Abstract
The argument is that London and the South East is an economic 'mega-region', larger than any existing administrative region in England. Drawing on research in South East Asia, the hypothesis is that this mega-region, while itself encapsulating a range of political and territorial tensions, should hold an intrinsic position of power in national policy making. While core central-state institutions, including HM Treasury, the Department for Trade and Industry and the Bank of England, do not explicitly prioritise the mega-regional economy, their concern for national economic compititiveness may mean that fiscal, interest rate and competition policies are attentive to the economic priorities of London and the South East. The proposotion that a prosperous London and South East economy is a necessary prerequisite for a viable national economy is an idea that remains influencial in central government circles. Indeed, the lack of a strong and coordinated voice that can articulate a regional perspictive for London and the South East serves paradoxically to inhance the perceived importance of this part of the economy in national policy development.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 91-106 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | New Political Economy |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2005 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The research for this article draws on a three-year ESRC project investigating the political geography of the South East, which is based on analysis of secondary records, finance data and interviews with over 40 policy makers in local and central government organisations in London and the South East. The authors acknowledge the support of ESRC grant numbers L219252038, PTA-026-27-0324 and the comments of three anonymous referees. The usual disclaimer applies. 1. Peter John, Steven Musson & Adam Tickell, ‘England’s Problem Region: Regionalism in the South East’, Regional Studies, Vol. 36, No. 7 (2002), pp. 733–41. 2. See Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets (Transaction Books, 1977) for the classic neopluralist statement.
Funding Information:
As with other projects that do not directly map on to one local authority’s interest, central government has become the key actor in Crossrail. The project is jointly funded by Transport for London and the Strategic Rail Authority, although the Department for Transport has retained overall strategic control. Earlier ambitious plans for a wider mega-regional link have eventually given way to a more London-focused proposal, with many more central London stations than initially proposed. In July 2003, under pressure from influential business interests including Canary Wharf and an all-party group of 100 members of parliament, central government decided that the east – west Crossrail should go ahead in line with the GLA’s wishes. However, the project continues to be plagued by political arguments that demonstrate the complexity of mega-regional government. Although the route of Crossrail has been finalised, central government has yet to outline funding arrangements. The GLA has been unable to lobby the Department for Transport for a decision, to the consternation of business leaders in London, 80 of whom wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport to offer financial assistance in moving the project forward.26 Although Crossrail is central to strategic regional planning in the mega-region, decisions relating to the project are taken by central government. Regional government is dependent on courting influential business interests to gain political leverage, rather than defining its strategic agenda.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Development
- Political Science and International Relations