« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. Conclusions and the Way Forward
Introduction
4.1 The earlier chapters have looked at the development and implementation of CGF and have teased out some of the issues surrounding it. Although the degree of project slippage, and the long term nature of many of the projects, means that it is premature to draw any firm conclusions about impact it is possible to outline some tentative conclusions about the process. These in their turn feed into some suggestions for the way forward.
Conclusions
4.2CGF is a programme that is liked by its recipients. This reflects its flexible nature and the way that the Executive has managed it. There are indications that there is additionality associated with it, both absolute and in terms of time and quality. The process has built upon and has cemented the development of partnerships in many cities. There is also some indication that the Visions may be capable of performing a wider strategic co-ordination role. Although there has been considerable slippage this is perhaps inevitable given the capital nature of most spend.
4.3 What is less clear is the extent to which the Fund is being used in a way that will result in step change in the 6 cities. With the exception of Dundee, funding is generally being spent across a wide range of projects many of which are little different to those that the authority and its partners would normally support. This also causes concern to some partners as they feel that impact may be very difficult to assess. Leverage is also not particularly good. As described earlier most CGF resources are being used to buy "more of the same" rather than to do something that will result in a dramatic change in the city's image. As such, most spend is not particularly "visionary" in terms of the last definition used in Paragraph 3.11.
4.4 Edinburgh criticised the Fund for its short term and capital nature. There is a degree of validity in the last of these, in that the exact nature of the capital:revenue split was not made clear in the initial guidance. The Fund was, however, always intended to be short term. What Edinburgh seems to be arguing for is a different sort of Executive funding regime that recognises the importance of its revenue projects both to the City and Edinburgh. This may be a valid argument. However, this was never the purpose of CGF and as such must have limited validity.
4.5 There may also be an issue as to the extent to which what is being "bought" through CGF differs from what is being "bought" through some other Executive programmes. The Quality of Life Fund is the most obvious example in that, since 2003/04, annually over two thirds of its budget has been allocated to the Local Environment (Scottish Executive, 2005b). It is difficult to see how some of the smaller environmental projects funded through CGF differ from projects supported through the Quality of Life Fund and indeed why they need to be supported through CGF rather than the Fund.
4.6 Underpinning some of these criticisms is the size of CGF and the way it is allocated. The resources allocated through CGF are not substantial, certainly in terms of the scale of development underway in cities such as Glasgow and in terms of the total local authority budget. However, the allocation process is driven by population. This means that the smaller cities, where arguably CGF could support "visionary" projects, receive relatively little. Whilst the larger cities receive proportionally far more this is till not sufficient to allow them to develop iconic projects. This is even more unlikely when the relatively poor leverage ratios achieved by the larger cities are considered. In its turn this may reflect the extent to which there is currently evidence of market failure across the cities. The scale of development in Glasgow would imply that market failure is limited and therefore it would be far harder for CGF to make a significant impact. This might not be the case in the smaller cities.
4.7 Given this it is hard to avoid concluding that, to some extent, the CGF has not had as great an impact as it could have had. In the future in many of the 6 cities there seems likely to be little that will distinguish CGF expenditure from spend through mainstream budgets. This is not to suggest that there has not been additionality, nor that spend has not been contributing to the attainment of the Visions. What is being suggested is that most spend has followed well worn paths and, with the exception of Dundee, there does not seem to have been the political will (or possibly recognition of need) to use CGF in a way that would have created a lasting impact.
The Way Forward
4.8 In the light of these criticisms how should CGF evolve? A balance has to be struck between flexibility and ensuring that the Fund is used in a way that is additional, in terms of creating something visionary. Fundamental to this are questions as to whether to:-
- Concentrate resources, or spread them across a number of projects. Inverness and Dundee stand out as diametrically opposite approaches. Both cities have faced difficulties in terms of progressing their projects, though it could be argued that in terms of potential economic impact, leaving a recognisable legacy, and additionality, the approach adopted in Dundee has a clear edge; and
- Allocate resources according to project impact. Currently the allocations are driven by population levels rather than the type of projects, their impact or the quality of the vision. One implication of this might be that the cities put forward projects simply to secure the money, almost regardless of their potential impact. If this allocation process were to change then greater thought might be given to the nature of the projects put forward for support.
When set against these fundamental issues most of the other factors raised in the analysis are relatively unimportant.
4.9 Given the earlier analysis and the evidence from the Urban Taskforce, outlined above (Paragraph 3.10), we would suggest that the Executive consider issuing CGF Guidance that states that:-
- Funding is to be used to support, either a single project in each city receiving CGF, or a limited number of geographically concentrated projects that reinforce one another and are both new and additional, with both of these terms being defined by the Executive;
- To be eligible for support projects need initial justification in terms of their iconic or visionary nature 5;
- CGF be allocated according to 2 criteria:-
- population, with each city receiving an allocation based upon its share of the 6 cities' population;
- Project impact in sub-regional terms, with this element of the fund being allocated on a competitive basis.
- We would suggest that the split between the 2 criteria be 60:40 initially; and
- Projects be expected to develop overall ratios of at least 1:2, that is every £1 of CGF expenditure levers in a further £2 from other sources.
4.10 It may also be worthwhile considering if the Fund should be used solely to support capital projects. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this. On the plus side this would avoid projects becoming dependent upon time-limited funds. It may also be that the stress that we suggest be placed on larger "visionary" projects does not sit easily with revenue support. However, this might mean that such projects as vocational training in Glasgow (which seems to have been effective in creating a sub-regional interest in CGF) would not be supported. Whatever decision is made, it should be explicit and the maximum percentage of the allocation through the Fund, that can be used for revenue purposes, should be specified.
4.11 The danger with the above is that the Fund becomes more prescriptive and many of the things that are attractive to the cities are lost. However, our view is that as currently implemented CGF is not making as great an impact as it could. We see clearer guidance as being one way of increasing this impact.
« Previous | Contents | Next »