Louise Reardon

An Idea Whose Time has Come? Explaining the Rise of Well-Being in British Politics

Well-being has recently risen rapidly up the political agenda in Britain and beyond, signalled most clearly by Prime Minister Camerons announcement in 2010 that well-being measures developed by the Office for National Statistics would be used to guide public policies. Here we seek to explain why well-being has risen up the British political agenda, drawing on Kingdons multiple streams approach. While this approach has considerable merit, it does not acknowledge the complexity of multi-level governance in which policy, politics and problem streams can operate at different territorial levels. As such, we argue that the match between policy, politics and problem streams has to be not only temporal, but also spatial. The consequence is that, while in relation to measurement a paradigm shift may be taking place, in terms of decisive action there is some way to go before well-being can be described as ‘an idea whose time has come’.

Well-being and Transport: Taking Stock and Looking Forward

ABSTRACT It is only recently that researchers have attempted to directly link transport to models of well-being and in turn try to map transports linkages to well-being outcomes. This paper seeks to add to this new literature by introducing a dynamic model of well-being, which highlights the different domains that make up well-being, and in turn — through providing one of the most holistic and comprehensive discussions of the current well-being literature — provide an evaluation of our current understanding of transports relationship to well-being. The paper also seeks to highlight the different dimensions and complexities of seeking to monitor and improve well-being through transport policy. It will in turn be argued that the varied and complex sets of outcomes that arise from transport policy interventions, and the multiple ways in which they affect well-being, make a well-being approach (that measures policy outcomes in terms of units of well-being) of particular value for policy-makers. However, due to the complexities in comparing positive well-being outcomes, it is argued that the best use of well-being evidence for the transport sector may be to try to minimise the negative effects on well-being caused by policy outcomes.

Symbolic Meta-Policy: (Not) Tackling Climate Change in the Transport Sector

This paper seeks to understand how the UK governments headline climate change targets are translated into action at the local level in the transport sector drawing on the findings of research in two English regions. In doing so, these headline targets are identified as a symbolic meta-policy that results in little action on the ground and which challenges established conceptions of policy implementation. Both the ‘meta’ and ‘symbolic’ aspects of the policy offer part of the explanation for the lack of substantive action on the ground. As a meta-policy, the headline targets across government require the elaboration of other policies at other levels such as targets for government departments and local authorities, but these are largely absent, leaving the meta-policy without teeth. Over time, these headline targets have developed into a symbolic policy, serving political goals but having little practical effectiveness.

The ‘Wicked Problem’ of Wellbeing: Theorising the Prospects for Policy Change

In the past decade there has been an increasing focus at both national and international levels on the extent to which governments can improve the wellbeing of citizens. At the core of these developments has been concern with GDP as the dominant indicator of societal progress, leading to a plethora of initiatives that have sought alternative or complementary measures of progress. A pivotal moment in developments was the report of the influential ‘Stiglitz Commission’ (CMEPSP 2009), which argued for the use of subjective wellbeing (SWB) indicators alongside more widely used objective indicators of progress, such as employment rates and life expectancy. This feature of developments has proved highly controversial and the issues it raises are central to our discussion here.

Conclusion: A Window of Opportunity

Abstract This chapter considers the book as a whole to draw out the key findings and link these to broader themes. In it we suggest that as we are in the relatively early stages of smart mobility adoption, there exists a key window of opportunity to think about to what end, and how, the transition can be steered. If this window is not seized, there is a heightened risk that governments will always be responding to, rather than shaping, events. Four key themes emerge from our reflection. First, while the current system is not equitable, there is a need to be cognizant of who the new winners and losers will be in the next transition. It is far from clear that commercial business models always align with notions of social provision. Second, while the early stages of the transition appear to be marked by technological optimism, reinforced by government industrial strategies, it seems clear that without politics with a capital P, the opportunity to engage the public and educate decision-makers will be missed. This leads to our third point: that a lack of pro-active state engagement in the early stages of these innovations will undermine the institutional capacity to engage later on in the transition. Without governmental steering, the transition risks representing what we are given rather than what we want or need it to be. Finally, we highlight the importance of context to how the transition will unfold, with some countries or cities already at arm’s length from transport provision while others are more hands-on. The chapter concludes with our reflections on what actions governments could take now to prepare better for the transition and on what the volume of work says for future research needs. While greatly enthused and rewarded by the debates we have had in assembling this book, we see these as the starting point for future agendas and very much open to contestation. We, therefore, hope this book acts to advance the study of the governance of smart mobility and to elevate its status relative to the significant body of work underway on the technologies themselves.

Does Governance Matter? An International Scenarios Exercise

Abstract As with previous transport innovations, the transition to ‘smart mobility’ will occur in different ways and at different speeds in different places. Innovations such as Uber and trials of autonomous vehicles are already being welcomed in some places but resisted in others or left to the market. While the technologies may have the potential to be deployed globally, how this happens is, in part, down to the institutional settings and approach to governance amongst all of the actors (public and private) involved. Deciding who should act, how, when and at what spatial scale is, we argue, critical in setting the conditions in which new mobility systems can flourish but in a way which promotes the goals of local, state and federal governments and meets the needs of citizens as well as the industries that promote them. This chapter reports on an international scenarios exercise conducted in 2017 across nine countries. Key dimensions of uncertainty were the degree of governmental involvement in steering policy and the degree of social desirability for smart mobility innovation. Reflecting on the period up to 2035, the scenarios considered the implications for smart mobility transitions by asking which innovations are more likely to flourish and which falter. Strong state involvement is reported as a necessary condition for the most integrated and sustainable visions of smart mobility. Other pathways were suggested to favour some innovations over others but typically offer a smaller market and more atomized and less sustainable set of mobility options.