This paper seeks to learn lessons about the role of the private sector in subnational governance by analysing the UK’s Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). The paper outlines the public justifications for LEPs using documentary analysis, and then considers these against findings from interviews and network analysis, concluding that the justifications are problematic. LEPs were established on the assumption that civic and business leaders needed to be brought together in business-led institutions. However, network analysis shows most civic leaders also hold private sector roles, undermining the assumed need for a ‘bringing together’. Three further justifications of the LEP model are also challenged. Firstly, business leaders were supposed to enable knowledge flows, but analysis shows that this knowledge is skewed by unrepresentative LEP boards. Secondly, it was assumed that LEPs would catalyse networks, but the networks have been built around individual interests, without transparency. Finally, LEPs were meant to mirror business structures, but this has undermined democratic accountability. Taken together, these findings suggest that the creation of LEPs has attempted to solve the wrong problem in the wrong way. The paper concludes by proposing guiding principles for the role of the private sector in the Levelling Up agenda: representation, transparency and accountability.

中文翻译：

---

私营部门在地方治理中的作用：从英国地方企业伙伴关系中吸取教训

本文旨在通过分析英国的地方企业合作伙伴关系 (LEP)，吸取有关私营部门在地方治理中的作用的经验教训。本文使用文献分析概述了 LEP 的公共理由，然后将这些与访谈和网络分析的结果进行对比，得出结论认为这些理由是有问题的。LEP 的建立是基于公民和商业领袖需要在商业主导的机构中聚集在一起的假设。然而，网络分析表明，大多数公民领袖也担任私营部门的角色，这削弱了“团结起来”的假定需求。LEP 模型的三个进一步的理由也受到挑战。首先，企业领导者应该支持知识流动，但分析表明，这种知识被不具代表性的 LEP 委员会歪曲了。其次，假设 LEP 会催化网络，但网络是围绕个人利益建立的，没有透明度。最后，LEP 旨在反映业务结构，但这破坏了民主问责制。总之，这些发现表明，LEP 的创建试图以错误的方式解决错误的问题。该文件最后提出了私营部门在升级议程中的作用的指导原则：代表性、透明度和问责制。这些发现表明，LEP 的创建试图以错误的方式解决错误的问题。该文件最后提出了私营部门在升级议程中的作用的指导原则：代表性、透明度和问责制。这些发现表明，LEP 的创建试图以错误的方式解决错误的问题。该文件最后提出了私营部门在升级议程中的作用的指导原则：代表性、透明度和问责制。