Cities should prepare their poker faces to win city deals

The government has invited 20 cities and their wider regions to make applications, but what about everyone else?
Manchester city centre arts disctrict
First street is a new arts hub in the centre of Manchester Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian Christopher Thomond/Guardian

My advice to applicants for a "wave two" city deal brings to mind a famous poker exchange in which the dealer tells the card player to stop cheating. "I'm not", replies the player, to which the dealer responds: "You must be – that's not the hand I dealt you!"

There has been impressive progress in the past 12 months on city growth agendas. Since publishing its Unlocking Growth in Cities initiative in December 2011, the government has agreed city deals with the eight core cities and their regions. These included many innovative approaches such as Manchester's "earnback" tax incremental financing in three deals, pooled economic development capital pots, and devolved skills and transport funding.

In October, 20 cities and their wider areas were invited to "compete for devolved powers in exchange for responsibilities to deliver growth locally" in a wave two expansion of the process. The Cabinet Office announcement invites the cities to submit initial proposals by 15 January 2013 and those with the strongest propositions will be invited to negotiate a deal.

The government has not indicated how many wave two negotiations it expects to undertake and has suggested that a core proposition will be developed for all wave two cities. This may be announced as early as March 2013, around the same time as the budget.

The development of wave two could potentially have a huge impact on locally-directed economic growth and enhanced devolution. The 20 cities and their wider areas in total amount to a population of around 14 million people, the same size again as the eight core city deals, and 50 to 100 local authorities could be involved.

However, the offer to local authorities is ambiguous and the hand being dealt to applicants seems unnecessarily skewed in favour of the (government) dealer. First, the areas invited are not all cities and 11 out of 20 might actually be local economic partnership (LEP) areas instead.

Second, it is unclear why the number of invitations is restricted to 20, as opposed to any other number, or indeed, any city with significant growth potential. Certainly major centres like Derby, Peterborough and Northampton must be wondering why they have not received an invitation to engage with the process.

Third, the introduction of a competitive element (with selection by government) is more akin to divide and rule centralism, rather than a localism in which any ambitious city can develop credible propositions, to which government responds in an empowering and permissive manner.

Perhaps the answer to this might be greater collaboration between cities and regions, including those who have been left out of the process. This network could collaborate on developing a core proposition that would assist in unlocking growth in England's mid-size cities and wider areas.

Collaboration might produce better city deals all round, could assist the government with the negotiation process for a larger number of deals, and would not preclude each city choosing their own distinctive approach alongside the core menu. This is a magnificent opportunity for both mid-size cities to demonstrate their strategic maturity, and for ministers to show their commitment to decentralisation.

The government dealt major urban areas outside the core cities a selective, competitive hand for enhanced powers and resources to deliver growth. If mid-size cities and their partners play this hand inclusively and in collaboration, I hope government will not tell them to stop cheating.

