The missing ingredient:inter-municipal cooperation and central-local relations in the UK

The thrust of the argument presented in this chapter is that inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) in the United Kingdom reflects local government's constitutional position and its exposure to the exigencies of Westminster (elected central government) and Whitehall (centre of the professional civil service that services central government). For the most part councils are without general powers of competence and are restricted in what they can do by Parliament. This suggests that the capacity for locally driven IMC is restricted and operates principally within a framework constructed by central government's policy objectives and legislation and the political expediencies of the governing political party. In practice, however, recent examples of IMC demonstrate that the practices are more complex than this initial analysis suggests. Central government may exert top-down pressures and impose hierarchical directives, but there are important countervailing forces. Constitutional changes in Scotland and Wales have shifted the locus of central- local relations away from Westminster and Whitehall. In England, the seeding of English government regional offices in 1994 has evolved into an important structural arrangement that encourages councils to work together. Within the local government community there is now widespread acknowledgement that to achieve the ambitious targets set by central government, councils are, by necessity, bound to cooperate and work with other agencies. In recent years, the fragmentation of public service delivery has affected the scope of IMC. Elected local government in the UK is now only one piece of a complex jigsaw of agencies that provides services to the public; whether it is with non-elected bodies, such as health authorities, public protection authorities (police and fire), voluntary nonprofit organisations or for-profit bodies, councils are expected to cooperate widely with agencies in their localities. Indeed, for projects such as regeneration and community renewal, councils may act as the coordinating agency but the success of such projects is measured by collaboration and partnership working (Davies 2002). To place these developments in context, IMC is an example of how, in spite of the fragmentation of traditional forms of government, councils work with other public service agencies and other councils through the medium of interagency partnerships, collaboration between organisations and a mixed economy of service providers. Such an analysis suggests that, following changes to the system of local government, contemporary forms of IMC are less dependent on vertical arrangements (top-down direction from central government) as they are replaced by horizontal modes (expansion of networks and partnership arrangements). Evidence suggests, however that central government continues to steer local authorities through the agency of inspectorates and regulatory bodies, and through policy initiatives, such as local strategic partnerships and local area agreements (Kelly 2006), thus questioning whether, in the case of UK local government, the shift from hierarchy to network and market solutions is less differentiated and transformation less complete than some literature suggests. Vertical or horizontal pressures may promote IMC, yet similar drivers may deter collaboration between local authorities. An example of negative vertical pressure was central government's change of the systems of local taxation during the 1980s. The new taxation regime replaced a tax on property with a tax on individual residency. Although the community charge lasted only a few years, it was a highpoint of the then Conservative government policy that encouraged councils to compete with each other on the basis of the level of local taxation. In practice, however, the complexity of local government funding in the UK rendered worthless any meaningful ambition of councils competing with each other, especially as central government granting to local authorities is predicated (however imperfectly) on at least notional equalisation between those areas with lower tax yields and the more prosperous locations. Horizontal pressures comprise factors such as planning decisions. Over the last quarter century, councils have competed on the granting of permission to out-of-town retail and leisure complexes, now recognised as detrimental to neighbouring authorities because economic forces prevail and local, independent shops are unable to compete with multiple companies. These examples illustrate tensions at the core of the UK polity of whether IMC is feasible when competition between local authorities heightened by local differences reduces opportunities for collaboration. An alternative perspective on IMC is to explore whether specific purposes or functions promote or restrict it. Whether in the principle areas of local government responsibilities relating to social welfare, development and maintenance of the local infrastructure or environmental matters, there are examples of IMC. But opportunities have diminished considerably as councils lost responsibility for services provision as a result of privatisation and transfer of powers to new government agencies or to central government. Over the last twenty years councils have lost their role in the provision of further-or higher-education, public transport and water/sewage. Councils have commissioning power but only a limited presence in providing housing needs, social care and waste management. In other words, as a result of central government policy, there are, in practice, currently far fewer opportunities for councils to cooperate. Since 1997, the New Labour government has promoted IMC through vertical drivers and the development; the operation of these policy initiatives is discussed following the framework of the editors. Current examples of IMC are notable for being driven by higher tiers of government, working with subordinate authorities in principal-agent relations. Collaboration between local authorities and intra-interand cross-sectoral partnerships are initiated by central government. In other words, IMC is shaped by hierarchical drivers from higher levels of government but, in practice, is locally varied and determined less by formula than by necessity and function. © 2007 Springer.

International flavours

It is an Olympic year and we have just witnessed the fantastic games hosted by Rio de Janeiro. Well done to team USA for winning the most medals overall but also well done to so many other nations and individuals who performed so well or were ambassadors in other ways. Teenage swimmer Yusra Mardini who swam for the refugee team and South Africa's Wayde van Niekerk who broke the longstanding 400 m record of Michael Johnson that has stood since 1999. Of course, we must mention sprinter Usain Bolt and swimmer Michael Phelps, who have now transcended superstar status and entered a new level of icon. My personal highlight was the sportsmanship witnessed in the 5000 m when American Abbey D’Agostino was accidentally felled by New Zealand runner Nikki Hamblin. D’Agostino helped Hamblin back to her feet but slumped to the track after realising her own injury. Hamblin helped her up and stayed with her so that both completed the race. The International Olympic Committee has awarded both with the prestigious Pierre de Coubertin award, also known as the International Fair Play Trophy. Fair play is of paramount importance in publishing in peer-reviewed papers. At CLAE we try and maintain, as do other journals, this by ensuring double blind peer review and allowing authors to select the most appropriate handling editor for their submission. Our handling editors are placed across the world (2 in Europe, 1 in the Americas, 1 in Australia and 1 in Asia) and part of their role is to encourage submissions from their region. Over the last decade we certainly have seen more and more papers from places that haven’t previously published in CLAE. In this issue of CLAE we have a true international blend of papers. We have papers from authors from the UK, USA, Iran, Jordan, France, Poland, Turkey, Nigeria, France, Spain and Brazil. I think it's a testament to the continued success of the journal that we are attracting new writers from so many parts of the world and retain papers from more established authors and research centres. We do continue to attract many weaker papers that are rejected early in the review process. Often these will be unexceptional case reports or papers describing a surgical technique. Case reports are published but only those that offer something original and especially those with interesting photographs. In this issue you will see Professor James Wolffsohn (UK) has an interesting paper around a lot of the focus of his recent research activity into clinical evaluation of methods of correcting presbyopia. In this paper he highlights predictors to aid success of presbyopic contact lenses. If you have been involved in any clinical work or research in the field of dry eye disease then you will know well the CLDEQ (Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire) devised by Robin Chalmers and her colleagues (USA). This issue of CLAE details the latest research using the CLDEQ-8 (the 8 item version of the CLDEQ). The Shahroud Eye Cohort Study has produced many papers already and in this issue we see Fotouhi Akbar (Iran) looking at changes in central and peripheral corneal thickness over a five year period. These days we use a lot of new instrumentation, such as optical low-coherence reflectometry. In this issue Emre Güler (Turkey) compares that to a new optical biometry unit. Dry eye is more common and in this issue we see a study by Oluyemi Fasina (Nigeria) to investigate the disease in adults in South-West Nigeria. The TearLab™ is now commonly used to investigate osmolarity and Dorota Szczesna-Iskander (Poland) looks at measurement variability of this device. Following the theme of dry eyes and tear testing Renaud Laballe (France) looks at the use of scleral lenses as a reservoir-based ocular therapeutic system. In this issue we have a couple of papers looking at different aspects of keratoconus. Magdalena Popiela (UK) looks at demographics of older keratoconic patients in Wales, Faik Orucoglu (Turkey) reports a novel scoring system for distinguishing keratoconus from normal eyes, Gonzalo Carracedo (Spain) reports the effect of rigid gas permeable lens wear on dry eye in keratoconus and Hatice Nur Colak (Turkey) compares topographic and aberrations in keratoconus. Other interesting papers you will find are Mera Haddad (Jordan) investigates contact lens prescribing in Jordan, Camilla Fraga Amaral (Brazil) offers a report on the use of ocular prosthetics, Naveed Ahmed Khan (Malaysia) reports of the use of dimethyl sulfoxide in contact lens disinfectant and Michael Killpartrick (UK) offers a short piece with some useful advice on contamination risk factors that may occur from the posterior surface of disposable lenses. So for this issue I would say that the Gold Medal for biggest contribution in terms of papers has to go to Turkey. I could have awarded it to the UK too, but Turkey has three full papers and the UK has two plus one short communication. Turkey is also one of the countries that has shown the largest increase in submissions over the last decade. Finally, welcome aboard to our newest Editorial Board Member Nicole Carnt from Australia. Nicole has been an active researcher for many years and acted as a reviewer for CLAE many times in the past. We look forward to working with you.