Delivering Digital Devolution
(This post was written as an assignment for MLD671M, a course at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government)
A difficult thing about being a Brit studying public policy in the US is trying to convey how centralised the UK political system is - particularly when it comes to discussing city leadership. At a summit for UK and US mayors at the end of last year held by the Centre for Cities, the gulf in formal powers between both sets of leaders was clear. One US mayor rightly argued ‘‘you can’t control your future if you don’t control your resources’.
It’s in that context that I’m drawn to Mike Bracken’s argument about the role of digital transformation in disrupting the status quo. The Government Digital Service (GDS) mantra of ‘strategy is delivery’, which Mike championed as Executive Director, speaks to a broader philosophy that part of the problem with policy is there’s too much of it. When it comes to the interactions between citizens and the state, via services or platforms, sometimes the most powerful thing you can do is to act first and strategise later. And that’s definitely true of the local government landscape in the UK since 2010. There has been political ambition from the centre, but it’s been a bit lost in numerous iterations of devolution deals.
It’s been rightly highlighted that the two movements — digital and devolution — go hand in hand. Smart Devolution means that the new powers of mayors in the UK are hollow if not informed by data, and also that data cannot be properly harnessed without the strategic leadership and access to capital of mayors. What’s true for data can also be true for digital — Nesta’s ‘Connected Councils’ report on what digital local government could look like in 2025 argued that digital transformation could unleash the place-shaping potential of metro-mayors. Building a new, inclusive economy in areas of the UK that have been ignored by Westminster might not require additional policy, but new digital tools to engage citizens and redesigned digital services to begin tackling deep-rooted inequity. The strategy is delivery.
Yet not one of the devolution deals includes the phrase ‘digital transformation’. There’s a lot of conversation in local government about the need for smart devolution, but as Theo Russell, London’s Chief Digital Officer, highlights:
‘In each of these conversations there’s agreement that improved digital leadership is critical but we often fail at the second and third question following that — who is best placed to undertake it and what does leadership constitute in practice?’
Over the next few months, I’m working on a project to explore those questions as they relate specifically to metro-mayors that head combined authorities. Working with one mayoral team, which I’ll confirm soon, I’m going to take learnings from digital transformation in Estonia, New Zealand, Argentina, the US, and elsewhere, and consider what they mean for a combined authority- specific delivery model.
Why digital transformation?
A lot has been written elsewhere about the opportunities presented by metro-mayors and combined authorities, so here I want to pull out three key points as they relate to digital:
Financial Pressures: Despite the capital investments agreed as part of the creation of combined authorities, the local government units they are made up of have faced consistent budget reductions. Digital transformation cannot just be a way of optimising for efficiency, but has to be about fundamentally rethinking delivery models.
Rising Demand: Local government has significant and increasing responsibilities regarding service provision, particularly to vulnerable populations. Understanding the needs of these populations and targeting interventions requires a better use of data, and delivering services to meets their needs requires new digital tools.
Regional Economic Inequality: One of the drivers behind the creation of Combined Authorities, and George Osborne’s ‘Northern Powerhouse’, was the growing divide between London and the rest of the country. The devolution of powers regarding skills and urban regeneration speak to a vision of metro-mayors as champions of new and vibrant inclusive local economies.
Governance and Leadership
A central focus of my project is going to be the appropriate form of organisational governance to drive digital transformation. As Natalie Taylor, previously at London City Hall, argues:
‘Local government has no GDS equivalent, no centralised service standard which must be applied in order for digital services to go live, no centralised spend controls, no Francis Maude at the helm championing the efficiency savings which are achievable through digital transformation.’
So some key research questions will be — can the GDS model work in a Combined Authority, or do we need to look at other international models to find inspiration? Is the appropriate C-suite leader a Chief Data Officer, a Chief Digital Officer, or a Chief Digital and Innovation Champion? And how can we make the best of great steps forward that have already taken place, like the creation of the Local Government Digital Service Standard?
At the end of this project, in mid-May, I’ll produce a business case for a metro-mayor that sets out how they could begin implementing a digital service vision, in order to fundamentally transform the city region they lead. If you’d like to be part of it, I’d love to hear from you.
