Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Political Geography United Kingdom Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Dealing with the Neighbours: The case for an affiliate membership of the European Union and a new Security Council

Author:
Andrew Duff
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
Brexit is proving to be even more troublesome than expected, giving rise to a gradual softening of British public opinion towards the EU. Any future UK government is likely to want to renegotiate parts of the separation deal that Boris Johnson struck with the EU. Reconciliation between Britain and Europe will take time and need careful calibration, however. The EU should prepare for this constructively and use the opportunity of a British renegotiation to review all its other association agreements - none of which are without defect. The question of governance lies at the heart of the problems which impair the EU’s relations with its neighbours. The EEA and Swiss arrangements are in any case due for overhaul and upgrading. The EU’s traditional enlargement policy to the east and south has foundered, and it would be better if this were admitted openly. Not only are candidate countries unable to meet the demands of membership, but the EU itself is too weak to take on the burden of new members. Instead, a new category of affiliate membership should be written into the EU treaties. Affiliation should allow the EU to develop close economic and cultural partnerships with its neighbours in a democratic fashion. Affiliate states would enjoy greater access to the EU institutions than is permitted under any of the current association agreements. Affiliate membership would also be available as an option for any current EU member state which, like the UK, chose not to adhere to the goal of an ever closer union. Such differentiated integration of the wider Europe will require the EU to build stronger federal government at the centre. The new structure should also be underpinned by the establishment of a European Security Council combining EU member and affiliate states with NATO — including Canada and the US — in regular strategic and operational decisions to protect Western security. The French presidency in the first half of 2022 should take the necessary first steps. The Conference on the Future of Europe might consider these proposals.
Topic:
Security, Governance, European Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2. Facilitating Environmental Migration through Humanitarian and Labour Pathways: Recommendations for the UK Government

Author:
Helen Dempster, Amelia Dal Pra, and Mariam Traore Chazalnoel
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The impact of climate change, environmental degradation, and disasters on migration and human mobility is receiving more and more attention, by policymakers, academics, and the press alike. While there are gaps in the evidence base, much suggests that the vast majority of people will seek to move internally and regionally, rather than internationally. That being said, there are good reasons as to why high-income countries may want to facilitate so-called international “environmental migration” by adapting their existing legal and policy frameworks. This paper outlines how countries such as the United States of America (US), Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and various European countries have explored, created, or adapted their legal and policy frameworks to explicitly respond to international environmental migration, and the lessons learned therein. It concludes with a series of policy recommendations for the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) as to how the UK could adapt their own legal and policy frameworks to better respond to international environmental migration.
Topic:
Environment, Migration, Governance, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

3. Not for patching? Public opinion and the commitment to ‘build back better’

Author:
Karl Pike, Farah Hussain, Philip Cowley, and Patrick Diamond
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
Announcing the launch of a ‘Build Back Better Council’ in January 2021, bringing together various business leaders, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that ‘as we recover from this crisis it won’t be enough to just go back to normal – our promise will be to build back better and level up opportunity for people and businesses across the UK’. 1 The following month, the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, said he believed ‘there’s a mood in the air which we don’t detect often in Britain. It was there in 1945, after the sacrifice of war, and it’s there again now. It’s the determination that our collective sacrifice must lead to a better future’. 2 The historian and peer – and the Mile End Institute’s patron – Lord Hennessy similarly argued recently that the Covid-19 experience ‘has sharpened our sense of the duty of care we have one for another, that a state has for all of its people, to a degree we have not felt collectively since World War Two and its aftermath’. 3 These appraisals of the impact of the crisis, and political commitments to change, are giving rise to debate. Are we to experience a moment similar to that of postwar transformation? If so, what is the prospect for the Britain that emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic to be significantly different, in policy terms, from what preceded it? The latter question in particular animates this project – Not for Patching?, of which this report marks our earliest findings, based on an opinion survey. Ipsos MORI surveyed 1,120 adults across Great Britain, posing questions across a range of policy areas. Fieldwork was carried out online from 19 March 2021 to 22 March 2021, and data weighted to match the profile of the population. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error, but they still give us an insight into the public’s priorities. Further analysis of this data, and further surveys, will continue to add to this project. The purpose of this report is to examine the views of the British public on what rebuilding after the pandemic might mean. What we offer here are some preliminary indications of what policy areas the public want to prioritise, and how the machinery of government has managed and performed during this crisis. We are interested in both priorities and performance here, not least because we consider them linked.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

4. PROPERTY AND SOVEREIGNTY: Creating, Destroying, and Resurrecting Property Rights in British India (1600-1800)

Author:
Namita Wahi
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
This paper, the first in a series of three papers, constitutes the first systematic legal attempt since the late nineteenth century to describe the changing configuration of property rights of zamindars (landlords) and ryots or raiyats (peasants) relative to the English East India Company in colonial India over a period of two hundred years from 1600 to 1800. This period begins with the Company’s first arrival in India to the court of the Mughal Emperor Jehangir in 1600 as merely a trading company. It ends with the introduction of the Permanent Settlement in Bengal by Lord Cornwallis, the Governor General of Bengal in 1793, pursuant to the Company’s exercise of sovereign authority over the provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. As described in the paper, during this period of great political upheaval, scandal, and intrigue, as the East India Company gradually transitioned from a monopoly trading company to a conquering and then an administering power, Company officials, including the Governor General, and later the Supreme Council of Bengal, created, destroyed, and resurrected property rights of landlords and tenant cultivators. Following a series of experiments with land revenue administration and the lives of zamindars and raiyats, with the sole objective of maximising revenue for the East India Company, Lord Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement of Land Revenue in 1793, which completely destroyed the rights of peasant cultivators in favour of zamindars, and wreaked great injustice and misery upon the people of Bengal. It would take nearly seventy years for British government to begin to reverse this injustice through tenancy protection legislation enacted in 1859, and this reversal in law would only be completed following land reforms introduced by provincial governments post India’s independence in 1947. These later developments will be the subject of the next two papers in this series.
Topic:
Sovereignty, History, Governance, and Property
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, South Asia, and India

5. The Privatization and Financialisation of Social Care in the UK

Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
School of Oriental and African Studies - University of London
Abstract:
Even before the arrival of COVID-19, the care sector was already in long-term crisis, in large part due to insufficient funding, but the sector has also been under pressure from structural changes resulting from privatisation and financialisation.3 Social care is one of many elements of everyday life which, over the past few decades, have been repackaged to suit the needs of global capital. The process has transformed a social need into a financial issue which in turn translates into new social relations where narratives are constructed in terms of markets and efficiency. Care sector workers are treated as a financial overhead rather than integral to the quality of care provided. The financialisation of social care is an ongoing systemic process, which is accentuated in the increasingly challenging current global investment climate as investors seek alternatives to the low returns from traditional secure investments such as government bonds. This paper is concerned with the tensions resulting in the private provision of social care services. Some of the larger care providers are owned by financial investors that have earned substantial profits via opaque corporate practices. Discussion in the paper shows that while social care offers relatively low risk and high return investment opportunities, structuring care services as a private sector endeavour risks major adverse social outcomes, potentially resulting in: Extensive transfers to the world’s richest via the servicing of basic needs for some of society’s most vulnerable people, financed by taxes and lifetimes’ savings A two tier system of residential care where private providers seek to serve only self-funders Increasing strain on a largely female and minority ethnic un-unionised work force Increasing pressures on (largely female) informal carers that pick up the pieces of the failings in the care system In the inequitable practices of social care providers. However, the paper demonstrates that in the long term, tweaking the margins of regulation will not be sufficient to address the fundamental structural flaws underlying our current care system. Social care services are not competitive and the sector does not work as a conventional market. The analysis acknowledges the complexities of restructuring the care system and therefore offers both short and long term policy suggestions: • Conditions for financial support to the sector in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic should be imposed to curtail the current extractive practices of some care providers. Tighter regulation should promote socially responsible care provision, backed up with additional financial resources and long-term political commitment. • Additional financial support is needed for local authorities to enable them to provide social care and reduce their reliance on private companies. • Consideration should be given to innovative alternative provider models that draw on international examples of good practice. The current structure of social care provision inevitably promotes inequality, while transparency and accountability are lacking. Moreover, the care system is increasingly moulded to suit the priorities of investors rather than social care needs. In the wake of the pandemic, more resources are urgently needed for social care but this is an opportunity for a radical rethink of the ways in which we support the most vulnerable in our society.
Topic:
Privatization, Governance, Finance, Welfare, and Social Services
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

6. Power down to level up: resilient place-shaping for a post-Covid age

Author:
Andrew Walker and Patrick Diamond
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
It has become commonplace in 2020 to say that the Covid-19 pandemic has shone a light on severe problems and iniquities in the delivery of local services. But it is true. It is also true returning to pre-Covid “normality” is not an option, nor is it really desirable. Crisis issues in council finances, social care, children’s services, housing, homelessness, high streets and local growth, did not spring up overnight. LGIU and others have been shouting about these things for years and trying to get decision makers to pay proper attention. We understand that this is challenging. There are no easy solutions. Tackling the problems will involve choices and trade-offs. But that is politics. If we don’t take this opportunity to empower communities, so that they can flourish in the future, then when will we? At present, central government is concerned with issues of council structure and is pursuing a strategy of reorganisation that will reflect central government priorities, not those of local communities. This is a distraction from the important, longstanding problems that the government has so far refused to engage with: a finance settlement for local government; the crisis in adult social care and children’s services; and the unanswered problems of English devolution. At its root, this is a longstanding crisis of governance. The UK, remarkably centralised in comparison with similar economies around the world, has a moribund system of governance. Its outdated and inadequate constitutional framework, which wouldn’t be (and isn’t) looked upon as a model worth following elsewhere, is supported by a set of assumptions, ideas and beliefs that dominate in national political discourse. These hold that Whitehall knows best. Ministers hand down decisions that must be delivered across a varied and diverse geography by local authorities, regardless of local circumstances, assets, or democratic support. This is blind to the importance of place and it should be reversed. In this paper we show how local councils have already demonstrated their capacity for effective place-based It has become commonplace in 2020 to say that the Covid-19 pandemic has shone a light on severe problems and iniquities in the delivery of local services. But it is true. It is also true returning to pre-Covid “normality” is not an option, nor is it really desirable. Crisis issues in council finances, social care, children’s services, housing, homelessness, high streets and local growth, did not spring up overnight. LGIU and others have been shouting about these things for years and trying to get decision makers to pay proper attention. We understand that this is challenging. There are no easy solutions. Tackling the problems will involve choices and trade-offs. But that is politics. If we don’t take this opportunity to empower communities, so that they can flourish in the future, then when will we? At present, central government is concerned with issues of council structure and is pursuing a strategy of reorganisation that will reflect central government priorities, not those of local communities. This is a distraction from the important, longstanding problems that the government has so far refused to engage with: a finance settlement for local government; the crisis in adult social care and children’s services; and the unanswered problems of English devolution. At its root, this is a longstanding crisis of governance. The UK, remarkably centralised in comparison with similar economies around the world, has a moribund system of governance. Its outdated and inadequate constitutional framework, which wouldn’t be (and isn’t) looked upon as a model worth following elsewhere, is supported by a set of assumptions, ideas and beliefs that dominate in national political discourse. These hold that Whitehall knows best. Ministers hand down decisions that must be delivered across a varied and diverse geography by local authorities, regardless of local circumstances, assets, or democratic support. This is blind to the importance of place and it should be reversed. In this paper we show how local councils have already demonstrated their capacity for effective place-based leadership, without input from Westminster. This is despite decades of chipping away at their power and institutional resilience by central government., without input from Westminster. This is despite decades of chipping away at their power and institutional resilience by central government.
Topic:
Governance, Local, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe