By Sebastien Bourdin, EM Normandie Business School
What comes to mind when you think about the development of your neighbourhood, town, or region? Improved infrastructure, revitalised neighbourhoods, or perhaps more inclusive community services? Behind the scenes of these improvements lies a complex interplay of local policies and political decisions that profoundly shape our areas.
Place-based policies (PBPs) are specifically designed to respond to the unique needs and opportunities of each area, taking into account the specific features and resources of each area. These may include economic incentives for local businesses, the creation of new amenities, or urban regeneration projects. However, it is not just a question of economic aspects; these policies are deeply linked to political influences that can both facilitate and complicate their implementation.
The essence of place-based policies
PBPs are not just plans on paper. They are living, dynamic strategies that reflect the aspirations of a community and the practical realities of its geography. They seek to balance inequalities and capitalise on local strengths, making development both equitable and effective. But how do these policies come about? It all starts with the elected politicians whose decisions determine the course of these initiatives.
Politicians play a crucial role in shaping these policies. Their decisions can help to channel investment to underdeveloped areas, decide the fate of major infrastructure projects, and determine the extent to which these policies fit in with the needs of the community. But here’s the rub: while aiming to act in the best interests of their constituents, these decisions are often influenced by political agendas, electoral cycles, and the pressures of maintaining power and influence.
The political economy of local politics
By looking at the political economy, we discover that these policies are not developed in isolation. They are the result of intense negotiations, shaped by visible hands and invisible forces. Political actors, from local council members to mayors, wield considerable influence over how resources are distributed and which projects are given the go-ahead. Their decisions are influenced not only by economic data but also by social pressures, cognitive prejudices, and the ever-present political calculus of winning or retaining public support.
The NIMEY (Not In My Electoral Year) phenomenon can be observed when politicians, especially those in executive positions like mayors, prioritise visible, short-term projects to maximise their electoral appeal before an election. NIMEY highlights the tension between short-term political needs and the long-term strategic needs of the community. This dynamic often results in an inefficient use of public resources, where electoral gains take precedence over decisions that could better serve the long-term collective well-being.
For instance, a mayor seeking re-election might choose to quickly renovate a park or build new roads, projects that offer immediate and visible benefits for voters. These actions aim to demonstrate the efficiency and responsiveness of the current administration, capitalising on voters’ desire to see tangible results. However, this focus on quick and dramatic victories can shift attention and resources away from more vital but less immediately noticeable initiatives, such as long-term infrastructure planning or improving public services. Thus, NIMEY can lead to decisions that, while popular in the short term, may not be in the best long-term interests of the community. For example, investments in major infrastructure projects, such as modern public transport systems or green transition initiatives, may be delayed or downplayed because their results will only become visible after several years. Similarly, reforms that require time to yield positive outcomes, such as those related to education or public health, may be neglected in favour of immediate but less sustainable solutions.
The challenge of psychological and institutional barriers
The effective implementation of place-based policies often encounters significant obstacles, particularly psychological and institutional barriers that can complicate or even undermine local development initiatives. These challenges require careful attention to ensure that policy strategies are not only innovative on paper but also practical and resilient in the face of operational realities.
Psychological barriers, such as risk aversion and status quo bias, play a dominant role in hindering elected representatives. Under pressure to produce short-term results, these representatives may be reluctant to adopt innovative approaches due to fear of failure. This reluctance is exacerbated in political contexts where failures are harshly judged by public opinion and the media. Additionally, confirmation bias, where decision-makers seek out and favour information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, can prevent them from fully recognising the potential benefits of new approaches or solutions. These psychological biases limit the ability of elected representatives to adopt policies that require long-term thinking and substantial upfront investment, like sustainable infrastructure, social innovations or green technologies, which, while beneficial in the long term, present higher initial risks and uncertainties.
In 2018, for example, the City of London introduced the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) with the aim of reducing air pollution. This initiative involved imposing additional charges on polluting vehicles in specific areas. Although now regarded as a significant milestone in the battle against pollution, it initially faced strong opposition. Politicians hesitated to implement the ULEZ more forcefully due to concerns about public and media backlash, as well as potential short-term economic consequences for residents and businesses. This unwillingness to take decisive action, despite the clear evidence of the long-term benefits of pollution reduction, exemplifies risk aversion exacerbated by electoral pressures.
Furthermore, institutional barriers pose a significant constraint on the innovation and adaptability of place-based policies. Bureaucratic inertia, characterised by slow procedures and a lack of flexibility in public administrations, can significantly delay the implementation of new initiatives. Rigid regulatory frameworks can also impede the adaptation of policies to the changing needs of communities, as they do not always allow for rapid adjustment or experimentation to optimise results. Additionally, administrative fragmentation and a lack of coordination between different levels of government and sectors can complicate the application of integrated policies needed to address the multi-dimensional challenges of urban and rural areas. This fragmentation makes it difficult to align objectives and resources, essential for the success of place-based policies.
The future of local policies requires a multi-dimensional approach
The future of place-based policies appears both promising and challenging. We require a comprehensive approach that considers not just the economic impact, but also the social and political aspects of policy-making. Above all, it must account for the long term. For elected officials, this entails assuming a role that extends beyond traditional political leadership. It involves facilitating community engagement and serving as architects of consensus. This requires transparency regarding the limitations and trade-offs of various policy choices, as well as collaborative work with stakeholders to promote innovative and inclusive policies.
About the author: Sébastien Bourdin is a Professor of Economic Geography at EM Normandie Business School. He is also the Chairholder of the European Chair of Excellence on Circular Economy and Territories.
Suggested Further Reading
Bertoncin, M., Pase, A. & Peterle, G. (2023) Sketching local development: Graphic methods at the intersection of democratic and representational experimentalism. Area. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12837
Bourdin, S. (2024) The interplay of politics and space: How elected politicians shape place-based policies and outcomes. The Geographical Journal. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12591
Lee, J., Beech, S., McDowell, S. & Holton, M. (2023) Citizens apart? Representing post-Brexit youth politics in the UK media. The Geographical Journal. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12571
How to Cite
Bourdin. S (2024, July) Behind the scenes: elected officials and the crafting of place-based policies. Geography Directions. https://doi.org/10.55203/CONZ7063
Geography Directions 