During a period of austerity, when local government is significantly constrained, it is easy to dismiss local authorities, arguing that they have no potential to effect change. However, a longer perspective offers a more nuanced analysis, seeking to develop an understanding of both continuity and change in local government over time. This chapter does not seek to present a detailed history, but to deepen this longer-term understanding and to give a context to the chapters that follow. The chapter will focus on what was seen as the purpose of local government in different time periods. It will also explore how wider changes in local economies and society have influenced ideas and practice. It will seek to both explain the changes and continuities that have occurred and to look critically at them, identifying whose interests are served and whose interests are disregarded by changing conceptions of local government.

As Stewart (2000) posits, it would be easier to write about local government if the institution was the same over time and space, but local government is, by its very nature, highly diverse. If it were not, it would be mere administration. Understanding local government is not only based on an analysis of continuity and change, but also of uniformity and difference. Despite the variations, it is possible to identify key shifts in how local government has been conceptualised. The chapter focuses mainly on England and urban government, but draws on national and international literature. It shows how English local government has always been a site of conflict between forces that have different interests: national government/local government; employers/the employed; government/the governed. Critically, there is evidence over time that local government does have some autonomy and can use this if it so chooses.

History also provides learning, or should do so. Just as individuals are meant to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them, so one would hope that governments would learn from previous policy directions, building on successes and analysing why failures occurred. However, this short history shows that a cycle of failed policy has taken hold, with repeated unsuccessful attempts to: join up policy; adopt a holistic, preventative approach; turn around deprived areas; and build cohesive communities capable of tackling ‘broken Britain’. We need to understand what has gone wrong if progress is to be made.