Localism and the Big Society: the asset transfer of leisure centres and libraries – fighting closures or empowering communities?

Abstract This paper critically examines the ‘asset transfer’ of leisure services from the public to the voluntary sector. Asset transfer might be theorised as ‘austerity localism’, in which volunteers are obliged to fill the gaps left by retreating public provision, or as ‘progressive localism’, which represents new opportunities through the localism and Big Society agendas to develop more locally responsive, cooperative and mutualist visions. In this way, asset transfer might overcome the limitations of the United Kingdom policies in which ‘Big Government’ is replaced by civic society. Drawing on qualitative interviews with key personnel (volunteers, managers and local authority officers) at 12 leisure facilities, a grounded assessment of the nuanced balance between ‘austerity localism’ and ‘progressive localism’ is provided, including three observations. First, the main impetus for transfer was cuts in local authority budgets which stimulated the emergence of local groups of volunteers. Secondly, the transfers themselves required interaction between local government and the volunteer groups; however, the nature of the relationship and support given varied and support was limited by austerity measures. Thirdly, volunteers do not automatically fill a gap left by the state: without support transfer viability relies on the financial and social capital among volunteer groups, and this is unevenly distributed. These findings suggest that the capacity for a ‘progressive localism’ to emerge through asset transfer is limited. However, where transfer has occurred, there are some progressive benefits of volunteer empowerment and a more flexible service.

[1]  Lawrence Pratchett,et al.  Local Governance under the Coalition Government: Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’ , 2012 .

[2]  Jane Gibbon,et al.  Localism and the third sector: New relationships of public service? , 2016 .

[3]  R. Levitas The Just’s Umbrella: Austerity and the Big Society in Coalition policy and beyond , 2012 .

[4]  J. Clayton,et al.  Distancing and limited resourcefulness: Third sector service provision under austerity localism in the north east of England , 2016 .

[5]  B. Jessop Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State‐Theoretical Perspective , 2002 .

[6]  Tony Bovaird,et al.  From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value , 2012 .

[7]  D. Featherstone,et al.  Contentious Politics in Austere Times , 2015 .

[8]  P. Cloke,et al.  Neoliberalism, Big Society, and Progressive Localism , 2014 .

[9]  N. Morse,et al.  Museums’ community engagement schemes, austerity and practices of care in two local museum services , 2018 .

[10]  N. King Local authority sport services under the UK coalition government: retention, revision or curtailment? , 2014 .

[11]  A. Glasmeier,et al.  Austerity in the city: economic crisis and urban service decline? , 2014 .

[12]  G. Tetlow,et al.  Central cuts, local decision-making: changes in local government spending and revenues in England, 2009-10 to 2014-15 , 2015 .

[13]  R. Crisp Work Clubs and the Big Society: reflections on the potential for 'progressive localism' in the 'cracks and fissures' of neoliberalism , 2015 .

[14]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Progressive localism and the construction of political alternatives , 2012 .

[15]  G. Nichols,et al.  Is the Asset Transfer of Public Leisure Facilities in England an Example of Associative Democracy , 2015 .

[16]  Nick Bailey,et al.  Coping with the Cuts? The Management of the Worst Financial Settlement in Living Memory , 2015 .

[17]  J. Rees,et al.  New 'new localism' or the emperor's new clothes: diverging local social policies and state-voluntary sector relations in an era of localism , 2015 .

[18]  L. Such Little leisure in the Big Society , 2013 .

[19]  A. Pete From Partnership to the Big Society: The Third Sector Policy Regime in the UK , 2016 .