{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016684045881126174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020855057351407717, 'mean_word_length': 6.2727272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Merseyside Objective One Programme: Exemplar of Coherent City-regional Planning and Governance or Cautionary Tale?

This paper demonstrates how the Merseyside Objective One (MO1) programme provided a platform for sub-regional partners to develop a consensus about strategic economic development priorities and resulted in innovations and collective learning particularly in terms of community economic development and closer engagement of Higher Educational Institutions and the private sector. However, such gains were partially offset by over-complex management arrangements, blurred accountability, competition for resources and match funding problems. Devolution of responsibility for programme content and implementation under the new Structural Fund regulations should allow partners to address many of these shortcomings in the second MO1 programme. Tighter financial controls may, however, reduce room for manoeuvre and discourage experimentation.