In this chapter we present our findings on the extent and nature of coordination across the seven localities. In the first instance our objective is to provide a flavour of the state of play in each of the three arenas of agency interaction: the corporate, collaboration and inter-section arenas. The extent and operation of both formal and informal mechanisms are analysed, together with their achievements. In so doing, we draw upon, and contrast, two kinds of evidence: quantitative data collected through our ‘bureaumetric’ mapping of machinery and outputs (see chapter 6); and qualitative materials provided in interviews with local actors. The two sources are found to generate broadly – but not wholly – consistent findings. We conclude by highlighting similarities and differences between arenas, client groups and localities, thereby addressing the basic research questions set out at the beginning of the previous chapter.

THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ARENA

The rhetoric of rationality first began to take root locally in the local authority arena, where the ‘optimistic’ model became established in the particular form of corporate planning and management. The need for coordination was, by definition, at the heart of the corporate approach to local government. As early as 1967, the Maud Report criticised a situation in which there was ‘unity in the parts but disunity in the whole’. Its response was a blueprint for reorganising local government committees and management structures to promote coordination of both policy and administration.