibly ‘new’ institutions Secretary of State for Business, Innovation is fourth. Many so-called new institutions and Skills, Vince Cable, most proposals (and by implication their outlook) were not were ‘‘hopelessly fragmented’’ (quoted in in fact new but scalar amplifications or con- Carpenter, 2010). Fragmentation was also a tractions of previous entities (Lord, 2009). theme picked up recently by Pain (2011a) Finally, fifth, the state (in and through its in her analysis of England’s primary func- territorial/scalar configuration) retains the tional economy—the London (mega) city- key role in orchestrating how city-regional- region—where she argues that governance ism is geo-politically constructed. will now be considerably ‘weaker’ and frag- Although containing a number of impor- mented with 12 LEPs now operating across tant policy tensions and political contradic- this area rather than the three sets of tions, there is, however, growing political regional institutions in the period of recognition that city-regions remain impor- regionalism which preceded it. tant for implementing many of the UK’s General ambivalence is also evident. A core economic, social and public policies, report produced by the consultants SQW and also empowering communities therein. (2011, p. 6) claimed that business involve- Plans to establish statutory city-regions ment in preparing bids was ‘‘in general, (HM Treasury, 2009) and elected mayors in thin’’ and ‘‘unsurprising given the difficulty England’s major provincial cities (that is, those of marshalling the business community to cities at the heart of major urban regions) engage in a process that—from their (DCLG, 2011b), the decision in Wales to com- perspective—could have seemed abstract mission a City Regions Taskforce (Welsh and of no immediate consequence’’. Added Assembly Government, 2012) and the estab- to this, the UK government has been slow to lishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships resource LEPs. Nonetheless, the fact that (LEPs) in England all point to this. Yet what if there are now 39 LEPs, covering all but one anything is new in this second phase of city- local authority in England, suggests that regionalism? To answer this, let us briefly there has not been complete ambivalence. reflect on the establishment of LEPs. Yet this overlooks one key factor. LEPs are While undoubtedly much is being made the Coalition government’s preferred model of the UK Coalition government’s cham- for the governance of sub-national eco- pioning of LEPs, the early signs offer little nomic development, which for want of a scope for enthusiasm.7 Of the 39 partner- better description means they are the ‘only ships approved, very few can justifiably show in town’. To put it simply, there is claim to be working across a functional nothing much that is new in the proposals

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2321 for LEPs that was not on offer to local areas the establishment of LEPs), it seeks to through previous initiatives (for example, provide a single governance arrange- Multi-area Agreements). However, where ment to work across England’s second- there was limited take-up of the opportuni- largest economic urban region. ties to work across this geography when offered under voluntary conditions by the In this way the Atlantic Gateway Strategy previous Labour government, the Coalition presents an alternative vision of city- government’s abolition of the regional tier regionalism as a geopolitical project. Yet it of governance and the loss of resource for also poses a series of searching questions sub-national economic development this about what an alternative city-regionalism brought about, left areas with little option might amount to, not least of which is the but to engage. Although never presented as motivation for private investors such as Peel such, this obligation and the fact the gov- now to embark on such an initiative. It is to ernment retained the power to decide which these questions the paper now turns. LEPs were approved ensured that this exer- cise had all the hallmarks of neoliberal state spatial restructuring through a new govern- Introducing Atlantic Gateway: The mentalised remapping of state space. It is ‘Thames Gateway of the North’ hardly surprising that many commentators have been quick to suggest that LEPs are The Atlantic Gateway is the result of 25 years ‘destined for oblivion’ (Walker, 2012). of investment in infrastructure, transport What makes the Atlantic Gateway initia- and real estate, predominantly, although not tive stand out is that on first viewing it is not exclusively, in the North West region of many of the things outlined earlier England. In 1971, John Whittaker established the foundations of today’s company (1) The contrivance of private investors, when he acquired Peel Mills. Having then the Atlantic Gateway is not centrally acquired another textile business in John orchestrated by the state but genuinely Bright and Brothers the company was business-led—a new non-state spatial launched on the London Stock Exchange as strategy in the making. Peel Holding PLC in 1981. This was soon (2) Covering an area of 6 million residents followed in 1983 by the acquisition of and an economy worth £50 billion per Bridgewater Estates and its land portfolio of annum it has the critical mass to be an 18.75 square km in and around Manchester agglomeration economy a` la Scott’s and Salford, before in 1987 the Manchester (2001) notion of the global city-region. Ship Canal (a 36-mile-long inland port) was (3) It does not map onto known political added to Peel’s portfolio. Expansion into or administrative units, but has fuzzy retail came in 1996 when work began on boundaries. building the Trafford Centre (opened 1998), (4) It offers something distinctly ‘new’—it a 2 million square feet retail space which is not a scalar amplification or contrac- now attracts over 30 million visitors per tion of previous entities. annum. Soon after, Peel expanded into (5) The promise of a £50 billion investment transport with the part, then full, acquisition suggests that it is well-resourced. of Liverpool (John Lennon) Airport between (6) Contra the fragmentation of govern- 1997 and 2000. Reverting back to a private ance arrangements across England’s company in 2004, the acquisition in 2005 of largest urban economic regions (with The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2322 JOHN HARRISON made Peel the second-largest ports group in launched as an alternative vision of city- the UK. Then in 2007 Peel began developing regionalism as a geopolitical project and a the largest purpose-built media community new non-state spatial strategy. in Europe—MediaCityUK in Salford Quays. To understand this, we need first to Alongside all of this, Peel Energy generates recognise two distinct, yet at the same time 3GW of electricity from low-carbon energy related, components which underscore sources, enough to power 3 million homes Peel’s launching in September 2008 of (more than the number in the Atlantic Ocean Gateway. In the first instance, Ocean Gateway). Peel’s latest initiative is its pro- Gateway amounts to Peel’s company vision posed £50 billion co-ordinated cross-sector (looking to 2050) for how a planned £50 bil- investment strategy known as the Atlantic lion investment programme in 50 of its Gateway. most significant projects will shape the long- term future of the company. It should not Peel’s Vision: Company Vision becomes be underestimated that Ocean Gateway pro- Spatial Vision vides Peel with a platform to showcase their projects, thereby raising their profile The Atlantic Gateway concept was first (regionally, nationally and internationally) launched on 5 September 2008, albeit at and contributing to the future success of the inception it was referred to as ‘Ocean company. Yet alongside Peel’s company Gateway’. In both its original and later vision, Ocean Gateway also constitutes a guises, Ocean Gateway and Atlantic metropolitan spatial vision. The result of Gateway present Peel’s vision for raising over 25 years investment in an ever-expand- the international profile of the Liverpool– ing portfolio of activity across the real estate, Manchester urban corridor and capitalising transport and infrastructure, leisure, retail, on its economic potential as a ‘‘global media and energy sectors in the North West growth opportunity’’ to become a ‘‘globally region, each of Peel’s 50 Ocean Gateway competitive urban area’’ (Peel Group, 2010a, projects is located in close proximity to the p. 2). Glance through the three prospectuses 35-mile River Mersey and Manchester Ship and two technical reports produced by Peel Canal gateway corridor connecting two between November 2008 and October 2009 urban cores (Liverpool and Manchester)—a and unsurprisingly what you see are all the point reinforced by the initial vision of the hallmarks of economic boosterism and the Ocean Gateway spatial concept pictured on hegemonic discourse of urban and regional the front cover of all Ocean Gateway outputs competitiveness in action. Indicative of this put into the public domain during this is the stated vision for the Ocean Gateway period to demonstrate the localised geography of these 50 projects.8 To maximise the potential of the North West as a globally significant region, using the Peel’s Motives: From Space of Dependence Ocean Gateway as an economic powerhouse to Space of Engagement and environmental asset to enhance, strengthen and bring together the Liverpool Connecting the two visions is this recogni- and Manchester City Regions (Peel Group, tion that Peel’s company vision is, by virtue 2009, p. 2). of its geography, a sub-regional metropolitan spatial strategy. Yet it goes further than However, where the real interest lay is in this: for the extent of Peel’s existing portfo- how Ocean (Atlantic) Gateway came to be lio, which sees them control many of the

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2323 region’s prime economic assets (across the essential interests and for which there are no real estate, transport and infrastructure, lei- substitutes elsewhere; they define place-spe- sure, retail, media and energy sectors), the cific conditions for our material well being fact they are now one of the major land- and our sense of significance. These spaces owners in the area and the proposed level are inserted in broader sets of relationships of investment into this urban area have all of a more global character and these con- made Peel one of the most powerful politi- stantly threaten to undermine or dissolve cal voices in the region. One important them. People, firms, state agencies, etc., orga- consequence of this is Peel’s vision majorly nise in order to secure the conditions for the impacts the spatial visions developed by continued existence of their spaces of depen- other governmental structures, in both stat- dence but in so doing have to engage with utory and non-statutory strategies, operat- other centres of social power: local governing within or across the area now defined ment, the national press, perhaps the inter- by Peel’s Ocean Gateway spatial concept. national press, for example. In so doing they This is no coincidence. Echoing earlier construct a different form of space which I debates on the governance of cities and city call here a space of engagement: the space in politics through the formation of territorial which the politics of securing a space of alliances (see Cox, 1993), Ocean Gateway dependence unfolds (Cox, 1998, p. 2; signified a carefully thought out strategy by emphasis added). Peel to actively engage and use their growing influence to enrol other state/non-state Following this line of argument, what I actors operating outside the locality (at want to suggest here is that Peel’s company regional, national and international scales) vision (the 50 Ocean Gateway projects) can to defend, expand and enhance their corpo- be seen as representing their space of rate interests in and through the formation dependence, and the spatial vision (the of a ‘new’ metropolitan regime or metro- Ocean Gateway spatial concept) their space politan growth coalition. More to the point, of engagement. What thinking like this what Ocean Gateway has is all the hallmarks alerts us to is, on the one hand, if city- of Cox’s (1998) erudite conceptualisation regionalism has for the past decade been of the distinction between ‘spaces of depen- conceptualised as part of the state’s spatial dence’ and ‘spaces of engagement’, its con- strategy to enable it to govern (certainly nection to the politics of scale and the true for England), conceptualisation of search for local urban politics—a problem alternative visions of city-regionalism as a recently revisited by Cox in the context of geopolitical project must be cognisant of metropolitan governance (Cox, 2010, the fact that space is constructed in order 2011). to defend, enable certain essential interests While it is now some time since Cox first to be realised—in the case of the Ocean made this distinction, his heuristic remains Gateway spatial concept, this is Peel’s cor- one of the most powerful explanatory tools porate interest in the future of 50 of their available for conceptualising the political most strategically important sites/projects. construction of spatial scales, and it is worth On the other hand, it points us towards the quoting at length potential for tension and struggle between those constructing the space of engagement Spaces of dependence are defined by those and the other centres of social power they more-or-less localized social relations upon have to engage in order to enable certain which we depend for the realization of essential interests to be realised. For quite

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2324 JOHN HARRISON simply this is where the politics (of city- (especially transport and infrastructure) regionalism) unfolds, determining what is have brought with it a stronger political possible and what is not (Cox, 2010). voice. One illustration of the way this polit- Yet while this heuristic is useful in pro- ical voice has been fostered is the strength- viding the broad framework, more detailed ening relationship between Peel and the analysis needs to be undertaken to account Northwest Regional Development Agency for why Peel sought to construct the Ocean (NWDA). Established in 1999, the NWDA Gateway as a space of engagement at the was assigned statutory responsibility for time they did. In short, what triggered the producing and implementing the North launch of Ocean Gateway in October 2008? West’s Regional Economic Strategy (RES). A number of possible reasons emerge, all Overseeing a regional economy worth £119 centred around a notion that Peel had billion per annum, the RES focused on reached a tipping point. The first sees Peel developing the region’s key sites and assets, branching out from the North West region with particular focus on those old indus- with a clear aim being to raise their profile trial areas in need of investment to regener- and influence at national and international ate brownfield land. The issue for the scales. This can be seen through their NWDA was that their annual budget never investment in flagship national projects (for exceeded £450 million and, among others, example, MediaCityUK in 2007), the pur- Peel controlled many of the key sites and chase of Clydeport (2003) and The Mersey assets identified within the RES. What this Docks and Harbour Company (2005) to meant was that for the NWDA to imple- make Peel the second-largest ports group in ment the RES, and by implication achieve the UK, and acquiring in 2011 of a control- their centrally imposed targets (for exam- ling interest in the global film and television ple, number of jobs created or safeguarded, studio operation, Pinewood Shepperton businesses created, hectares of brownfield Studios. Alongside this, Peel have been land remediated), they relied on investment expanding their influence by allowed companies such as Peel to be the delivery Vancouver Airport Services (now Vantage agents. Simply put, as Peel’s portfolio of Airport Group) to acquire 65 per cent of land and assets expanded during this Peel Airports Ltd in 2010, and selling the period—especially into different sectors of Trafford Centre in return for a 20 per cent the economy—the influence they were able stake in Capital Shopping Centres Ltd (who to exert over the NWDA grew immeasur- control four of the six top shopping centres ably. Uniting to form a new governing alli- nationally)9 and the appointment of Peel’s ance, Peel’s influence within the NWDA Chairman, John Whittaker, as its Deputy was affirmed in December 2007 when Chairman in 2011. Most recent of all, 2012 Robert Hough, previously Deputy has seen Peel sign an international trade Chairman of Peel Holdings and an agreement with a Chinese investment Executive Director for over 13 years, was group to construct the Peel International appointed Chair of the NWDA, replacing Trade Centre as part of Peel Waters £10 bil- Bryan Gray, who exactly one year later lion investment in the regeneration of the came to be Chair of Peel Media. Mersey docks. Building on from this, thirdly, the Secondly, with over 25 years of invest- announcement in July 2007 that the Labour ment along the Liverpool–Manchester government planned to abolish Regional urban corridor Peel’s landownership of Assemblies in England and transfer their prime sites and control of major assets statutory responsibility for producing the

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2325 region’s spatial strategy to Regional And finally, fifthly, it would be wrong not Development Agencies—as part of plans to to mention the loss of state subsidy to the develop Integrated Regional Strategies— Gateway region resulting from a major reduc- opened up a new opportunity for Peel to tion in European Regional Development exert their influence over the NWDA Fund monies (due to the accession of eastern and achieve legal weight for their Ocean European countries to the EU), the 2008 eco- (Atlantic) Gateway concept. In August nomic crisis, and the 2012 abolition of 2010, Peel looked to have secured this Regional Development Agencies—although when the Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway con- the latter both came after Peel launched cept was identified by the NWDA as one of Ocean Gateway. This was very much the key its ‘key strategic priorities’ when RS2010 themeemergingfromtheNWDA(2010b) (The Integrated Regional Strategy) went press release that announced the launch of out to consultation (NWDA, 2010a). the Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway Endorsing Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway in this way would not only enable Peel to defend We all know the public purse is going to be their corporate interests from those who constrained—it will be private investment threaten to undermine or dissolve them, which will characterise the next decade but put them in a very strong bargaining (Steven Broomhead, Chief Executive, position to enable their interest in these 50 Northwest Regional Development Agency). projects to be realised. This framework . reflects the changing role Part-and-parcel of this, it must be of the public sector (Cllr John Merry, Leader remembered, is that Peel’s ambitious plans of Salford City Council and NWDA Board for further expansion are all subject to member). planning approval—and this is the fourth point. At the launch of Ocean Gateway, What is particularly pertinent about these John Whittaker made it abundantly clear in two quotes is the suggestion of a broader a speech to gathered delegates that Peel was transition, one which opens up the possibil- pushing for a special planning regime in ity that initiatives such as Atlantic (Ocean) order to streamline the planning permis- Gateway will become commonplace— sion process perhaps even indicative of a second stage of city-regionalism as a geopolitical project of late Ocean Gateway should have its own plan- capitalism (see Jonas, 2012, 2013)? What is ning regime led by the regional development certain, however, is that initiatives such as agency and the local authorities so we can Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway open the way to a overcome individual authority objections whole new politics of city-regionalism centred (quoted in Barry, 2008). upon new metropolitan alliances and regimes.

Framed very much in the context of enabling Tensions around the Atlantic Peel (and other investors) to accelerate the Gateway delivery of major infrastructure projects and job creation initiatives for the areas repre- From Ocean Gateway to Atlantic Gateway: sented by the gathered delegates, it did not Reconstructing the Space of Engagement10 escape the attention of those present that this was to the explicit benefit of Peel’s cor- Part-and-parcel of constructing their space porate expansionist plans. of engagement, a month after Ocean

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2326 JOHN HARRISON

Gateway was launched Peel met with the Regions: Framework for a Global Growth Department for Communities and Local Opportunity appearing on the second ver- Government and HM Treasury (finance sion (circulated on 12 February) provided a ministry) in October 2008 to lobby ministers clear indication to one of the major politi- for a single planning authority model—a` la cal tensions which unfolded when con- Thames Gateway—in order to streamline structing this new spatial scale—to be, or and, by implication, speed up the planning not to be, city-regional in focus. permission process. One key outcome of Reflecting Peel’s particular interest in the this meeting, and subsequent meetings held River Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal locally within the North West region over the Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway spatial con- the next couple of months, was that for the cept started out as a transport gateway and Ocean Gateway to achieve the statutory urban corridor. In part, this recognises that, status desired by Peel through the 2010 although the Liverpool and Manchester Regional Strategy process, the Ocean economies interlock, broadly speaking they Gateway had to be developed and expanded continue to operate in isolation and inde- in such a way that it became a regionally pendent of each other. Indeed, despite his- owned product of which Peel was a key sta- tory telling us that previous commitments keholder. Engagement with other centres of to a collaborative approach between the two social power thus saw Ocean Gateway (pre- areas (including the Liverpool–Manchester dominantly Peel) morph into Atlantic Vision Study and the Liverpool–Manchester Gateway (still predominantly Peel but Concordant, both 2001) have not resulted including the addition of sites in other own- in joint strategic working or realised the ership). Quickly agreed, it nevertheless opportunities for cross-city-region policy- remained another 12 months before the making working and the wider investment Atlantic Gateway Strategy (AGS) was offi- opportunities that this might bring, there cially launched on 16 March 2010—a point remains logic in attempts to nurture and har- which suggests that the subsequent politics ness the economic potential of Liverpool– which unfolded in constructing this new Manchester. Yet in part, it also chimes with a spatial scale needed much negotiation. broader trend which has seen the ‘gateway’ and ‘corridor’ concepts re-emerge and pro- From Gateway Corridor to City-regions: vide a key focus for European spatial and A Case of Reluctant City-regionalism? planning policy (Pain, 2011b). Rather than focus on city-regions per se, what we see in Following on-going discussions, meetings the original Ocean Gateway prospectuses is and consultations which took place detailed attention towards the location of throughout 2009, it was not until the early Liverpool–Manchester on a number of Trans part of 2010 that the NWDA issued two European Transport Network (TEN-T) versions of the AGS to stakeholders and Priority Axes. But this all changes as Ocean invited final comments. Coming less than Gateway became Atlantic Gateway, and Peel’s two months before the AGS was officially endeavour to construct their space of engage- launched, the change of title from Atlantic ment saw their goal of securing statutory Gateway—Framework for a Global Growth weighting for their vision become predicated Opportunity which appeared on the first on the prominence afforded to the city- version (circulated on 18 January) to region concept. Atlantic Gateway—Accelerating Growth If we take the final Ocean Gateway pro- across the Manchester and Liverpool City spectus as our starting-point, while the

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2327 focus of attention remains very much on city-region strategies the Atlantic Gateway the concept of a transport gateway and came to be compared with other major urban corridor, the city-region concept European growth areas (notably London begins to appear as a mechanism by which and the South East, Paris Iˆle-de-France, Peel justify the Liverpool–Manchester con- Randstad and Rhoˆne-Alpes). nection. Here they are quick to point to the To understand why the AGS geography POLYNET study of Hall and Pain (2006), became compromised in this way we need which identifies Manchester as a Category 2 once again to reflect on the unfolding poli- and Liverpool a Category 5 ‘Mega City tics of Peel’s endeavour to construct their Region’, and the UK government’s 2008 space of engagement. The first point to Planning and optimal geographical levels for emphasise is that Peel’s major ally, the economic decision-making—the sub-regional NWDA, was itself a key advocate of focus- role report which shows that together, ing attention on city-regions. When in Liverpool–Manchester are one of just 13 2004, the NWDA—along with their North functional urban regions in north-west East and Yorkshire and Humberside Europe (DCLG, 2008). In addition, and for counterparts—were placed in charge of the the first time, Peel assign their 50 projects Northern Way growth strategy by the UK to three different spatial reaches—the government, the first thing they did was to Liverpool City Region (21), Manchester convert the strategy from one based on City Region (14) and Ship Canal Corridor growth corridors (one of which incidentally (15). The latter is important because what had Liverpool–Manchester as part of it) to we see in transition to the AGS is a move one focused on city-regions. Part-and- away from an urban corridor, to a hierar- parcel of reconfiguring the Northern Way chy of settlements, until finally the Atlantic was the NWDAs decision to designate three Gateway spatial concept comes to be city-regions (Liverpool, Manchester and defined and delimited according to these Central Lancashire), a process which was to three spatial reaches. This is not only evi- give future regional spatial strategy making dent in the insertion of ‘‘Accelerating a demonstrable city-region twist in the Growth across the Manchester and North West (Harrison, 2010). In this way, Liverpool City Regions’’ between the first we can see that for the NWDA to endorse and second versions of the AGS, but in the Peel’s vision in their Regional Strategy then new spatial visions which appeared on the they would have to do likewise—a point front cover of the AGS documents (depict- emphasised in the draft Regional Strategy ing a network of intercity connections which outlined the first three strategic spa- between Liverpool and Manchester, but tial priorities for the North West as: (1) also other sub-regional centres such as Manchester City Region; (2) Liverpool City Warrington and Chester). Moreover within Region; and (3) Atlantic Gateway (NWDA, the AGS, explanation of the Atlantic 2010a). Alongside this, a second point Gateway Framework is now formulated worth emphasising is how, in the process of with the Liverpool and Manchester city- preparing the new Regional Strategy, the regions as the starting-point, to which NWDA appointed SQW consultants to Peel’s 50 Ocean Gateway projects are then conduct a study and stakeholder consulta- added, to produce a spatial concept—the tion into the existence of a Manchester– Atlantic Gateway—which is an amalgama- Liverpool corridor. SQW (2009, p. 24) tion of the two spatial visions (‘city-region’ reported back that ‘‘there is no tangible plus ‘urban corridor’). And like many integrated growth corridor between the two

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2328 JOHN HARRISON core cities in the North West region’’ and investment needs to be focused on the city- stakeholders ‘‘did not recognise Atlantic regions, and not on the ‘corridor’ between . Gateway as a geography’’. Despite their Without the unequivocal focus on the central- contention that ‘‘Ocean Gateway is a reality of City Region growth, the Framework has ity’’ (Peel, 2012), the need for Peel to revisit the potential to undermine and dilute eco- the urban corridor concept in order secure nomic growth in the north west (Manchester the support of NWDA is clear to see. City Council, 2010a, p. 4). A third point is that not only did Peel have to engage with the NWDA, they also What we see in the case of Atlantic Gateway had to engage and secure the support of the then is strong parallels with classic accounts city-regions themselves. In the case of of the ‘new urban politics’ (Cox, 1993), in Liverpool, this was less problematic, in part particular the different forms urban regimes because more of Peel’s 50 projects are take depending on the structural power of located within their city-region but also, as business and the changing nature of the Pemberton and Lloyd (2011, p. 508) point local political environment. Peel’s initial out, the city-region ‘‘does not have a clear attempt to ‘bargain out’ (Stone, 1989; institutional identity and, as a consequence, Kantor et al., 1997) the terms of co-opera- no overarching city-regional governance tion for a new metropolitan governing mechanism currently exists’’ to combat coalition, principally although not exclu- Peel’s advances. In contrast, Manchester sively with the NWDA, saw them use their City Council has been the most vocal critic bargaining resources and the opportunities of the AGS, growing increasingly frustrated afforded by an increasingly dependent and exasperated by Peel’s failure to fully public sector to create a political alliance, acknowledge what they see as the primary align strategic priorities and achieve the role within the Atlantic Gateway of the political power to give the regime ‘‘power Manchester city-region. In contrast to to’’ (Stone, 1989) or the capacity to act in Liverpool, Manchester has been operating achieving economic goals set to meet the across what amounts to a city-regional geo- shared political and corporate interests of graphy for over 25 years. Ever since the pre- the regional state and Peel. It is clear to see vious Conservative government abolished how the distribution of bargaining advan- the Greater Manchester Metropolitan tages that structure encounters between the County Council in 1986, the 10 local author- public- and private-sector players operating ities have voluntarily worked together in in and across the Atlantic Gateway geogra- partnership. With an overarching city- phy have altered, a cause and effect of the region governance mechanism in place, as need to constantly renegotiate the terms of well as an economy which alone produces 52 co-operation within the regime in light of per cent of the North West’s total economic the changing political and economic condi- output of £117 billion per annum, the tions and their determinant impact on Manchester city-region had a much stronger ‘regime’ politics. vested interest in protecting its strategic Signifying the extent to which Peel seem position within the spatial priorities of the prepared to go to secure Manchester’s sup- NWDA. As if to illustrate this, just days port, and their space of dependence, Peel before the official launch, a report by the inserted ‘‘Accelerating Growth across the Manchester City Council Executive stated Manchester and Liverpool City Regions’’ bluntly how into the title of the AGS, responded to many

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2329 of the criticisms levelled at them by the City the changing politico-institutional land- Council Executive, and listed the primary scape by submitting the Atlantic Gateway objective as being ‘‘to support and accelerate spatial concept as the basis for a ‘‘private-led Manchester and Liverpool city regions’ special purposes LEP’’ (Peel, 2010b, p. ii). growth strategies’’ (Peel, 2010a, p. 4). Yet What stirred the political waters was that for all Peel’s endeavour in securing the sup- LEP bids were being prepared separately for port of key stakeholders things began to the three areas (Liverpool City Region, unravel soon after the AGS was officially Manchester City Region and Cheshire/ launched amid much fanfare on 16 March Warrington) covered by the AGS proposal, 2010. and Peel’s decision was seen locally to position them in competition with local author- Peel’s Capacity: Losing its Main Ally ities. On hearing the news, announced just three days before the government’s deadline On 22 June 2010, only a few weeks after the for proposals, Peter Smith went on to state new Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government was formed, the The bid concerns me on two levels. First, that announcement that RDAs were to be abol- they [Peel] thought it was not worthwhile ished undid much of the work Peel had talking to local authorities (in the Atlantic done to secure the support of the NWDA. Gateway economic zone); second, what will Of critical importance for Peel was the rec- they do (through a region-wide LEP) that ognition that the Regional Strategy, which couldn’t be achieved through an area-based they had worked so hard on ensuring the LEP (covering a smaller area)? (quoted in Atlantic Gateway concept appeared, would Hickey, 2010). disappear before Peel could secure the statutory weighting they cherished so much. In Manchester City Council was also quick to short, what the Coalition announcement affirm that amounted to was an erosion of the conditions by which Peel had been able to The (Manchester City Council) Executive has establish their space of engagement, by a clearly established policy position where the implication re-opening their space of Atlantic Gateway is concerned; this is not a dependence (their corporate interest in functioning economic area and while there these 50 Ocean Gateway projects) to the are some proposals contained within it which increased risks of being undermined or are likely to have merit and support at least in threatened by external forces. principle, there are other aspects of the pro- Part-and-parcel of this announcement posals which cannot be supported given the was the Coalition government’s prioritising potential to distort established sub-regional of Local Enterprise Partnerships, and their priorities (Manchester City Council, 2010b, letter issued to Local Authority Leader and p. 7). Business Leaders on 29 July 2010 requesting proposals for joint local authority–business A regional Leaders Forum was hastily con- bodies which can support local economic vened for 7 September, the day after the development by operating across ‘functional deadline for bids to government, to discuss economies’ (BIS/DCLG, 2010). Amounting Peel’s LEP proposal. The next day it was to ‘‘a total surprise’’, according to Peter widely reported that Peel had withdrawn Smith, Leader of the Association of Greater their LEP proposal, yet what was to emerge Manchester Authorities, Peel responded to in the days that followed was that Peel had

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2330 JOHN HARRISON secured approval to pursue the creation of a next stage of city-regionalism as a geo- specialist delivery vehicle which would be political project of late capitalism (see loosely accountable to the three LEPs (if Jonas, 2012, 2013). If neoliberal state spatial approved by government) and lead to the restructuring and governmentalised remap- formation of a new public–private govern- pings of state space were indicative of the ing coalition. The upshot of this is that Peel first stage, where city-regionalism is part of had successfully negotiated a new position the state’s spatial strategy to maintain its for the Atlantic Gateway, albeit one which is legitimacy for managing and regulating the ultimately much weaker than it would have post-Fordist growth dynamic, the Atlantic been had they been successful in gaining Gateway was posited as a radical alternative statutory weighting through the Regional exhibiting a different set of tendencies— Strategy process. Nevertheless, with LEPs namely, it offered something distinctly new, underresourced and facing an uncertain was orchestrated by business (so outside future (Ward and Hardy, 2012), the long- direct/indirect state control), was well game might actually play to Peel’s advan- resourced and had been designed to oper- tage, as their investment capacity once more ate across a functional urban region a` la gives them a stronger bargaining position to Scott’s (2001) global city-region concept or secure the future of the Atlantic Gateway Hall and Pain’s (2006) polycentric mega Strategy, and by implication their space of city-region concept. Moreover, it was sug- engagement. Certainly, the decision by gested that in an era of increasing state Liverpool City Region to support the Peel- underprovision in urban-economic infra- owned Liverpool Waters site for Enterprise structure and the state’s continued inability Zone status,11 following on 6 March 2012 to manage uneven development, the scope, with the granting of planning permission by calls and popularity for private investment Liverpool City Council for Peel’s £5.5 bil- companies such as Peel to invest in major lion Liverpool Waters development (after metropolitan areas could open the door to Peel threatened to walk away if objections more like-minded initiatives—that is, new led to a public inquiry) suggest that Peel’s non-state spatial strategies—in the future. desire to construct a space of engagement Certainly, this appears to chime with a and protect their commercial interests will growing body of research exploring the key continue to see them use their bargaining role of asset ownership and the implication advantages to bargain out the terms of co- therein for the future of democracy and the operation within this governing coalition, democratic state. One of a growing number set the agenda for investment and develop- of academics researching ‘post-politics’ and ment in the urban economic infrastructure the rise of the post-political urban condi- of the Liverpool–Manchester metropolitan tion (see Harrison and Hoyler, forthcom- area and manage the unfolding politics of ing), Raco’s (2012) foray into the role of city-regionalism therein. contracts and the privatisation of local democracy is proving particularly revealing in eliciting fresh insights into a world Concluding Comments: In What whereby urban-economic infrastructure, Sense a New Non-State Space? and by implication metropolitan regions, are becoming a key regulatory and invest- This paper began by suggesting that Peel’s ment space which private industry seeks Atlantic Gateway framework exhibited all increasingly to control, manage and extract the hallmarks of what might amount to the value from.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2331

What this paper has revealed, however, is for new spatial strategies (even those con- that revisiting Cox’s (1998) distinction structed outside state control), the state con- between spaces of dependence and spaces of tinues to enact a key role in orchestrating engagement is to invoke what remains one economic development. Yet perhaps the of the most powerful explanatory tools question which arises from the experience of available for conceptualising the political Peel’s attempt to construct the Atlantic construction of spatial scales generally, and Gateway is for how long the state will be able in the current political-economic climate, to maintain this degree of control in an era city-regions in particular. Cox’s heuristic where state underprovision of investment in device reveals how Peel’s company vision urban economic infrastructure behoves became a spatial vision by virtue of their 50 institutions of the state to become ever more Ocean Gateway projects being located in reliant on private investment groups to close proximity. In other words, they were deliver the jobs, growth and regeneration of never part of a city-region policy per se. the future. Rather the Atlantic (Ocean) Gateway framework (their space of engagement) was ini- Acknowledgements tially constructed in a way that served to ensure that Peel’s corporate interests (their An earlier version of this paper was presented at space of dependence) were defended and the RGS annual conference (London, September 2011). The author wishes to thank the audience enhanced as a result. Not dissimilar to how at this event for their constructive feedback, and city-regionalism as a governmentalised Lee Pugalis and three anonymous referees for remapping of state space is part of the state’s their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. spatial strategy to maintain its legitimacy for The usual disclaimers apply. managing and regulating the economy, we can see how this alternative vision of city- Funding regionalism as a geopolitical project is similarly constructed (that is, defined, delimited This research is being funded through a Regional and designated) to benefit its architects. Studies Association Early Career Grant. Parts of Yet as noted, in the case of Peel, city- the paper also draw directly from research conducted in 2011 into the establishment of Local regionalism was only engaged with reluc- Enterprise Partnerships funded by the Centre for tantly. It was only the necessity for Peel to Research in Identity, Governance, Society. engage with other centres of social power to construct their space of engagement that the Atlantic Gateway concept became city- Notes regional in its focus and construction. What 1. This is not to say that there are not exam- this alerts us to then is the role of inherited ples of successful city-region economic landscapes of state scalar organisation and development—Manchester, for example, the realisation that, even when constructed is often held up as a ‘model’ of best outside the state, economic development practice—but these remain isolated exam- ples and certainly do not add up to a coher- and investment strategies such as Peel’s ent city-region programme for sub-national Atlantic Gateway have to engage with insti- economic development. Similarly, there tutions of the state in order to construct are those who see recent government their space of engagement, and secure their announcements regarding Enterprise space of dependence. Given that inherited Zones, ‘City Deals’ and TIF (Tax Increment structures of state scalar organisation con- Financing) as new motivation within the tinue to ensure there is no blank landscape UK Coalition government for putting

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2332 JOHN HARRISON

city-regions at the forefront of economic officers, councillors, MPs, regional bodies and development initiatives in England, but representatives from government depart- again they appear to offer limited levers to ments. The findings are published in a report enable the meaningful change purported. which was presented to BIS (Harrison, 2011). 2. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go 8. Available to view at: www.peel.co.uk/proj- into detail about each of these initiatives— ects/oceangateway (last accessed, March for this, see Harrison, 2010; Shaw and 2012). Greenhalgh, 2010. 9. Incidentally, and important in the context 3. This states that of Atlantic Gateway, CSC also have a 48 per cent stake in the Arndale Centre, Although national governments would Manchester’s main city-centre shopping prefer, ceteris paribus, to devolve responsibil- complex. ities (authority) to their regional or state gov- 10. This section draws on data mainly sourced ernments with as few accompanying resources from the minutes of board meetings but as possible, the subnational governments then confirmed and expanded upon in would prefer the opposite case. The balance interview by those involved in, or close to, these discussions. between these extremes will depend upon the 11. Alongside this, there is also some opera- relative strength, or, in political terms, legiti- tional reality that dealing with one land- macy, of the two tiers of government owner is much easier. (Rodrı´guez-Pose and Gill, 2003, p. 334). References 4. Talk of pressure to rebalance the economy is perhaps less evident of late with an accep- Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2009) Soft tance that growth, wherever this is most spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagover- viable, is vital in this economic downturn nance: the new spatial planning in the Thames and there is an acceptance in some parts of Gateway, Environment and Planning A, 41, government of widening disparities. pp. 617–633. 5. Although potential solutions were put for- Ayres, S. and Stafford, I. (2009) Deal-making in ward to plug the democratic deficit still Whitehall: competing and complementary untouched following the failure to establish motives behind the review of sub-national ERAs, these were soon overtaken by the economic development and regeneration, orthodoxy surrounding city-regions and International Journal of Public Sector Man- the geoeconomic rationale for embarking agement, 22, pp. 605–622. on city-regionalism as a necessary geopoliti- Barry, C. (2008) Planning supremo seeks plan- cal project in late capitalism. ning revolution, Manchester Evening News: 6. Often referred to as being an important Business, 8 September. watershed was the 2006 OECD Review of BIS (Business, Innovation and Skills)/DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Newcastle and the North East which recom- Government) (2010) Local Enterprise Part- mended strengthening governance capacity nerships: Letter to local authority leaders and at the city-region level after condemning business leaders. BIS/CLG, London. regional structures as ‘weak’. Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban 7. This section draws on empirical research Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. conducted on Local Enterprise Partnerships Oxford: Oxford University Press. by the author during summer 2011. This Brenner, N. (2009) Open questions on state took the form of both desktop research and rescaling, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Econ- semi-structured interviews (x 25) with local omy and Society, 2, pp. 123–139. authority officials (involved in an executive Carpenter, J. (2010) LEPs picture becomes capacity, economic development, enterprise (slightly) clearer after party conferences, or regeneration), LEP Board Members and Regeneration & Renewal, 12 October.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2333

Centre for Cities (2006) Reaction to the OECD Harrison, J. (2012) Life after regions: the evolu- Review of Newcastle and the North East. Press tion of city-regionalism in England, Regional Release, Centre for Cities, 20 July. Studies, 46, pp. 1243–1259. Cox, K. (1993) The local and the global in the Harrison, J. and Growe, A. (2012) From places new urban politics: a critical review, Environ- to flows? Planning for the new ‘regional ment and Planning D, 11, pp. 433–448. world’ in Germany, European Urban and Cox, K. (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00343404. engagement and the politics of scale, or: look- 2011.644239. ing for local politics, Political Geography, 17, Harrison, J. and Hoyler, M. (forthcoming) pp. 1–23. Governing the new metropolis, Urban Stud- Cox, K. (2010) The problem of metropolitan ies. DOI: 10.1177/0042098013500699. governance and the politics of scale, Regional Heley, J. (2013) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries Studies, 44, pp. 215–227. and spatial governance in post-devolution Cox, K. (2011) Commentary: From the New Wales, International Journal of Urban and Urban Politics to the ‘New’ Metropolitan Regional Research, 37, pp. 1325–1348. Politics, Urban Studies, 48, pp. 2661–2671. Herrschel, T. (2013) Cities, State and Globaliza- DCLG (Department for Communities and Local tion: City-regional Governance in Europe and Government) (2006a) The role of city devel- North America. London: Routledge. opment companies in English cities and city Hickey, D. (2010) Developer submits North- regions. DCLG, London. West-wide LEP bid, Regeneration and DCLG (2006b) Strong and prosperous commu- Renewal, 3 September (www.regen.net/new/ nities: the local government White Paper. 102 6198/Developer-submits-North-West- DCLG, London. wide-LEP- bid). DCLG (2006c) Enabling cities in the knowledge HM Government (2010) Coalition Agreement. economy. DCLG, London. London: The Stationery Office. DCLG (2007) Is there a future for regional govern- HM Treasury (2009) Budget 2009. HM Treasury, ment? DCLG, London. London. DCLG (2008) Planning and optimal geographic HM Treasury, Department for Business, Enter- levels for economic decision making: the sub- prise and Regulatory Reform, and DCLG regional role. DCLG, London. (Department for Communities and Local DCLG (2010) Economic prosperity boards and Government) (2007) Review of sub-national combined authorities: consultation on draft economic development and regeneration.HM statutory guidance. DCLG, London. Treasury, London. DCLG (2011a) The English indices of deprivation Institute of Public Policy Research (2006) City 2010. DCLG, London. leadership: giving city-regions the power to DCLG (2011b) What can a mayor do for your city? grow. Centre for Cities, London. A consultation. London: DCLG. Jonas, A. E. G. (2012) City-regionalism: ques- Hall, P. and Pain, K. (2006) The Polycentric tions of distribution and politics, Progress in Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions Human Geography, 36(6), pp. 822–829. in Europe. London: Earthscan. Jonas, A. E. G. (2013) City-regionalism as a con- Harrison, J. (2007) From competitive regions to tingent ‘geopolitics of capitalism’, Geopolitics, competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy 18, pp. 284–298. but some old mistakes, Journal of Economic Jonas, A. E. G. and Ward, K. (2007) Introduction Geography, 7, pp. 311–332. to a debate on city-regions: new geographies Harrison, J. (2010) Networks of connectivity, ter- of governance, democracy and social repro- ritorial fragmentation, uneven development: duction, International Journal of Urban and the new politics of city-regionalism, Political Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 169–178. Geography, 29, pp. 17–27. Jones, M. and Jessop, B. (2010) Thinking state/space Harrison, J. (2011) Local enterprise partnerships. incompossibly, Antipode, 42, pp. 1119–1149. Centre for Research in Identity, Governance, Kantor, P., Savitch, H. and Vicari Haddock, S. Society, Loughborough. (1997) The political economy of urban

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 2334 JOHN HARRISON

regimes: a comparative perspective, Urban Peel Group (2010a) Atlantic Gateway: Accelerat- Affairs Review, 32, pp. 348–377. ing Growth across the Manchester and Liver- Kelly, R. (2006) Keynote speech. Core cities pool City Regions: Framework for a Global summit, Bristol, 26 June. Growth Opportunity. The Peel Group, LGA (Local Government Association) (2006) Manchester. City regions and beyond. LGA, London. Peel Group (2010b) Atlantic Gateway: Accelerat- Lord, A. (2009) Mind the gap: the theory and ing Sustainable Economic Growth in the UK’s practice of state rescaling: institutional mor- Second Largest Economic Area. The Peel phology and the ‘new’ city-regionalism, Space Group, Manchester. and Polity, 13, pp. 77–92. Peel Group (2012) Ocean Gateway (http://www. Manchester City Council (2010a) Report for res- peel.co.uk/projects/oceangateway; accessed olution: Manchester City Council consultation 26 March 2012). response: Atlantic Gateway—framework for a Pemberton, S. and Lloyd, G. (2011) Facilitating global growth opportunity. 10 March. institutional reform in England: reconciling Manchester City Council (2010b) Report for res- city-region and community planning for effi- olution: Greater Manchester local enterprise ciency, European Planning Studies, 19, pp. partnership and regional transition planning. 501–517. 15 September. Raco, M. (2012) Hyper-plural local governance, NLGN (New Local Government Network) privatisation, and the barriers to localist plan- (2005) Seeing the light? Next steps for city ning: lessons from the private finance initiative. regions. NLGN, London. Paper presented at the 2012 Housing Studies NWDA (Northwest Development Agency) Association Conference, University of York, (2010a) Future north west: our shared priori- April. ties. NWDA, Warrington. Rodrı´guez-Pose, A. (2008) The rise of the ‘city- NWDA (2010b) Atlantic Gateway strategy region’ concept and its development policy launched. Press release, NWDA, Warrington. implications, European Planning Studies, 16, NWDA (2011) Future north west: our shared prio- pp. 1025–1046. rities. NWDA, Warrington. Rodrı´guez-Pose, A. and Gill, N. (2003) The NWSG (Northern Way Steering Group) (2004) global trend towards devolution and its Moving Forward—The Northern Way. NWSG, implications, Environment and Planning C, Newcastle. 21, pp. 331–353. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) Scott, A. J. (Ed.) (2001) Global City-regions: (2003) Sustainable communities: building for Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford: Oxford Uni- the future. ODPM, London. versity Press. ODPM (2004) Making it Happen—The Northern Segbers, K. (Ed.) (2007) The Making of Global Way. ODPM, London. City Regions: Johannesburg, Mumbai/Bombay, ODPM (2006) A framework for city-regions. Sao Paulo, and Shanghai. Baltimore, MD: ODPM, London. Johns Hopkins University Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-opera- Shaw, K. and Greenhalgh, P. (2010) Revisiting tion and Development) (2007) Competitive the ‘missing middle’ in England sub-national Cities in the Global Economy. Paris: OECD. governance, Local Economy, 25, pp. 457–475. Pain, K. (2011a) Cities in transformation: SQW (2009) A Manchester–Liverpool growth cor- what role for the state? Research Bulletin ridor? A review of the economic data and qua- 384, GaWC (www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb384. litative evidence: draft final report. SQW, html). Cambridge. Pain, K. (2011b) ‘New worlds’ for ‘old’? Twenty- SQW (2011) Local enterprise partnerships. SQW, first-century gateways and corridors: reflec- Cambridge. tions on a European spatial perspective, Stone, C. (1989) Regime Politics: Governing International Journal of Urban and Regional Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence, KS: University Research, 35, pp. 1154–1174. of Kansas Press. Peel Group (2009) Ocean Gateway: prospectus Taylor, P. J., Hoyler, M., Evans, D. and (version 3). The Peel Group, Manchester. Harrison, J. (2010) Balancing London? A

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015 NEW NON-STATE SPATIAL STRATEGIES 2335

preliminary investigation of the ‘core cities’ Walker, D. (2012) Regionalism: a thoroughly and ‘northern way’ spatial policy initiatives wicked issue, The Guardian Online, 5 March. using multi-city corporate and commercial Ward, M. and Hardy, S. (Eds) (2012) Changing law firms, European Planning Studies, 18, pp. gear: is localism the new regionalism? The 1285–1289. Smith Institute/Regional Studies Association, Vogel, R. K., Savitch, H. V., Xu, J. et al. (Ed.) London. (2010) Governing global city regions in China Xu, J. and Yeh, A. (Eds) (2010) Governance and and the West, Progress in Planning, 73, pp. Planning of Mega-city Regions: An Interna- 1–75. tional Comparative Perspective. London: WAG (Welsh Assembly Government) (2012) Routledge. City-regions: final report. WAG, Cardiff.

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2015