policy, practice and research

ENTERPRISE POLICY, DELIVERY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: LARGELY RHETORIC OR UNDER-VALUED ACHIEVEMENT?

Professor John Thompson Roger M Bale Professor of Entrepreneurship The Business School, University of Huddersfield Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH +44 1484 472073 ; [email protected]

Dr Jonathan M. Scott Reader Teesside University Business School, Teesside University Southfield Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, +44 7872 188918 ; [email protected]

Dr Ron Downing Visiting Research Fellow CENTRIM, University of Brighton Freeman Centre, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9QE

Forthcoming from International Journal of Public Sector Management (IJPSM)

1

ENTERPRISE POLICY, DELIVERY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: LARGELY RHETORIC OR UNDER-VALUED ACHIEVEMENT?

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to analyse enterprise policy in the United Kingdom (UK), in relation to decisions about policy, policy delivery, entrepreneurial practice and academic/consultative research.

Design/method/approach: The paper offers and discusses a conceptual framework for analysis of the actors, decisions, and issues involved in enterprise policy-making and policy delivery alongside the interests of the businesses they seek to serve and the academics who provide research support – to shed new light on the UK Government‟s challenge in satisfying its stated remit.

Findings: It considers whether an all-embracing enterprise strategy – with clear ownership and shared commitment – is a realistic alternative to the more piecemeal approach we have experienced in the past. The issues are grounded in key lessons from systems and strategy to assess their relevance to the debate.

Originality/Value: The change of government in the UK in 2010, the first change for thirteen years, makes this debate apposite and the relevant issues discussed are an important challenge for the new Coalition.

Keywords: Enterprise policy; decision making; systems; strategy; delivery; practice; research; UK

2

1 Introduction Responsibility for United Kingdom (UK) competitiveness and regeneration is shared amongst several stakeholders, with the Government forming any overarching strategy. We explore the roles and contributions of a diverse group of interlinked stakeholders: entrepreneurs, investors, policy-makers and academics. We reflect upon the obvious absence of a shared „big picture‟, postulate the potential value of holistic thinking and debate the feasibility of this development happening. Without it, we suggest the UK will continue with an experiment with emergent but uncertain outcomes. In context, prior to the 2010 UK General Election, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills‟ (BIS) Enterprise Directorate: „works across Whitehall, the Regional Development Agencies and key delivery partners to ensure that government – national, regional and local – understands and responds to the needs of entrepreneurs and small businesses‟ (BIS, pre-election 2010; emphases added).

Now in 2011 its Enterprise Directorate: „works across Government and the regions to develop and influence policies to boost enterprise, start ups and small business growth.‟ (BIS, 2010, accessed 17/05/11; emphases added).

Both objectives imply clear outcomes, which evidence (e.g. Bennett, 2008; Greene et al, 2004, 2008) suggests have not been achieved. Blackburn and Kovalainen, (2009: 131) identified many „diverse agendas and competing stakeholder demands‟, calling for: „higher reflexivity over the relationships between policy and research domains.” (ibid, p. 132). This paper examines UK Government enterprise policy, developing a conceptual framework to analyse its enterprise policy in relation to decisions about policy, policy delivery, entrepreneurial practice and academic/consultative research. The UK has seen a national (with regional variations) initiative driven, or programme-driven, approach with inherent fragmentation. Programmes and initiatives have been trialled and subsequently either amended or replaced by fresh initiatives, especially with a change of Government. There are parallels with the debate on public sector leadership and governance (Liddle, 2010,

3

2011), and clearly leadership is key to the delivery of strategy. 1 The most recent phase (of many) of enterprise policy focuses on regeneration (Greene et al, 2008). Whilst the enterprise policy of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government elected in 2010 was always likely to contain elements of both change and continuity, the preceding Labour Government was in power from 1997 to 2010 and during this time a number of changes took place regarding enterprise policy and enterprise support (see, for example, Bennett, 2008; Curran and Storey, 2002; Mole et al, 2008a, b, 2011). Enterprise policy is conceptualised in this paper as an experimental (learning-from-experience and evidence-based) process of developing an optimum model – who can best do whatever will have the greatest impact. While Government policy is focused on programmes and initiatives representing priorities, embracing new ideas and delivering desired outputs and outcomes, Chapman (2002) warned that traditional Civil Service thinking and policy making is „mechanistic and reductionist‟, and policies and programmes (will) fail without customer and client buy-in. The Civil Service, he argues, needs to become more of a learning organisation and embrace holistic thinking (Chapman, 2002). Although it may be too ambitious, the authors believe in the desirability of developing an agreed, higher-order, all-embracing enterprise strategy (as distinct from one declared by Her Majesty's (HM) Treasury and BERR, 2008) that someone owns and that could enable evaluation – i.e. beyond the scope of this analysis – of its desired (rather than perceived) outcomes – whether the gap being addressed is the result of „wrong policy‟ or „poor implementation‟ (of an otherwise good idea) or, indeed, both. Section 2 conceptualises the model. Section 3 provides a discussion of the actors (stakeholders) involved in the network. Section 4 comprises a reflection on key implications for policy and practice, while Section 5 is a conclusion to this paper. 1

Whilst beyond the scope of this paper, the linkage between enterprise strategy and public sector leadership is a viable future avenue for in-depth research and analysis.

4

2 Theoretical perspectives and conceptual development For governments, policy is a top-down approach of designing planned and intended courses of action to deal with perceived (i.e. subjective meanings attached to observations and data) issues and problems. Policy-making, therefore, reflects attempts to design activities, stimuli and programmes which will lead to desired emergent behaviours, reactions and decisionmaking: and yet variations in perception, communication and understanding may cause counter-intuitive behaviour. Systems thinking demonstrates that the emergent properties of a whole are: (i) more than the sum of its parts, and (ii) affected by the various impacts that the parts have on each other (see Checkland, 1981). Policy tends to have a “mechanistic” and “rationalist” tendency, thus suggesting a need for learning, and viewing organisations as “complex adaptive systems” (Chapman, 2002). On occasions, policy outcomes will be counter-productive and make the original situation worse rather than better. Government regulation, designed in part to help regulate markets and improve standards and conditions, often increases costs, especially for the smallest businesses, making them uncompetitive (Bennett, 2008). Indeed, Governments‟ macroeconomic policy may be more important than business support, and, “based on the evidence assembled here, [they] could justify very few elements of micro policy” (Storey and Greene: 457). Similarly, helping businesses with low product/service demand to survive may disadvantage competitors that are either better run or offering a superior product. For policy-makers, it appears that social motives can often outweigh economic concerns (which politicians are likely to consider a matter of balance). The impacts are in part counter-intuitive because of what policy-makers do not know – and perhaps cannot know – and what they fail to understand. Evidence-based enterprise policy that is informed by research (Blackburn and Smallbone, 2008) is a bottomup process, which should result in a set of outcomes that (in some substantial way) satisfy the needs and declared wants of the relevant stakeholders.

5

Figure 1 shows a conceptual model for an all-embracing enterprise strategy which includes: the actors responsible for policy creation and delivery; targeted business owners and academia; and the network linkages. There is a (sometimes innocent) propensity to misunderstand the significance of certain events and data that can lead to policies and actions that have counter-intuitive effects: particularly relevant in the context of who actually understands what support (in its broadest definition) small and micro businesses really need. The most critical information need that policy-makers have is a clear and accurate insight into what support would-be entrepreneurs and small businesses need and how this can be delivered efficiently and effectively.

Figure 1 The Policy-Delivery-Practice-Research Framework

i Ab

lity

to

en flu n i

ce

y lic

Shared understanding of need

Policy Responsibility Agreed priorities

Ab i

Pe l i ty

to

rc

ep tio n in of flu ro en le ce po lic y

Pe Do

Shared role clarity

R

e tiv

ac ro

po

Delivery Agencies

Shared, complementary or competing agenda

c ea

/p

e tiv

re

io lat

hip ns

rc

ei

ve d

- ef - Pa fe

th Del cka ctiv ey ive g en m ry e in es ee pr s o tp in f cip c er ce le on tri ive bu d tio ne ns ed s

Business Practice Micro and small businesses

d an e ns c an tio tor c lev ibu re ntr h se ’? d co t ee i e r f ei v o on w i f f rc lue ti OK e a t ‘ P va pu it Re Is

Academia Researching and Teaching roles

Note: „practice‟ is those on the receiving end (businesses targeted), rather than the deliverers of policy.

6

Figure 2 Annotated Policy-Practice Framework Publicly funded influencers NCGE Enterprise Insight NESTA

Regional Development Agencies Local Government Business Links Enterprise Agencies Chambers of Commerce Learning & Skills Council ESRC, SRC Job Centre Plus Brokered –in Providers Prime 50+ Sector crutches

Delivery agencies

Venture funds Banks

Policy responsibility

Business Practice

BIS plus other relevant Gov’t departments Local Government European Commission

Private influencers Shell Livewire Prince of Wales and The Prince’s Trust Business in the Community ‘Dragons Den’ Role models & their self-help books & autobiographies UKBI & individual business incubators

Micro & small Businesses Plus: CBI IOD FSB

Academia Research Role & Teaching Role Plus: ISBE ICSB Enterprise Educators BAM

Acronyms: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE), National Endowment for Science and The Arts (NESTA), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) , UK Business Incubation (UKBI), Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Institute of Dir ectors (IOD), Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Institute of Small Business & Entrepreneurship (ISBE), International Council for Small Business (ICSB) an d British Academy of Management (BAM). In addition, Enterprise Insight is now known as Enterprise UK.

3 Discussion: Enterprise policy, delivery and the role of academia Figure 2 shows the policy-practice framework with the actors annotated: with those making and those delivering policy rarely being the same actors; with the individual businesses and entrepreneurs not represented much of the time; and with academics working with many of these actors (and sometimes the businesses), but not necessarily coherently. 3.1 Policy and delivery Enterprise policy and delivery responsibility is largely held by the UK Government, Local Government and, until the introduction of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). HM Treasury (which controls the coffers and broad macroeconomic policy and is, therefore, the leading driver of enterprise policy) and BIS have actively encouraged other Government departments to incorporate enterprise issues and, since agendas and priorities will not be synonymous across departments, there is perhaps no identifiable owner of any overall overarching „enterprise strategy‟. It remains debatable

7

whether policy-makers, public sector policy delivery agencies or private sector providers best understand the needs of small businesses. Using the framework in Figures 1 and 2, and endeavouring to draw upon the current media-reported concerns with (over) regulation and a perceived (by some) shortfall in small business funding, we have identified five key illustrative policy decision themes (not a comprehensive or exhaustive list), where we do not know either the solution or even the best way forward. Without knowing what ideally we need to know, there will continue to be uncertainty over policy and strategy. Theme One: Closing Business Links in 2011 – and providing advice and support through a BIS information website and a single, central call centre – truly defensible only if small business owners and other users know what they do not know and where to look for information. Arguably, many do not. Moreover, many do not appreciate the potential value of mentoring and coaching – or where they might find it. Theme Two: Finance. It is not difficult to find people with the opinion that banks are not lending money and thus starving small businesses and lengthening the recession. But part of the economic problems the UK faces stems from bank lending that was less than prudent. Some businesses will always struggle to access finance (the downside), while others claim that good ideas and good businesses continue to receive funding, and that the banks have got funds to invest. Regardless of the mixed messages, businesses (if they have a viable proposition) must make a stronger case to banks and understand more clearly how lenders see the inherent risk in their business and proposal. Theme Three: Concern with the extent of regulation and „red tape‟, which can inhibit entrepreneurs from, say, employing staff, but which requires businesses to take some key issues seriously and and also helps to inhibit and discourage rogue traders. Finding the appropriate balance is challenging.

8

Theme Four: Government aims to raise awareness of self-employment as a viable career choice often for target groups, e.g. for unemployed people, veterans, and parents of young children etc who prefer to work from home. Yet we could argue tentatively that it is people „everywhere‟ with entrepreneurial potential that should be identified and encouraged. Moreover, certain television programmes may have a greater impact on awareness and intent than either Government Ministers or academics. Theme Five: We know (Storey, 2010) that successful past performance is no guarantee that a SME will prosper in the future – and that previously poor performers can benefit from a change of strategy and emphasis. The implication is that support needs to change as businesses develop and there is no „one size fits all‟ solution. Of course, even with a wider „buy in‟ to an enterprise strategy, there would still be unpredictable interventions from „entrepreneurship enablers‟ (Thompson, 2010), those individuals who initiate something quite independently but which has the effect of encouraging other entrepreneurs to emerge and prosper

3.2 Academia, research and evaluation Following the Bolton report (1971), SMEs, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship have been researched widely in the UK (Curran and Storey, 2002). Academia‟s contribution is diverse but not as influential as it could be: some academics are commissioned to evaluate existing policies (see Greene, 2009; Storey, 2002) and others to carry out blue sky research. Academic research can have differential impacts on policy and practice, according to Davidsson (2002), and, while it has been argued (though controversially so) that historically “research has had relatively little impact” upon the creation of UK SME policy (Curran and Storey, 2002: 163), Blackburn and Smallbone (2008: 277-8) observed that:

9

“Apart from the quality of the research itself, other factors which affect its influence on policy include the extent that policy makers are really committed to evidence based policy and the process of policy making itself; the context in which the research is commissioned; and the relationship between those commissioning the research within a policy agency or government department and the end users i.e., those responsible for actually developing and/or implementing policy.”

Certainly, it would appear that academics have had a moderate influence upon enterprise policy-making in the UK, though it might also be plausible to argue that the broader ideological perspective of the ruling party or coalition (themselves inspired by historical thinkers - whether Marx, Hayek, Friedman, Keynes or otherwise) have been more influential. Academic research may be initiated by policy-makers, or academic researchers may be given an opportunity to present research to policy-makers. It is less clear whether there is an open assessment of perceived market need (which may, of course, be misguided or unrealistic as owners of SMEs and would-be entrepreneurs may not necessarily appreciate what they really need). Ideally, policy-makers should be in a position to argue that the research contribution of academia has enabled them to learn more and this learning has a genuine value, that it has led to informed change, and that they have been able to foster measurable improvements.

4 A reflection on the implications for policy and practice Government is an enterprise policy-maker, funder and, arguably, leader (Liddle, 2010, 2011). It is not normally a policy deliverer, nor do the departments that create the policies necessarily make funding decisions; and yet all the modes of strategy creation (see, for example, Thompson and Martin, 2010) are involved in the policy-making process, since strong leaders have ideas (created or borrowed) and they create „instant policy‟. The emergent and less interventionist, fiscal-stimulant enterprise strategy being implemented by the Coalition is different, in many respects, from New Labour‟s neo-Keynesian approach. At the heart of the Government‟s overarching policies lie the linked visions of the restoration of

1 0

the “civic middle” of voluntary organisations that were displaced by encroaching statism (Blond, 2010), and of the “Big Society”, itself potentially implemented through social entrepreneurial forms of organisations (Conservative Party, 2010; Jones and Liddle, 2011; Liddle et al, 2009; Singh, 2010). It is unclear yet, however, whether, in line with Blond's (2010) thinking and the Government's Big Society vision, volunteer mentors might be more effective than business advisers. Given criticisms of the effectiveness of business support (Storey and Greene, 2010), that is potentially a plausible argument, but there is no empirical evidence whether volunteer mentors would deliver higher levels of customer satisfaction (i.e. a subjective measure of effectiveness) than advisers. Subsequent speeches by the Prime Minister and other Ministers have emphasised the need for 'more' entrepreneurship, and a pro-business and job-creating Government as well as measures that will promote new businesses and employment opportunities. Two specific examples of firm-level initiatives include Project Merlin and the Better Finance Taskforce, and associated Better Business Finance web portal, to enhance SMEs' access to finance from banks, and the new Volunteer Mentoring Scheme, itself a collaboration with high street banks.2 Macroeconomic measures, on the other hand, include HM Treasury's Plan for Growth, as part of the Growth Review, which aims to reduce barriers to economic growth across Government and to achieve the private sector led growth that the Coalition considers to be essential to economic recovery, in terms of tax competitiveness, starting, financing and growing a business, investment and exports, and a highly skilled, educated workforce (HM Treasury and BIS, 2010). In addition, the new Government – perhaps seeking to emulate the 1980s enterprise culture of Margaret Thatcher – is reintroducing Enterprise Zones (deprived locations where business start up is incentivised through various waivers and fiscal stimuli) and the Enterprise Allowance

2

See http://www.betterbusinessfinance.co.uk and http://www.mentorsme.co.uk

1 1

Scheme (for unemployed individuals). We do not seek here to comment upon the effectiveness or otherwise of these measures in their first and subsequent incarnations. An early analysis of the new UK Government‟s emergent enterprise policy would suggest an approach which combines some current, some traditional reintroductions and some radical new policy actions. However, given prior criticisms of Business Link and the effectiveness of Government business support (e.g. Greene et al, 2008; Bridge, 2010), it would be realistic to suggest that more radical changes are likely to emerge in the future. At present, there are inevitably no academic accounts of the direction of Coalition enterprise policy to draw from, so this is one of the first attempts, developed from a number of sources to project the likely direction of policy (apart from at least one account from the perspective of a practitioner and former insider (Irwin, 2010)). The most significant shake-up of enterprise policy has been the announcement of the abolition of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), to be replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs),3 defined as, partnerships „led by local authorities and businesses across natural economic areas ... provide the vision, knowledge and strategic leadership needed to drive sustainable private sector growth and job creation in their area‟ (BIS, 2011). LEPs attracted a number of bids from Local Authorities (LAs) interested in establishing these LAbusiness partnerships to support enterprise – 36 of these had the formation of their LEP boards approved (BIS, 2011). A LEP Capacity Fund has also been launched to fund research and other actions needed to comprehend barriers to growth in specific LEP areas (BIS, 2011). An initial meeting of LEPs took place, as the basis for the formation of an Association of LEPs (Cabinet Office, 2011). The Local Growth White Paper sets out the framework by which the LEPs and other initiatives, such as the Regional Growth Fund, aim to support subregional growth (BIS, 2010b). Its themes are about „shifting power to local communities and 3

Business Links are also being abolished, but may in some areas survive.

1 2

businesses‟, „increasing confidence to invest‟ and „focused intervention‟ (i.e. where there are market failures and „barriers to growth‟ (ibid). The primary rationales for the formation of LEPs are that some RDA functions would operate better at the national level (BIS and CLG, 2010) , while the „regional‟ boundaries of current RDAs, „artificial‟ constructs as they are, do not appear to reflect the realities of local economies (CLG, 2010). LEPs will provide for their locales „strategic leadership‟ (BIS and CLG, 2010), but it is not clear whether this „localism‟ approach is part of a bigger picture, or overall UK Enterprise Strategy. Concerns and criticisms of LEPs are already evident, for example, in terms of „a lack of business engagement‟ within some of the 59 bids (Federation of Small Businesses, 2010), the need for LEPs to be „transformative‟ rather than „consultative talking-shops or day-to-day delivery bodies‟ in order to achieve „private-sector-led growth‟ (British Chambers of Commerce, 2010). LEPs have, however, had a positive assessment from a leading parliamentary committee (House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, 2010). Four tests have been proposed by the think-tank ippr north, namely to „empower the sub-national level‟, „further social justice‟, for LEPs to be part of a „functional economic area‟ and „accountability‟ (Johnson and Schmuecker, 2010). This radically different new economic model is juxtaposed with evidence that state business support is generally ineffective, as opposed to macroeconomic policy (Greene et al, 2008) and that „good practice‟ begets failure (Bridge, 2010). We might assume that operating at the macroeconomic level is the superior alternative if we have yet to define the most effective micro interventions, but should this be an invitation to stop experimenting? Useful for our understanding of how to move the policy levers of entrepreneurship could, arguably, be the new model of social influence proposed by Bridge (2010), which moves beyond traditional social capital conceptualisations to posit that the social acceptance by peers (families and friends) is a major influencer in making entrepreneurs decide whether or not to start a

1 3

business. It is notable that, while RDAs are being abolished, many Business Links may survive as independent organisations without (much) Government support, but there is no clarity at present as to their legal form, purpose or whether they will (continue to) add value. Another casualty is some Enterprise Agencies and it is perhaps significant that in 2011 the National Federation of Enterprise Agencies (NFEA) rebranded itself National Enterprise Network to reflect a broader remit. It is not clear to what extent LEPs (given apparent past RDA failure) can engender a change in the enterprise culture so as to encourage potential entrepreneurs to start up. Concomitant with this point is Greene et al‟s (2008) observation about start up business quality and whether LEPs can fix local economies with low start up rates by: (a) changing the mindset of potential entrepreneurs and their close social networks, and (b) supporting start ups with a high growth potential. That latter point in itself depends on whether business support is still to be a component of social policy, i.e. facilitating self-employment, and also on the hardening attitude of the Government towards welfare claimants, and moves towards welfare reform. Indeed, it may be argued that it is recipients of benefits who are worst placed to start a business, partly because of a lack of entrepreneurs and other experts and potential mentors in their social networks. To summarise – as well as an overarching „Enterprise Strategy‟ – focus needs to be on enhancing business support provision, reforming the macroeconomic (taxation, regulatory and benefits) regime and also action to change the mindsets of the influencers in the social networks of nascent entrepreneurs (Bridge, 2010). Some continuity rather than change is evident in the implementation of Solutions for Business, the outworking of the previous government‟s Business Support Simplification Programme, introduced in March 2009, which sets out to cut from 3,000 to 30 the Government‟s business support schemes and present them under one brand (BIS, 2010a). Recent rhetoric includes, from the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister), „an

1 4

entrepreneurial economy‟ while reducing the structural deficit (Osborne, 2010), and from the Business Secretary, on supporting „the knowledge economy‟ (Cable, 2010). Whether this is envisaged to be from the perspective of macroeconomic reform or interventionist business support (via LEPs) remains to be seen as the veil slides back from the Coalition‟s enterprise policy agenda. Future developments include, first, the importance and significance of entrepreneur selection – with prioritisation (influenced by social influence (Bridge, 2010)). HM Government (2010), in its programme for government, describes business as 'the driver of economic growth and innovation', and goes on to argue the case for an increase in levels of entrepreneurship. The main focus of the Coalition's programme for Government as outlined in this document, however, is the reduction of regulation, taxation, as well as some specific initiatives such as procurement, creating LEPs, 'implementing the Dyson Review' of hightechnology exporting (ibid). An general overview of this document would suggest that, rather than developing or sustaining interventionist business support (given ideological objections to interventionism, as well as evidence that it is ineffective (e.g. Greene et al, 2008; Bridge, 2010)), that the Coalition will adopt macroeconomic regulatory and taxation measures which, as argued by Storey and Greene (2010), is more effective than business support. Second is the significance of enabling and enablers – both of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs (Thompson, 2010). There is an assumption that the Government needs to intervene to correct market failure, but perhaps true entrepreneurs would find their own support regardless. Whilst intervention encourages more would-be entrepreneurs to start up, there may also be a risk that weaker entrepreneurs and businesses are supported and „kept alive‟ when failure (and a new start) might be better. Third, whether people providing advice, coaching and mentoring actually need personal experience of starting or running a small business. Experienced business people can make very good mentors; at the same time, there is

1 5

anecdotal evidence that some Business Link advisers feel they are sometimes forced outside their comfort zones with certain questions.

5 Conclusion and some key questions for future research Our aim has been to analyse the enterprise policy of the UK Government in relation to policy delivery, entrepreneurial practice and academic/consultative research. Policy-makers must make difficult choices and, given budgetary pressures, future funding cannot meet every need or priority. Therefore, a focused and prioritised strategy is required. Relevant action might then be looking to actively identify true entrepreneurial potential and focus on these people, much as with future sports stars. The importance of confidence and belief amongst those creating and delivering policies and programmes is, consequently, paramount. Arguably, policy-makers must be sure that they do not have a situation where there are agencies and others charged with (and funded to) deliver programmes they do not actually believe in. To inform future policy-making (with several Government departments responsible for enterprise), it is inevitable that there is no agreed holistic strategy and priorities; but it is vital that policy-makers can capture existing data and information . That said, the link between costs and benefits is again not straightforward. Where social and environmental issues are prioritised, or certain groups in society are „favoured‟, then resources are diverted away from other members of the overall business community. But there are (meant to be) benefits to society as a whole. During the 1980s and into the 1990s government utilised a framework known as ROAMEF – Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal, Monitoring, Evaluation and Feedback – to support and drive decision-making. Programme officials made their case for funding using this framework and officially constituted panels (including academics and industrialists) evaluated their efficacy and made choices. This framework largely disappeared in the 1990s. The last Labour government made extensive use of Regulatory Impact

1 6

Assessments (RIAs) but at the moment these do not appear to be used in the context of enterprise activity. 4 It is, therefore, debatable whether currently there is equivalent or adequate feedback (and sharing) of the results of initiatives. As for policy delivery, a number of the relevant delivery agencies would also claim a role in policy making, especially at the regional and local levels (although this is changing with the inception of LEPs). Given that LEPs‟ future funding and survival is an issue, their actions will be politically sensitive to some extent. The various policies and programmes need to be pulled together into a cohesive, synergistic whole. It may, however, be difficult for policy-makers to achieve any agreement over priorities and preferred outcomes. Generally, when they discuss delivery, they talk about organisations and agencies. They rarely talk about individuals by name. Yet these entrepreneurship enablers – who by nature are entrepreneurs themselves – are critical players, as they build the relevant infrastructure and influence a welcoming culture that enable would-be entrepreneurs to emerge (Thompson, 2010). For policy and practice, a key issue is how policy-makers and deliverers might communicate more effectively their chosen or requested actions. One of Business Link‟s problems was a gap between provision and expectation, for example. The Business Link proposition was clear, but if potential clients were in need of coaching and mentoring – and expected this from an adviser – they were often disappointed. In future, it will be critical that the new service is communicated in such a way that small business owners know how they might obtain the support they (believe they) need. Future research should consider where the UK could look for practice that might be copied or adapted. England and its Celtic sister nations are diverse „small‟ countries and bear similarities to Denmark or New Zealand, for example, but these are less diverse countries. Because the needs are not generic, this might

4

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_ria_index.htm

1 7

lead the Government to conclude new policies need more testing ahead of launch, whether or not this makes the UK less entrepreneurial than in the current approach. Business practice is another area where some real choices have to be made. The small business sector is large and diverse (Storey, 1994) and help is perhaps more needed at an individual than a cluster or aggregated level. It is not clear that policy-makers can ever hope to target support where it will do the most good. Future research might consider, for instance, to what extent they should invest in the pre-start up supply chain; how policy-makers measure success; and whose views on outputs and outcomes are most influential (i.e. those responsible for policy, those influencing policy, those delivering programmes or the individual businesses and would-be entrepreneurs). It could be more important to help those on the receiving end of policies and programmes (who may not know what they want and need) realise and articulate their needs (and then listen to them and be flexible), rather than persuading them that the policy-makers have at least some of the answers which represent research-supported informed choices. This raises a strategic enterprise policy of the extent of bottom-up and top-down policy delivery. The role of business associations (Bennett, 1999; Greaves, 2008) has been explored, but more needs to be known about their role – and that of voluntary, community and social enterprises – in more effective delivery of policy. The public and private sectors are both involved in delivery and enterprise support. It is crucial to ensure that policy-makers have the right balance – whilst Governments cannot be expected to do everything, private sector efforts might be perceived to reflect public sector under-achievement. Indeed, on a more overarching and philosophical level, it could be argued that if „enterprise‟ is so important, then either the Government must be seen to be taking a lead role and ideally demonstrating „joined-up thinking‟ or, alternatively, that policymakers might adopt the French model (which is certainly not exclusive to France) where local businesses are required to pay a mandatory levy to their local Chamber of Commerce.

1 8

As is typically the case, know-who and know-what really counts. The enterprise sector has (too?) many formal and informal networks. Perhaps some potentially really valuable intelligence does not reach the people who could most benefit. Whether key people, such as a new Government, are informed as well as they might be is not yet clear. Finally, „the big picture‟. It is perhaps understandable that government and policymakers focus on programmes and initiatives because they are manageable and measurable. Conceptually desirable, an enterprise strategy may remain more aspirational – but it can still be discussed and surely one might expect academics to be actively doing that and exploring the implications. Future research avenues include, for example, the use of actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Law, 1992) as a theoretical tool to analyse policy relationships – this was not seen as appropriate in this paper because of the new Government‟s radical enterprise policy shift. Changes to enterprise policy in the future will occur as the priorities of the new Government emerge, but whether it is „real change‟ is another matter. There will be changes of emphasis and new programmes, priorities and initiatives. These might or might not imply further incremental emergence in what we might call the experiment that is enterprise strategy in the UK, or there might just be an attempt to seriously grapple with the „big picture‟ and create a holistic strategy which cuts across government and secures wide buy-in and support from all interested stakeholders. As we discussed earlier, the linkage between public sector leadership (Liddle, 2010, 2011) and enterprise strategy is a viable future avenue for in-depth research and analysis. Given our argument that enterprise policy is fundamentally emergent and experimental, it follows that it is important to learn from the results, from both the relative successes and the relative failures. Without the opportunity for all interested parties to reflect on outcomes ,then it is very unlikely that the current policy system is close to performing at an optimum level.

1 9

References Bennett, R J. (1999), “Business associations: their potential contribution to government policy and the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 593-608. Bennett, R.J. (2008), “SME policy support in Britain since the, Vol. 1990s: what have we learnt?”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 375-397. BERR (2008), Enterprise: Unlocking the UK’s Talent, HMSO, London. BIS and CLG (2010), “Letter from The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP and The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to Local Authority Leaders and Business Leaders”, BIS and CLG, London. BIS (2010a), Website http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/enterprise-and-businesssupport/solutions-for-business-simplified-business-support. Accessed 05.10.10. BIS (2010b), “Local growth: realising every place‟s potential”, BIS, London. See also http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/local-growth-white-paper. Accessed, 17.05.11. BIS (2011), Website http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/leps. Accessed, 08.07.11 . Blackburn, R.A. and Kovalainen, A. (2009), “Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: Past, present and future”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 127-148.

2 0

Blackburn, R.A. and Smallbone, D. (2008), “Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in the UK: developments and distinctiveness”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32, pp. 267-288. Blond, P. (2010), Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain and How We Can Fix It, Faber, London. Bolton, J.E. (1971), Small firms: Report of the committee of inquiry on small firms. Cmnd., Vol. 4811, HMSO, London. Bridge, S. (2010), Rethinking Enterprise Policy: Can Failure Trigger New Understanding?, Palgrave, Basingstoke. British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2010), BCC prepares to give evidence on Local Enterprise Partnerships, http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/zones/policy/pressreleases_1/bcc-prepares-to-give-evidence-on-local-enterprise-partnerships.html Accessed 05/10/10. Cabinet Office (2011), http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/local-enterprisepartnerships-meet-showcase-plans-local-growth. Accessed, 17/05/11. Cable, V. (2010), Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference. Callon, M. (1986), “The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle”, in Callon, M., Law, J. and Rip, A. (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Chapman, J. (2002), System failure: Why governments must learn to think differently, Second edition, DEMOS, London.

2 1

Checkland, P.B. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, London. CLG (2010), “New local enterprise partnerships criss-cross the country”, CLG, London. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1708630 Accessed 17.05.11. Conservative Party (2010), An invitation to join the government of Britain, Conservative Party, London. Curran, J. and Storey, D.J. (2002), “Small business policy in the United Kingdom: the inheritance of the Small Business Service and implications for its future effectiveness”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 163-177. Davidsson, P. (2002), “What entrepreneurship research can do for business and policy practice”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-24. Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) (2010), “Local Enterprise Partnerships must have a strong business foundation”, Press Release, FSB, London. http://www.fsb.org.uk/news.aspx?REC=6589. Accessed 05/10/10. Greaves, J. (2008), “Continuity or change in business representation in Britain? An assessment of the Heseltine initiatives of the 1990s”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 998-1015. Greene, F.J. (2009), “Assessing the impact of policy interventions: the influence of evaluation methodology”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 216-229. Greene, F.J., Mole, K.F. and Storey, D.J. (2004), “Does more mean worse? Three decades of enterprise policy in the Tees Valley”, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 1207-1228.

2 2

Greene, F.J., Mole, K.F. and Storey, D.J. (2008), Three Decades of Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship, Economic Regeneration and Public Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. HM Government (2010), The Coalition: Our Programme for Government.,HM Government, London. HM Treasury and Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2008), Enterprise: Unlocking the UK’s Talent, HM Treasury, London. HM Treasury and Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2010), The path to strong, sustainable and balanced growth, HM Treasury, London. House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (2010) The New Local Enterprise Partnerships: An Initial Assessment, First Report of, Vol. 2010-11, HC, Vol. 434. Irwin, D. (2010), “Policy and practice: chicken and eggs?”, paper presented to Centre for Leadership and Organisational Change (CLOC), Teesside University Business School, Middlesbrough. Johnson, M. and Schmuecker, K. (2010), “Four Tests for Local Enterprise Partnerships”, Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) north, Newcastle upon Tyne. Jones, M. and Liddle, J. (2011), “Implementing the UK central government policy agenda for improved third sector engagement: reflecting on issues arising from third sector commissioning workshops”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.157-171.

2 3

Law, J. (1992), “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity“, Systems Practice, Vol. 5, no. 379-393. Liddle, J. (2010) “21st-century public leadership within complex governance systems: some reflections”, Policy & Politics. Liddle, J. (2011), „21st Century Leadership in the Public Sector‟, Inaugural Visiting Professorial Lecture, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, 16 February. Liddle, J., Diamond, J. and Tucker P. (2009), Citizen led leadership: Report from RSA Research Network, RSA International, Seaford. Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2008a), “Assessing the Effectiveness of Business Support Services in England: Evidence from a Theory Based Evaluation”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 557-582. Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2008b), “Differential gains from Business Link support and advice: a treatment effects approach”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 315-334. Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2011), “Broader or deeper? Exploring the most effective intervention profile for public small business support”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 43, pp. 87-105. Osborne, G. (2010), Speech to Conservative Party Conference. Singh, A. (2010), The Venture Society: Fuelling Aspiration, Independence and Growth Through Grassroots Social Entrepreneurship, ResPublica, London. Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.

2 4

Storey, D.J. (2002), “Methods of evaluating the impact of public policies to support small businesses: the six steps to heaven”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 181-202. Storey, D.J. and Greene, F.J. (2010), Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Pearson Education, Harlow. Storey, D.J. (2010), Discussion workshop and (as yet) unpublished paper, Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference, London, November. Thompson, J.L. and Martin, F. (2010), Strategic Management: Awareness and Change, 6th edition, Southwestern/Cengage Learning, London. Thompson, J.L. (2010), “'Entrepreneurship Enablers' - Their Unsung and Unquantified Role in Competitiveness and Regeneration”, Local Economy, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 58-73.

2 5