‘Localism’ or ‘Localisation’? Defining our terms

There is often confusion within the peak oil/Transition movement about the distinction between the terms ‘localism‘ and ‘localisation‘.  On Energy Bulletin yesterday, Richard Moore’s piece, ‘The Emergence of Localism” was actually referring, I would argue, to localisation, not localism.  In the UK, in the context of the government’s Big Society agenda, the two definitely mean very different things.  Here is section from my forthcoming thesis which explores this distinction.  ‘Localism’ or ‘localisation’?  The national context.

Often, the terms ‘localism’ and ‘localisation’ are used relatively interchangeably, but it is important at this stage to note that they refer to different things.   Stoker (2007) defined ‘New Localism’ as “a strategy aimed at devolving power and resources away from central control and towards front line managers, local democratic structures and local consumers and communities, within an agreed framework of national minimum standards and policy priorities”.  For Morphet (2004:292) it is “a means of improving democratic accountability, providing a local mandate, and producing inter-agency approaches to localities”.  Localism can therefore be seen as being primarily concerned with governance, while localisation, on the other hand, is a wider, more far-reaching adjustment of economic focus from the global to the local.  Hines (2000a:27) defines localisation as “a process which reverses the trend of globalisation by discriminating in favour of the local”.  Shuman (2000:6) adds that:

“…it means nurturing locally owned businesses which use local resources sustainably, employ local workers at decent wages and serve primarily local consumers.  It means becoming more self sufficient, and less dependent on imports.  Control moves from the boardrooms of distant corporations and back to the community where it belongs”.

One might tentatively argue that localism therefore focuses on political structures, the devolution of governance, the application of subsidiarity to democracy, while localisation focuses instead on the practicalities of building more localised economies, in terms of food, energy, manufacturing and so on, which may necessarily include governance (a distinction explored in Table 6.1).

Assumptions shared by Localism and Localisation

• Local people should have more control over local services and decision-making
• Stronger local government and increased accountability is a good thing
• Community ownership and the Right to Buy are important

Assumptions Not Shared by Localism and Localisation

• Localisation is underpinned by an ethic of sustainability: this does not necessarily enter into localism
• Localisation embodies the Proximity Principle, arguing that where money flows from and to are important, and that what can be produced locally should be consumed locally where possible: localism sees itself within the context of business-as-usual economic globalisation
• Localism seeks to reduce the role of the state and of ‘big government’, localisation can happen within the context of stronger government, indeed it argues that addressing global issues such as climate change or resource scarcity will require strong government alongside community engagement
• Localism seeks to transfer state assets (schools, hospitals etc.) into community ownership: localisation focuses more on control rather than ownership of those assets, and seeks to bring key local functions (food production, building development, energy generation) currently in the private sector into community ownership
• Localisation argues for a different relationship between consumers and producers, localism has no such critique
• Localisation seeks to increase tightness of feedbacks, so that consequences of resource use are felt closer to home (i.e. local food production): localism operates in the context of economic globalisation, with no concept of feedbacks.

Table 6.1. The assumptions shared and not shared by localism and localisation (Source: the author).

For Daly and Cobb (1994), the term subsidiarity means that “power should be located as close to people as possible in the smallest units that are feasible” (ibid:174).  For Ziman (2003:63) it means “decisions should be taken at the lowest competent level in an organisational hierarchy”.  Table 5.1 gave an indication of what subsidiarity could look like in terms of local economics, but in terms of political organisation it is a greyer area.  The term does have its doubters; as Robinson (1996:unpaginated) put it “the chief advantage of subsidiarity seems to be its capacity to mean all things to all interested parties – simultaneously”.

Others add that there is little to be gained by academic debates around subsidiarity, as it is entirely place-specific and the conclusions reached will always be contextual and dynamic (McKean 2002).  For Blond of Respublica (2010a: pers.int.), the role of national government is to enable “the highest level of subsidiarity possible”.  In the context of Totnes, subsidiarity could be interpreted as referring to decision-making being brought as close as possible to the community level, the community response to the Totnes DPD discussed above offers a glimpse of what subsidiarity, in terms of planning, might look like in practice.

Localisation applies the concept of subsidiarity to economic life, as well as to the political.  While localism can perfectly well take place within a globalised growth-focused economy, a ‘business as usual’ scenario (see 2.4.3.) (hence its appeal to mainstream political parties), whereas localisation carries within it an inherent social justice and resource-focused critique of globalisation (Bailey et al. 2010, North 2010), emerging from concepts such as Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 2004), Steady State economics (Daly 1977) and Schumacher’s (1974) concept of ‘Buddhist economics’.  Localisation is a social movement and a principle for social and economic reorganisation, whereas localism is a principle for political organisation.

Although the question of what local government focused on resilience-building and Transition might look like will be explored below, a useful place to start is in considering how the national political context might best enable relocalisation.  Porritt (2008:47) argues that “the tension between centralisation and decentralisation is ever-present in terms of alternatives to the current world”.  In national politics, the concept of localism is very much in vogue at the moment (Parvin 2009).  David Cameron, as part of his ‘Big Society’ concept, has spoken of “pushing power down as far as possible” and of “a massive, radical redistribution of power” (Cameron 2009:unpaginated).

Former Labour leader Gordon Brown called for “a vibrant, reformed local democracy [rooted in] a renewed focus on the devolution of powers and responsibilities to local government” (Blears 2008:51), and the 2006 Power Inquiry called for “the introduction of institutional and cultural changes which place a new emphasis on the requirement that policy and decision-making includes rigorous and meaningful input from ordinary citizens”.

The 2008 White Paper “Communities in Control: real people, real power”, proposed the shifting of “power, influence and responsibility away from existing centres of power into the hands of local communities and individual citizens” and suggested that Participatory Budgeting (see 6.3.3) be undertaken in all local authorities by 2012.  It is worthwhile noting that the concept of localisation, with its more radical ambitions and greater perceived challenge to current-day economics, is never used at this level, rather ‘localism’, focused largely on political governance, is the term of choice.

The previous Labour government made ‘modernisation’, referring to constitutional and democratic modernisation, part of its agenda since its election in 1997.  Most obviously, it introduced Scottish and Welsh devolution, regional elected assemblies in England, a London Mayor and Assembly, but perhaps less obviously, Pratchett (2004:11) points out, it has introduced “modernisation of internal political management structure, experimentation with new electoral processes and technologies, through to exhortation for greater citizen involvement and engagement in local affairs”.  In spite of this, it has been criticised for achieving the opposite, for continuing centralisation strategies and ‘control freakery’ (Wilson 2003).  Stoker (2001:3) argues that New Labour’s approach to central-local relations can be seen as “a classic example of a hierarchist approach”.

Wilson (2003:26) is careful to distinguish between approaches and language used by New Labour, and actual results; noting “an involvement in and commitment to ‘dialogue’ and ‘partnership’, but dialogue does not necessarily convert to influence, and multi-level participation is different from multi-level governance”.  The UK, after 13 years of Labour government, is still one of the most centralised states in the Western world (Hambleton & Sweeting 2004).  Lancaster City Councillor John Whitelegg (2010 pers.int.) is suspicious of politicians who use the term localism.  “Britain is grossly over-centralised and I think that whenever a national politician starts talking about ‘localism’ their nose starts going into Pinnochio mode”.   For Blond (2010a:pers.int), genuine localisation “requires a political economy if it’s going to work”.  Part of this, he argues, is “local councils and local authorities having genuinely independent revenue-raising capacity, the ability to vary, for instance, the national non-domestic business rate, the ability to generate new forms of revenue and share in those new forms of revenue” (ibid), a power that can only be bestowed by national government.

References

Bailey, I, Hopkins, R, Wilson, G. (2010) Some things old, some things new: The spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation movement. Geoforum 41(4) 595-605.

Blears, H. (2008) The Decentralised State. In: Milburn et al (eds). Beyond Whitehall: a new vision for a progressive state. Progressonline.co.uk.

Blond, P. (2010a) Personal interview

Cameron, D. (2009) A New Politics. The Guardian.  Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/david-cameron-a-new-... on 20 March 2010.

Daly, H.E, Cobb, J.B. (1994) For the Common Good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. Boston, Beacon Press.

Daly, H.E. (1977). Steady-state Economics: The Economics of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company

Hambleton, R, Sweeting, D. (2004) US-style leadership for English Local Government. Public Administration Review. 64 (:4. July/August 2004

Hines, C. (2000a) Localisation: A Global Manifesto. London, Earthscan Publishing Ltd.

McKean, M.A. (2002) Nesting institutions for complex common-pool resource systems.  In: Graham, J, Reeves, I.R, Brunkhorst, D.J. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Landscape Futures. Institute for Rural Futures: University of New England.

Meadows, D.H, Randers, J, Meadows, D.L. (2004) Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update . London, Earthscan Publishing Limited.

Morphet, J. (2004) The New Localism. Town and Country Planning.  73 (10). 291-3.

North, P. (2010a) Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate change – a sympathetic critique. Geoforum 41 (4) 585-594.

North, P. (2010a) Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate change – a sympathetic critique. Geoforum 41 (4) 585-594.

North, P. (2010b) Local Money: how to make it happen in your community. Transition Books/Green Books.

Porritt, J.  (2005) Capitalism – as if the world matters. London, Earthscan Publishing Ltd.

Pratchett, L. (2004) Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the ‘New Localism’. Political Studies. 52 (2) 358–375

Robinson, M. (1990) Constitutional shifts in Europe and the US: learning from each other. Stanford Journal of International Law 32. 1-12.

Schumacher, E.F. (1974) Small is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. London, Sphere Books.

Shuman, M.  (2000)  Going Local: creating self-reliant communities in a global age. New York, Routledge.

Stoker, G. (2001) Governance by lottery? New Labour’s strategy for reforming local and devolved institutions in Britain. Paper presented to the PSA Annual Conference April 2001.

Stoker, G. (2007) New Localism, Participation and Networked Community Governance. University of Manchester, UK / Institute for Political and Economic Governance.

Whitelegg, J.  (2010) Personal Interview.

Wilson, D. (2003) Unravelling control freakery: redefining central-local government relations. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5:3.  August 2003. 317-346.

Ziman, J. (2003) Subsidiarity: The science of the local. In: Simms et al. Return To Scale: Alternatives to Globalisation. London, New Economics Foundation.