The regional governance of transport policy in Wales: towards institutional decongestion? WISERD WORKING PAPER SERIES WISERD/WPS/006 Dr Ian Stafford October 2011 1 Author Dr Ian Stafford, Cardiff University Contact: Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) 46 Park Place Cardiff CF10 3BB Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)2920870325 WISERD Hub Contact: Cardiff University 46 Park Place Cardiff CF10 3BB Tel: 02920879338 Email: [email protected] 2 Abstract The introduction of the Railways Act 2005 and Transport (Wales) Act 2006 fundamentally reshaped the governance of transport policy within Wales. The two pieces of legislation conferred on the Welsh Assembly Government a number of key functions, including the statutory requirement to develop a Wales Transport Strategy and power to establish Joint Transport Authorities (JTAs) to ensure the delivery of national policy priorities at the regional and local levels. The latter measure was underpinned by the rationale that existing arrangements for the development and delivery of transport policy in Wales were overly complex and failed to deliver policy in a coordinated, ‘joined-up’ way. However, the move to JTAs was fiercely opposed by local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) and intermediate arrangements were introduced which centred on the formalisation of previously voluntary Regional Transport Consortia in delivering Regional Transport Plans (RTPs). Question marks remain regarding the relative policy and decision- making capacity within the four Regional Transport Consortia and the extent to which these reforms have addressed or simply reinforced more complex and ‘congested governance’. The paper draws on an analysis of documentary data and semi- structured interviews with officials within the Welsh Assembly Government, Regional Transport Consortia and regional and local stakeholders to examine the policy and decision-making processes around the RTPs. It analyses the level of decision- making capacity within the four Regional Transport Consortia and the extent to which the arrangements introduced since 2006 have acted as a policy and institutional ‘decongestant’. 3 Introduction The introduction of devolution in 1999 has been characterised as leading to a fundamental ‘recalibration’ or ‘rescaling’ of territorial administration within the United Kingdom. This process of state ‘rescaling’ can be identified as part of a wider European trend which has led to the redistribution of responsibilities between multiple levels of governance, both upwards to supranational organisations, notably the European Union (EU), and downwards to regional and sub-national territories (Rodriguez-Pose and Gill, 2003; Lidström, 2007; Loughlin, 2007). Commentators have sought to capture this complex array of phenomena through the development of concepts, such as Multi-level Governance, which reflect the fragmentation of state power and authority across different levels of governance (Hooghe and Marks, 2001; Bache and Flinders, 2004). Haughton et al (2010: 10) identify a range of potential benefits and downsides that are commonly linked to the ‘rescaling’ of functions downwards to the sub-state or regional level. On the one hand, they argue devolution may deliver benefits through the tailoring of policies to local priorities and needs, promote policy innovation and stimulate greater accountability and openness in the policy-making process. On the other hand they note that devolution may actually engrain or exacerbate inequalities between territories, lead to inefficiencies in policy delivery and undermine existing territorial identities. Although the factors which shape the positive or negative effects of devolution are quite complex, it is clear that the introduction of devolution can be seen as having potentially far-reaching implications for the development and character of policy and the policy-making process. This vertical rescaling of the state is commonly linked to a horizontal reworking characterised by a shift from hierarchical systems of government towards more complex, networked forms of governance (Rhodes, 1997). This horizontal re-scaling has been characterised by Jessop as the ‘hollowing-out’ of the nation state by the combined processes of denationalisation, destatisation and internationalisation of policy regimes (Jessop, 1990, 2001). In response to these processes of ‘hollowing out’, Goodwin et al (2005, 2006) put forward the linked process of ‘filling in’. Processes of ‘filling in’ are characterised by ‘the sedimentation of new organisations, the reconfiguration of pre-existing organisations, the evolution of new relationships between different organisations, and the development of new working cultures’ (Jones et al , 2005; 357). Crucially the concept of ‘hollowing out’ is characterised as being limited to the national level where as the process of ‘filling in’ provides insights into contrasting and uneven processes of rescaling at the sub-national level. Haughton et al (2010, 11) argue that the linked processes of ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ can be understood as ‘not a simple redistribution of powers to other scales of government and governance, but 4 a change to the ways in which governments seek to pursue the their aims.’ In particular, they argue that in recent years there has been a growth of so-called ‘soft spaces’ which have developed outside of the formal and/or statutory mechanisms of policy-making or so-called ‘hard spaces’ (Haughton et al , 2010: 52). Haughton and Allmendinger (2007: 306) define ‘soft spaces’ as the ‘fluid areas between such formal processes where implementation through bargaining, flexibility, discretion and interpretation dominate.’ The growth of more complex, networked forms of governance and the emergence of new informal collaborative institutions and partnerships, highlighted in concepts such as ‘filling in’ and ‘soft spaces’, has led to some commentators to characterise the contemporary governance arrangements as the ‘congested state’ (Skelcher, 2000; Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002). The contested and constantly changing nature of these complex multi-level and multi-organisational relationships and networks has raised serious questions regarding the effective implementation and delivery of public services (Burfitt and Powell, 2008). The introduction of devolution has had a significant impact on the scales at which transport policy has been developed and delivered within the UK and has been characterised as part of the ‘filling in’ process highlighted above (Mackinnon et al , 2008). The complex character of transport has also meant that the appropriate spatial scale for the development and delivery of policy has been open to question (Marsden and May, 2006). Mackinnon et al (2008: 63) argue that the complexities of transport mean that different issues need to be addressed at different spatial scales, for example, tackling issues related to climate change are best suited to supranational agreements where as solutions to specific problems within communities are better addressed by the local or regional level. In both Scotland and Wales the devolved administrations have experimented with ‘nationally orchestrated regionalisation of transport governance’ aimed at delivering an integrated transport policy joining up the national, regional and local levels (Mackinnon et al , 2008). Within the Welsh context this process has centred on the formalisation of the previously voluntary Regional Transport Consortia and the provision of the statutory function for them to develop Regional Transport Plans (RTPs), published in draft in September 2009 (Sewta, 2009; Swwitch, 2009; TraCC, 2009; Taith, 2009). However, the impact of this evolving regional tier on the effective development and delivery of transport policy is open to question. For example, rather than providing a focus for the strategic integration of transport policy, this process of regionalisation could be characterised as simply adding to the ‘over-stuffed’ governance of transport policy within Wales (Pangbourne, 2007). Alternatively the Regional Transport Consortia may have acted as ‘institutional decongestants’, effectively countering the perceived negative effects of fragmentation within the policy area and promoting focused partnership and collaboration (Pemberton & Lloyd, 2008). 5 This paper analyses the regionalisation of transport policy in Wales in the post-devolved setting within the context of established debates around the dual processes of ‘hollowing out’ and ‘filling in’ and the development of fragmented, networked forms of governance. The analysis centres on two key research questions; i) to what extent have the Regional Transport Consortia had adequate policy and decision-making capacity to fulfil their functions and ii) the extent to which the consortia and RTP process has acted as a policy and institutional ‘decongestant’ or whether it has simply reinforced or exacerbated more complex and congested forms of governance. The paper draws on an analysis of documentary data and semi-structured interviews with officials within the Welsh Assembly Government, Regional Transport Consortia and regional and local stakeholders to examine the policy and decision-making processes around the RTPs. The paper is divided into three parts. Part one sets the context of transport policy in Wales and the rationale for the emergence of the consortia. Part two addresses the national context for the development of the RTPs and the role of