Auckland Restructure - where's the "thought leadership"...?

I am struggling to find any “thought-leadership” that supports Government restructuring proposals for Auckland local governance. That makes it very hard to accept, and difficult to engage with.

The “Making Auckland Greater” document which accompanied Cabinet decisions two or three weeks ago, had been worked on for a good while longer than appearances suggested. It looked as if Cabinet had cooked up its “response” to the Royal Commission’s reports in a week. But now I hear through the grapevine that senior officials in the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) had working on a Government response for much longer.

So. The Government’s response is not a reaction to the Royal Commission at all. It is its own decision. There have been enough statements from enough politicians to the effect that restructuring will not produce savings of any consequence. Some may still be arguing that there will be savings, but the consensus is that savings will be minimal. The consensus is also that Auckland governance restructuring will cost money. So the question has to be asked: what are we doing, and why.

Summer sunset at Timaru. I liked the triangle. And I'm fascinated how mature gum trees in silhouette can look exactly like a handful of dry weeds held closeup.

I have to assume that what is being proposed is based on Government’s strategy for Auckland. It is intended to give effect to an incoming Government’s principles.

But what are they? What is Government’s plan for Auckland?

It is always difficult to second guess this stuff, but if – as seems likely – there I serious policy work being done in the DIA – then they will have considered what is happening around the world on this. How cities need to be governed, or self-governed, to best engage with and respond to global forces.

So I had a bit of hunt through Google on this.

From this we can glean that for centuries the world economy has shaped the life and development of cities. Now we seem to be in an age where this effect is more profound than it has been. Or at least that is the case in the age of globalisation. This was the age of global flows: flows of money, flows of information, flows of technology. We can see case studies of cities that have very deliberately positioned themselves to benefit from these flows.

Dubai is an extreme example.

On the other hand, every country, and every city has its own history and its own geo-political position. Google wisdom suggests that there is a very clear need to manage these two realities. Also there is a need to recognise that local realities, or local differences, have a strategic value and add edge to what a city has to offer. The converse of this is that the city that sells its soul as it strives to be all things to all global investors, can profoundly damage that city’s future.

A couple of approaches to local government organisation:

Community Choice Political fragmentation is not an especially positive word for what others would describe as local decision-making, local accountability, democracy. Theorists describe it is as public choice. They argue that a modern metropolitan area should contain multiple political jurisdictions, and that these will enhance choice (people choosing where they live in a city based on the character and the cost of an area), and they will enhance efficiency in service delivery (because not everybody wants the same services delivered to the same quality in all areas.) There is a market of local governments where mobile ‘citizens’ shop around for ‘communities’ that best fit their preferences.

Regionalism The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to regionalism. Political theorists argue that political fragmentation of a metropolitan area makes it difficult to streamline economic development, to provide regional services, or to enable the expression of a regional voice. These theorists advocate for one single voice. Consolidationists therefore argue that regional government is the solution. That is what Government is arguing, without being clear what it’s doing and why. Getting a city on board globalisation - and the global investment trail - is often associated with moves to regionalise local government.

This is also a conversation about centralisation vs de-centralisation. Some thinkers argue that decentralisation can work as long as there is a constant dialogue across jurisdictions regarding the urban problems that affect everyone in a metropolitan area. The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to extreme decentralisation – in the form of an all powerful Auckland Council, with a fig-leaf of local government - in the form of community boards which are actually a functional part of Auckland Council. A very big and muscular right arm, and a small and weak left arm, but both driven by one body corporate. It’s all about regionalism. It is not about local government.

The economic thinking that underpins the drive to regionalism is interesting. According to the writings of Bob Jessop – one of the thinkers about all this (my comments are in brackets) writes: “Post-war macroeconomic and microeconomic policies designed to facilitate full employment, price stability, economic growth, and the distribution of social welfare are no longer feasible through the national-state. (This fact has been intensified by the financial recession and the collapse of cheap fossil fuelled land speculation.) So, cities must increasingly use new, entrepreneurial modes of production and governance to secure competitiveness (and attract global investment). Likewise, the state must exploit the competitive advantages created by successful entrepreneurial cities, to secure an advantage internationally. This strategy can only be carried out through long-term organizational coordination coupled with effective performance assessment and accountability standards….”

He goes on to lay out the policy groundwork: “Several general trends are pivotal to the contextualization of the entrepreneurial city: 1) the de-nationalization of statehood, including the abdication of de jure sovereignty to supranational institutions and the devolution of authority to the city/regional level; 2) the transformation from government to governance in the form of partnerships between state agencies and non-governmental organizations; 3) the internationalization of the national state and a subsequent magnification of the transnational implications of domestic behaviour; …all of these processes contribute to the rise of the entrepreneurial city. The transformation of urban economics toward entrepreneurialism is driven by globalization, resulting in local activities such as new governance methods of public/private networking….”

This is all a bit disturbing. Suggesting that Government's plan for Auckland governance is driven by Auckland becoming much more entrepreneur/developer friendly. Of course we still don’t know who has actaually provided the basic policy thinking behind what Government is doing. I don’t know anyway.

But the above does give a flavour. Rings true. It is the sort of thing that might appeal to Rodney.

The problem with it all though, is that the collapse of the global property and real estate development finance industry, has destroyed much of the drive for globalisation. It was a house of cards. Look at Dubai. Fast sinking below the desert sands. And there are many other such projects. Look at the IMF - wondering where its future might best lie now.

So why should Auckland’s governance be re-shaped for a future that is no longer credible, by thinking that has passed its sell-by date?

And if there are other economic theories that underpin Governments’ project for Auckland, let us all share in their wisdom. C'mon Rodney, open that kimono, show us what you've got!