The above discussion of the four different perspectives has tended to emphasise their separateness. This is justifiable, we believe, by virtue of their historical trajectories, by differences in the bodies of theory which both underpin and arise from different sets of practices, and by the existence of different job titles. This demonstrates that there is not a single occupational area of employment-oriented local economic development, but rather a 'patchwork quilt' both of approaches and of agencies engaged in such activity. The question now arises as to whether such separateness is being, or is likely to be, resolved. This will significantly affect the extent to which education and training provision for practitioners will have coherence.
One way of viewing this, as expressed by some of our respondents, was that this was a 'new' or 'young' profession. This would seem to imply that resolution was possible, and that this would be achieved at some stage in the (near) future. However, the notion that there is a single 'new' or 'young' profession is contradicted by the evidence of the long history of attempts to deal with unemployment, poverty, and other socio-economic problems in urban areas. It might be better to use the term 'emergent' to refer to the purported single profession. The issue, then, may be posed as a question about whether future practice in this area will exhibit characteristics of a unitary occupation, or of a professionalised area in which plurality of perspectives is accepted and valued. We now consider these alternatives.
Unitary occupation? The Standards approach
Over the past few years, work has been undertaken on the production of occupational standards, or competences, in the field of economic development. Two firms of consultants to the Department were involved in producing the draft standards, GFA Consulting and Prime R&D Ltd. A third firm, Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd, was involved in testing the demand for NVQs based on the standards. This is sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment, and is conducted in the same way as similar work undertaken in other occupational areas, as part of the process of reform of vocational qualifications.
This larger process was initiated in 1986, is overseen by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (formerly the National Council for Vocational Qualifications), and adopts a common approach to the production of frameworks of 'competences' or 'occupational standards'. The overall purpose of the occupation is defined, and the 'functions' or 'sub-purposes' that have to be achieved to accomplish the overall purpose are analysed. These are presented as 'units of competence', which are then further analysed into 'elements of competence'. The analysis process continues by stipulating the performance standards, the skills and knowledge required, and the range of situation or contexts in which the performance may be undertaken. This analysis work is undertaken in consultation with representatives of organisations involved in the occupational area. The resulting framework of standards/ competences may form the basis of National Vocational Qualifications, but may also be used for a variety of purposes, including analysing training and development needs and for assessing individuals' performance. Appendix 3 shows the standard structure of occupational standards, using the draft standards for economic development.
The draft occupational standards for economic development define the key purpose of the occupation as:
"Plan, implement and improve economic strategies and interventions to optimise and sustain business growth, quality of life, jobs and career opportunities."
The standards document asserts that
"... while individual economic development organisations and partnerships have their own particular mission statements, most wordings appear to relate to this statement [of key purpose]. Some may talk of 'regeneration', of business competitiveness', of 'community benefits', of 'targeting disadvantaged groups' - but there exists underlying common purpose, even if priorities differ."
The occupation is analysed in terms of four 'areas', subdivided into 22 'key roles', then into 73 'units of competence', then to 132 'elements of competence'. Figure 9 shows the listing to the level of 'key roles'.
At a consultative conference organised by Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd. , held in April 1998, to disseminate findings of an evaluation of the draft standards, there was a varied response from those attending. Many, especially with managerial responsibilities, were supportive of the project to specify performance standards, particularly in terms of their utility in analysing training and development needs, and appraising performance in collaboration with subordinates. The standards were seen to provide a 'common language' for dialogue and discussion. However, there was less support for the proposal to develop National Vocational Qualifications based on the standards.
There has been considerable criticism of NVQs generally, particularly in respect of the interpretation of the concept of competence on which they are based. The assumption that competence can be disaggregated into separate 'units' and 'elements' of competence has been challenged as inappropriately atomistic. The assumption that competent performance is objectively observable has been criticised as ignoring the importance of the interpretation of behaviour. The language of the standards for most NVQs has been criticised as unintelligible. The take-up of NVQs for professional and management occupations remains fairly low in comparison to alternative qualifications. Such criticisms may be applied to this project, and it remains questionable whether there will be significant take-up of these standards.
More significantly, the draft standards tend to be more representative of the technocratic orientation which would be resisted by many whose orientation is to the community development perspective. This particularly applies in respect of the tradition of conflict sociological analyses of urban socio-economic problems. It also applies with regard to the 'empowerment' and 'enabling' emphases of community development. The strong orientation to such values is not reflected in the draft standards. It therefore seems that the potential success of the occupational standards approach may be undermined by their failure to address such issues.
Acceptance and valuing of plurality
In contrast to the unitary occupation approach which the occupational standards methodology assumes, implicitly or explicitly, there are signs that in practice there is considerable acceptance and valuing of plurality. This seems to be emerging in the context of a greater emphasis upon notions of partnership in the wide variety of schemes and projects that are generally referred to under the umbrella term of 'urban regeneration'. Such partnership exists between government departments (ministries) which previously tended to operate to differing agendas. It exists between national government departments and local government; previously the relationship between these has tended to be one of contestation. Partnership also exists between both the private and the voluntary and community sectors and government (national and local).
Typical of such partnership is the development of projects based in housing estates which are being renovated, whereby initiatives are also being taken with regard to employment development through enterprise development and skills training, development of community facilities, crime prevention, and so on. Larger scale developments of major areas of the inner city, such as the King's Cross and Greenwich developments, are involving multiple agencies, private sector, and local communities in complex ways which are not amenable to simple planning schemes. Previous large-scale corporate schemes, such as in the London Docklands, are now seen as inappropriate, and greater emphasis upon the engagement of the varied stakeholders in regeneration.
The Institution of Economic Development seems to accept the validity of diversity of interests in such work. In order to achieve its diploma, candidates must, inter alia, demonstrate prior knowledge of at least one specialist subject, from a stated list:
The Institution is also willing to consider other subjects for this part of the requirements for the diploma. This requirement can be met by formal qualification or by five years' professional experience. These regulations seem geared to enabling individuals from different backgrounds, working in different aspects of local economic development, to obtain professional recognition in common.
Such recognition and valuing of difference certainly seems to fit with a general movement in the world of public affairs. As the heavily ideological policies of previous Governments, with counterparts in local government, has given way to a more pragmatic focus on bringing about tangible improvements in people's lives, there is greater scope for admitting the complexity and apparent intractability of the problems to be addressed. Indeed, notions of 'complexity' pervade a wide range of theoretical discourses in the sciences generally and social sciences in particular. Any attempt to tackle significant socio-economic problems which was based on an analysis which did not give due recognition to complexity is likely to be subject to severe criticism.
It there seems to us that the future of employment-oriented local economic development will be one in which diversity and plurality of perspective will be recognised and valued. As yet, it may be too early to state what form the practice and the body of knowledge for the area will take.