Total Capital, Total Complexity?

December 7, 2009

Chris Leslie, Director, New Local Government Network
Local Government Chronicle

These days, prefix the word “total” ahead of any noun and you have a good chance of hitting upon a trend in public service thinking. Michael Bichard’s coining of the ‘Total Place’ notion has set politicians competing to prove that they best understand how the once 1990s concept of ‘joined up government’ might actually become a local reality in the 21st century. The thirteen pilot projects are only just beginning to suggest possible new pathways towards collaboratively commissioned service lines. Yet the theory has not yet extended to the hard practicalities of how to conquer the rigidities and overcome the high silo walls separating the management of individual agencies and budgets. And if managing revenue services according to ‘place’ is going to be difficult, the newly in-vogue ‘Total Capital’ may prove more challenging.

‘Total Capital’ will become especially popular now because of its efficiency connotations – but even away from the budgetary pressures of the times, it always makes good sense to maximise taxpayer investment in new facilities, ensuring multiple uses are considered at the conception stage rather than crammed into buildings retrospectively. It is heartening that both the HCA and Partnerships for Schools are apparently reconsidering how their capital allocations might yield wider social benefits if teamed with other planned facilities in an area; perhaps a school housing after-hours childcare, community health services or adult training.

Yet with capital grant set to halve from £44bn to £22bn over the next four years, many pet projects will have to return to the drawing board – and the Government risks local unpopularity if bespoke innovative infrastructure developments are paired down to off-the-peg functional facilities as a means of ensuring their compatibility with other national plans. So while the concept is laudable, delivering ‘total capital’ may.