Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:52:36.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capital Markets and Central–Local Politics in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Alberta Sbragia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Local government borrowing is often referred to as a highly technical, not to say arcane, activity of local government. It should not be dismissed so easily. In reality, such borrowing illuminates broader relations between government and market by highlighting interdependencies which exist between central government, local government and financial markets.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 311 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lindblom, C., Politics and Markets: The World's Political Economic Systems (New York: Basic Books., 1977).Google Scholar

2 Peterson, P. E., City Limits (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Friedland, R., Piven, F. F. and Alford, R. R., ‘Political Conflict, Urban Structure, and the Fiscal Crisis.’ in Ashford, D. E., ed., Comparing Public Policies: New Concepts and Methods (Beverly Hills. Calif.: Sage, 1978), pp. 197–225.Google Scholar

4 Dunleavy, P., Urban Political Analysis: The Politics of Collective Consumption (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Dunleavy, , Urban Political Analysis, p. 132.Google Scholar

6 Rhodes, R. A. W., Control and Power in Central-Local Government Relations (Farnborough, Hants.: Gower, 1981).Google Scholar

7 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Revenue Budget 1980–81, p. iv.Google Scholar

8 Central Statistical Office, Financial Statisiics, No. 232, 08 1981, Table 4.6.Google Scholar

9 City of Edinburgh District Council, Financial Outturn 1979–1980, p. v.Google Scholar

10 See Watt, P. A., ‘The Control of Local Authority Capital Expenditure’, Local Government Studies, VIII, No. 3 (1982), 91–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Midwinter, Arthur, ‘The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill: An Interpretation of the Implications for Local Policy-Making’, p. 8Google Scholar (presented to a seminar on Public Expenditure Policy and Rate Support Grant, University of Glasgow, 20 February (cont.) (cont.) 1981)Google Scholar. For an excellent analysis of the system known as Financial Planning, see Midwinter, Arthur E., Local Authority Financial Planning In a Turbulent Environment (Studies in Public Policy No. 46, University of Strathclyde, 1979).Google Scholar

12 Until 1972. the Minimum Lending Rate was known as Bank Rate and afler 20 August 1981 the use of the MLR as an official figure was discontinued. For a good discussion of how to discern official policy currently, see Davies, Alan, ‘Living without MLR: The Move to “Flexible” Interest Rates’, Barclays Bank Review, LVI (02 1982), pp. 1–4.Google Scholar

13 Central Statistical Office, Economic Trends: Annual Supplement 1981 Edition, p. 192, n. 6.Google Scholar

14 Central Statistical Office, Financial Statistics, No. 232, 08 1981, Table 13.15, p. 142.Google Scholar

15 Tew, Brian, ‘The Implementation of Monetary Policy in Post-war Britain’, Midland Bank Review (Spring 1981), p. 13.Google Scholar

16 Central Statistical Office, Financial Statistics, No. 232, 08 1981, Table 13.15, p. 142.Google Scholar

17 Public Works Loan Board, 104th Annual Report 1978–1979, p. 8.Google Scholar

18 ‘Local Authorities and the Capital and Money Markets’, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin (12 1966), p. 339Google Scholar. To make sure that the Government's competitive edge is solidly entrenched, local authority stocks ‘are not exempt from capital gains tax if held for one year or more, as are British Government securities.’ Evidence by the Bank of England, ‘The Relationship Between Central and Local Government: Evidence and Commissioned Work’, Appendix 6 to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Local Government Finance (Layfield Committee), 1976, p. 5Google Scholar; for a general review of how various debt instruments are controlled by the Treasury and the Bank of England, see Butler Till, Ltd., ‘Money Services for Local Authorities’ (London: Guy Butler (International) Ltd, 1978).Google Scholar

19 Jones, F. J. and Wolkowitz, B., ‘The Determinants of Interest Rates on Fixed Income Securities’, in Fabozzi, F. J. and Pollack, Irving M., eds, The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities (Homewood, Ill.: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1983), pp. 91–151.Google Scholar

20 Jones, and Wolkowitz, , ‘The Determinants of Interest Rates’, p. 136.Google Scholar

21 Sbragia, A., ‘Politics, Local Government and the Municipal Bond Market’, in Sbragia, A., ed., The Mitnicpal Money Chase: The Politics of Local Government Finance (Boulder, Co.: Westview, 1983), pp. 67–112Google Scholar. For a discussion of the policy consequences of differences in the British and American systems of local borrowing, see Sbragia, A., The Politics of Public Investment: An Anglo-American Comparison (Studies in Public Policy, No. 139, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, 1985).Google Scholar

22 See, for example, Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A., The Private Government of Public Money: Community and Policy Inside British Politics (London: Macmillan, 1974), p. 88.Google Scholar

23 Heclo, and Wildavsky, , The Private Government of Public Money, p. 58.Google Scholar

24 Two exceptions should be noted here. The system of expenditure controls in the Housing Strategies and Investment Programmes (HIPs) and Transport Policies and Programmes (TPPs) did constrain finance officers and in fact can be seen as a step towards the more general controls introduced in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, 1980.

25 For a discussion of the centre's argument that the demands of macroeconomic management require that total local government expenditure and taxation be brought under the centre's control, see Jackman, R., ‘Does Central Government Need to Control the Total of Local Government Spending?’ Local Government Studies, VIII, No. 3 (1982), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Watt, , ‘The Control of Local Authority Capital Expenditure’.Google Scholar

27 See the White Paper on Local Authority Borrowing, Cmnd 2162 (London: HMSO, 1963).Google Scholar

28 Butler Till, Ltd., ‘Money Services for Local Authorities’, p. 101.Google Scholar

29 PWLB, 105th Annual Report 1979–80, p. 5.Google Scholar

30 PWLB, 1970–1980, p. 6.Google Scholar

31 ‘Local Debt: Longer and Longer,’ The Banker, No. 129 (1979), 24.Google Scholar

32 See, for example, Pauley, R., ‘Brokers “could hit” overspending councils’. Financial Times, 17 06 1980, p. 7.Google Scholar

33 Heclo, and Wildavsky, , The Private Government of Public Money, p. 41.Google Scholar

34 For a discussion of the high stakes involved in the passionate debate over whether accounting should take inflation into account, see ‘Accounting for Inflation’, Accounting News, 11 (1982), 10–12.Google Scholar

35 Rosenberg, D., ‘The Politics of Role in Local Government: Perspectives on the Role Set of Treasurers in their Relationships to Chief Executives’, Local Government Studies, X, No. 1 (1984), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar