top of page
Search

Can John Kingdon explain why the Northern Powerhouse is still a dream?

  • Writer: Sam Knight
    Sam Knight
  • Jun 19, 2019
  • 12 min read

Updated: Jun 21, 2019

Across the North of England 33 newspapers and websites have come together to call for a change in how the Government treats the North of England (Manchester Evening News, 2019). Their “Power Up The North” campaign has been echoed by local politicians, with the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham (2019), stating that ‘it’s five years almost to the day that a Conservative Chancellor… promised people here and across the North a Northern Powerhouse. We’ve had some progress since… but’s its been piecemeal’. A key promise of George Osborne (2014), the then Chancellor, was the need to join ‘our Northern cities together… by providing the modern transport connections they need’, but those who commute in the North know this has not been realised (Dispatches, 2019). Explaining why some policy issues rise up the policy agenda and why some do not, is the subject of John Kingdon’s (2011, p16) Multiple Streams Model which seeks to explain what influences what appears on the policy agenda. It is one of the most popular models for understanding the policy process and has been applied to multiple policy issues, including the issue of transportation (Rawat and Morris, 2016, p609-614). This article will apply his model to explain why there has been limited progress with the Northern Powerhouse and further the explanatory power of his model in the process.


33 Northern Newspapers and Websites have launched a campaign to "Power Up The North"

Kingdon (2011, pp.165) argues that for an issue to rise up the policy agenda: a problem needs to receive attention from policymakers, a viable policy solution needs to exist that tackles the problem and politicians are supportive of tackling the policy issue. Together they form Kingdon’s multiple streams model (see picture), with policy change only happening when all three streams couple together. This means that for progress to made on the Northern Powerhouse: the transport links in the North need to be deemed a problem by policymakers; a policy solution needs to be developed and Government must be supportive of improving transport in the North.

For Kingdon’s model to be able to fully explain why the Northern Powerhouse has failed to rise up the policy agenda, the definition of politics that Kingdon uses needs to be extended to include the role that ideas play. Kingdon (2011, p145) defines politics in a limited way referring only to electoral, partisan and pressure group factors. This fails to recognise the importance that ideas play. Subsequent applications of his model by others, have acknowledged the influence that discourse and ideas have on the behaviour of actors and organisations towards policy change (Rawat and Morris, 2016, p624). As has been argued in previous posts, the ideas that actors hold shape how they behave and what policies they see as being ‘feasible, legitimate, possible and desirable’ transport policies (Hay, 2006, p65). This means that ideas need to be included in Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model if it is to explain why there has been limited progress in implementing the Northern Powerhouse.


Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model

This also changes how the interaction between the three streams is conceptualised, Kingdon (2011, pxix and p168) states that the three streams operate largely independent of each other, only coming together when a policy window emerges due to a political event or a new problem gaining attention. In practice the three streams have a closer relationship. By including the role that ideas play, policy entrepreneurs operate in all three streams. They seek to help define how a problem is defined, design a policy that will be technically feasible and acceptable, and establish political support as well as trying to shape the ideas policymakers hold. This has been seen by the efforts of Transport for the North, which is a sub-national Transport Body formed to allow local authorities and businesses in the North to advocate for more investment in the North of England (Transport for the North, 2019a). Kingdon (2011, p128) would define Transport for the North as a policy entrepreneur. He defines policy entrepreneurs as a person or organisation which is seeking to soften up policy makers so that when an opportunity arises they can push through their proposal. In practice though they are not relying on chance to succeed - by waiting for a crisis to occur that puts the issue on the policy agenda or for a political event to occur - instead they seek to couple the streams together themselves by operating across the three streams. Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model has been criticised for relying too much on chance to explain why the streams couple together (Howlett et al, 2015, p421), this has decreased its explanatory ability and its usefulness to policy entrepreneurs. Therefore, although Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model can help explain why the Northern Powerhouse has been neglected by central Government (The Economist, 2019) it does need to be modified to include the effect that ideas play.



Problem stream

The problem stream refers to the problem that policymakers believe they need to confront (King, 1985, p281). The issue is that policymakers face several problems at the same time, so how they decide which problem is most pressing will determine which policy issue rises up the agenda. Kingdon (2011, p90) says that for a problem to receive the attention of policymaker’s statistical indicators, policymakers’ personal experiences and/or crises, must indicate there is an issue. The problem of poor transport links in the North of England has been recognised by policymakers, with the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling (2018), acknowledging that ‘50 years of transport underinvestment means Northern cities don’t just have poor connections to the rest of the UK – they have poor connections to each other, and within the city regions themselves’. This acknowledgement was the product of policy entrepreneurs using the factors Kingdon (2011, p90) highlighted to convince policymakers. The National Infrastructure Commission (2016, p13-17) used statistical indicators to show the scale of the divide between the North and South of England in terms of Gross Value Added to the UK economy and highlighted that commuting levels between major cities in the North were below what would be expected. Manchester and Sheffield had commuter levels 38% lower than expected due to the poor transport links between the two. While Transport for the North (2019b) has highlighted that it takes longer to travel from Hull to Liverpool by train than it takes to travel from London to Paris, despite London to Paris being double the distance.


The crisis on Northern trains in 2018, following a change in the timetable which saw up to 310 trains a day cancelled (Nowell, 2019), helped raise awareness of the problem of the North receiving insufficient investment in Northern transport. It also highlighted the importance of Kingdon’s (2011, p96) observation that how policymakers travel has some effect on what policies rise up the policy agenda. Forth (2018) reports that although there was greater disruption on Northern trains greater attention was given by the media to the disruption on Thameslink trains which run into London. Having policymakers based in London shapes the experiences and the ideas they possess. As the ideas that policymakers hold shape how they interpret the world (Hay, 2002, p194), it means that how a problem is defined, and the policy response taken depends on the ideas policymakers hold. This means that if policy entrepreneurs are to succeed in promoting the Northern Powerhouse they must take seriously the importance that ideas play in how the problem of investment in Northern transport infrastructure is interpreted. As Kingdon (2011, pp.110) says there ‘are great political stakes in problem definition’, as how a problem is defined, determines whether it receives attention and the policy solutions proposed to solve it.



This has been shown by the importance that the rhetoric of the Northern Powerhouse has had in allowing the North’s transport infrastructure to be defined as an issue. As Luke Raikes, a Senior Research Fellow at the thinktank IPPR North, says presenting the North as a potential powerhouse has challenged the perception that the North is a backward economy, but instead has potential that is being held back by poor infrastructure. This means that the current poor infrastructure in the North is seen as a problem, as it is limiting the growth potential of the UK. As Kingdon (2011, p114) argues getting policymakers to view a problem in certain way is a major political achievement. To get policymakers in London to define poor infrastructure in the North as an issue, policy entrepreneurs have had change how policymakers have understood the North. Only partial progress has been made though (Berry and Giovannini, 2018, p6), the ideas policymakers hold has therefore limited the progress that is being made.


Policy Stream

For a policy to rise up the policy agenda, Kingdon (2011, p131-138) says it must address the problem, be technically feasible and be able to convince politicians and the public that it is the best solution. Transport for the North have been tasked with creating policy solutions that meet these criteria. As part of their efforts they have published the Strategic Transport Plan which seeks to improve transport across the North, both North-South and East-West (Transport for the North, 2019c, p10). Transport for the North has been able to show that their proposals are technically possible and predict the future benefits. Barry White, Chief Executive Officer of Transport for the North, has stated that if the North can secure the investment advocated for it could boost the region’s economy by £100 billion (26 February 2018, HC 582, Q107). Kingdon (2011, p137-138) says that policy specialists need to create policies that are acceptable to politicians and policymakers. Transport for the North have sought to do this, they have presented the proposed projects in a way that meets the aims set out in the Department for Transport’s (2017, p6-7) Transport Investment Strategy. Mick Noone, the Director of integrated Transport for Merseytravel, told the Transport Select Committee inquiry on Rail Infrastructure Investment that High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail could add £15 billion to the economy and help 10,000 more people find houses in the Liverpool City Region (26 February 2018, HC 582, Q107). Both predicted benefits meet the Transport Investment Strategy’s (2017, p7) aims of using investment to ‘build a stronger, more balanced economy by enhancing productivity’ and to ‘support the creation of new housing’.



The policy proposals have also gained the support of local businesses and the wider public, helping the Northern Powerhouse to rise up the policy agenda, thanks to promotion from policy entrepreneurs such as Transport for the North. According to The Economist (2019) over half of Northerns have heard of the Northern Powerhouse and 63% wanted the money that was being spent on High Speed 2 spent on Northern Powerhouse Rail instead (Dispatches, 2019). A survey of 5000 businesses across the North of England (Addleshaw Goddard, 2019) has shown that there is widespread support of the policy proposals put forward by Transport for the North. 97% of businesses were aware of Northern Powerhouse Rail and believed that it would benefit their business. 99% believed that it would raise the productivity of the Northern Powerhouse and 85% believed that it would increase inward investment. Having a worked-out policy solution and support from both the public and businesses means that the chance of the policy being accepted increases, but unless all three streams converge then a policy will not rise up the agenda.


Politics Stream

The political stream according to Kingdon (2011, p145) refers to electoral, partisan or pressure group factors. Kingdon (2011, p150) highlights that organised political forces are part of the political stream and can help bring about policy change. He states that through interest group pressure, political mobilization and support from political elites, a policy can rise up the policy agenda. The Northern Powerhouse appears to have all of these. Pressure is being applied on the Government to meet its commitments, if that be from the media (as seen by the Power Up The North campaign) or thinktanks such as IPPR North. By devolving power to Northern Cities and Regions, the North has been mobilized, with City Mayors such as the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, being able to argue the case for more investment and bodies such as Transport for the North able to put forward policy proposals. There also appears to be support from political elites in central Government, with the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling (2018) saying that the Government has a ‘programme to rebuild the transport fabric of the North and deliver the Northern Powerhouse’. Despite this, progress has been limited (Berry and Giovannini, 2018, p12). Kingdon (2011, p153) says that when the Government changes it offers an opportunity for policy change to occur. This puts the blame on individual ministers and the current Government for the failure of the Northern Powerhouse. This view is seen by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn (2019) who puts the blame on the Conservative Government, saying ‘the Conservative promise to create a “Northern Powerhouse” turned out to be a cruel joke’. While the Leader of the Opposition would be expected to criticise the Government, Kingdon’s framework fails to offer a full explanation, ignoring the larger structural reasons why the Northern Powerhouse has not been delivered.


By focusing only on electoral, partisan and pressure groups, Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model cannot explain why ‘Westminster has failed the North of England under Governments of all colours, over many decades’ (Burnham, 2019). As the academics Berry and Giovannini (2018, p12) state ‘the Northern Powerhouse should be understood as simply the latest political narrative in a long-standing tradition of British statecraft which has subordinated the interests of development in the North of England to those of the global financial and commercial interests of the City of London’. As has been argued in previous posts the role that ideas play in shaping how policymakers act need to be included in any political analysis of policy. The ideas and narratives that policymakers hold in Government should be included in the political stream, as if a policy solution does not fit within what is accepted desirable it will not be approved (Hay, 2006, p65). If policy entrepreneurs accept this, they have a greater chance of coupling the three streams together. Luke Raikes from IPPR North, says this has happened with the Northern Powerhouse, to increase the chance of succeeding the Northern Powerhouse has co-opted the narrative of agglomeration economics. This has helped get Government approval for transport policies that link together the cities of the North, to achieve the perceived agglomeration benefits (Martin and Gardiner, 2018, p48). This has limited the assistance given to smaller cities and towns, resulting in only ‘piecemeal’ progress (Burnham, 2019) but some progress has been made, due to policy entrepreneurs acknowledging the limits that ideas place on what polices rise up the policy agenda.


Notice the focus only on the North's major cities

Overall limited progress has been made on the Northern Powerhouse due to the failure of the political stream to couple with the problem and policy stream. The problem of a lack of investment in the North’s transport links has been acknowledged and policy solutions have been developed by Transport for the North, but still progress has been limited. The Government’s rhetoric suggests that the political stream has been coupled together, but in practice this has not happened. Kingdon’s framework can therefore only partially explain why the Northern Powerhouse has not been fully implemented, the role that ideas play needs to be included to offer a fuller explanation. The result of this is that merely creating policy solutions is not enough to guarantee that the North receives a better deal nor is merely highlighting the extent of the problem. As has been correctly highlighted in the “Power Up The North Campaign”, the problem is the political stream. A key demand that has been made is that ‘a fundamental shift in decision-making out of London, giving devolved powers and self-determination to people in the North’ is needed (Manchester Evening News). For the Northern Powerhouse to succeed a shift is needed in the political stream, with a change in the way the UK is governed. This is because the ideas that Government hold are London-centric and the only way to change this is to move power away from London. As the academic Ron Martin (2009, p43) says ‘the influence of economic, financial and political power in London and the South East continues to distort the policy agenda’.


References:

Commentaires

bottom of page