Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McVittie, E.
Right arrow Articles by Swales, J. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3, 425-438 (2007)
DOI: 10.1080/00420980601176022
© 2007 Urban Studies Journal Limited

Reviews

The Information Requirements for an Effective Regional Policy: A Critique of the Allsopp Review

Eric McVittie

University of Plymouth Business School, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK, e.mcvittie@ plymouth.ac.uk

J. Kim Swales

Fraser of Allander Institute and Centre for Public Policy for Regions, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 0GE, UK, j.k.swales{at}strath.ac.uk

This paper considers the recommendations of the Allsopp Review on the adequacy of UK regional economic statistics. It raises general concerns over the philosophy underpinning the review and specific questions as to whether the review's recommendations are sufficient to operate effectively the present UK regional policy regime. In particular, the institutional arrangements that make up the 'new localism' in UK regional policy have data requirements that are more extensive than simply monitoring performance against government targets. Many of these in formational requirements were simply not considered or were given an inappropriately low weight in the Review's deliberations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?