Renewing Neighbour Hood - Work, Enterprise and Governance

8/14/2019 Renewing Neighbour Hood - Work, Enterprise and Governance

1/305

Renewingneighbourhoods

Stephen Syrett and David North

Work, enterprise and governance


2/305

Renewing

neighbouRhoods

Work, enterprise and governance



3/305

This edition published in Great Britain in 2008 by

The Policy Press

University o Bristol

Fourth Floor

Beacon House

Queens Road

Bristol BS8 1QU

UK

Tel +44 (0)117 331 4054

Fa +44 (0)117 331 4093

e-mail [email protected]

www.policypress.org.uk

The Policy Press 2008

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record or this book is available rom the British Library.

Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataA catalog record or this book has been requested.

ISBN 978 1 86134 861 6 paperback

ISBN 978 1 86134 862 3 hardcover

The right o Stephen Syrett and David North to be identied as authors o

this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the 1988 Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act.

All rights reserved: no part o this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the pr ior

permission o The Policy Press.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those

o the authors and not o The University o Bristol or The Policy Press. The

University o Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility or any injury

to persons or property resulting rom any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds o gender, race,

disability, age and seuality.

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol

Front cover: image kindly supplied by www.alamy.com

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers, Southampton


4/305

For my parents, Pam and Arthur

For Margaret


5/305


6/305

v

Ctt

List o tables, gures and boxes vii

Acknowledgements xList o abbreviations xi

one i arc cmc rvval 1

Introduction 1

Identiying the problem: spatial concentrations o deprivation 4

Recognising deprived neighbourhoods 9

Tackling localised deprivation 18

The evolution o policy practice 25

Rationales or intervention 34

Conclusions 42

two i at a r prlm? 47

Introduction 47

The economic eatures o deprived neighbourhoods 48

Placing deprived neighbourhoods in context: the case 53

study areas

Economic change and uneven development 61Dierences between neighbourhoods 67

Area or neighbourhood eects 75

Cycles o decline: producing and maintaining localised 77

deprivation

Conclusions 89

three wrk a rkl 95

Introduction 95

Employment and unemployment in the case study areas 97

Conceptualising local labour markets 102

Demand-side considerations 104

Supply-side considerations 111

Institutional barriers 117

Policy responses 123

Conclusions 137

our etrpr a trprrp 143Introduction 143

Exogenous versus endogenous investment 145

The enterprise demographics o deprived neighbourhoods 148


7/305

vi

Renewing neighbourhoods

Policy responses 166

Conclusions 183

fve ittt a vrac: trat a 189

crat plcyIntroduction 189

The institutional and governance context: complexity, 190

ragmentation and decentralisation

Integrating the policy agenda 193

Coordinating spatial levels o intervention 202

Factors constraining policy integration and spatial

coordination 223

Conclusions 228

six dprv r: tr prpct r 231

cmc trvt

Introduction 231

Spatial dierence 234

People andplace 237

Rationales or intervention 240

The governance challenge 247

Final thoughts 251

Reerences 253

Index 279


8/305

vii

Lt tal, r a x

Tal

1.1 Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the most deprived 20% 13

o SOAs in England, by region, 2004

1.2 Evolution o British urban policy 21

1.3 Major developments in urban policy and governance since 1997 30

2.1 Rankings o the ve case study local authority districts on 57

the Index o Multiple Deprivation, 2004 and 2007

2.2 Levels o deprivation within the case study areas, 2001 60

2.3 Sectors experiencing the largest employment decline in the 64

case study areas, 19972004

2.4 Population change in the case study LADs, 19942005 66

2.5 Sectors experiencing the largest employment growth in the 68

case study areas, 19972004

2.6 Population age structure in the case study areas, 2001 71

2.7 Population turnover and deprived areas 73

2.8 Ethnic composition o the population in the case study 74

areas, 20013.1 Employment change in the case study areas, 19972006 98

3.2 Employment rates or those o working age in the case 99

study areas, 200007

3.3 Unemployment and Incapacity Benet claimants in the case 100

study areas, 2006

3.4 Employment deprivation in the case study areas: 101

2007 IMD employment domain index

3.5 Highest level o (NVQ) qualication, or those 113

aged 1674, 2001

3.6 Government programmes or tackling unemployment 125

and worklessness

4.1 Business start-ups by region and level o deprivation, 200005 150

4.2 Business ormation rates in the case study areas 152

4.3 Factors aecting the entrepreneurial potential o 177

disadvantaged groups and communities

4.4 Types o intervention in successul Round 1 LEGI bids 181

4.5 Social groups targeted in successul Round 1 LEGI bids 1825.1 Levels o economic intervention 204

5.2 RDA spending compared with total government spending in 222

English regions, 200506


9/305

viii


Fr

1.1 Level o deprivation by individual city in England, 2004 7

1.2 Local concentration district level summary o the IMD 16

(England) 20042.1 Cycles o decline in areas o multiple deprivation 78

2.2 The residential lettings spiral 83

2.3 Pressures on public services in deprived areas 88

3.1 Infuences on levels o unemployment and worklessness 102

3.2 Causal links in the reproduction o concentrated 112

unemployment

4.1 Business start-ups and deprivation in English local authority 149

areas (excluding London boroughs)

4.2 Business survival rates and level o deprivation, 19952002 151

5.1 Governance structure relating to enterprise, employment 192

and neighbourhood renewal, 19972007

5.2 Manseld local economic development policy map: 206

enterprise and business investment


employment and skills


area and community regeneration5.5 Newham local economic development policy map: 209

enterprise and business investment

5.6 Newham local economic development policy map: 210

employment and skills

5.7 Newham local economic development policy map: 211

area and community regeneration

bx2.1 Case study local authorities 53

2.2 Case study neighbourhoods 58

2.3 Sectoral change in Manseld 65

2.4 Housing in Hathershaw and Fitton Hill (Oldham) 82

3.1 Economic restructuring and inactivity in East Brighton 106

3.2 Educational attainment and labour market participation 114

in Newham

3.3 Example o Sunderlands Job Linkage programme 1323.4 Example o NDC employment initiatives in Newham 134

4.1 Social Enterprise Sunderland (SES) 162

4.2 East Brighton Business Support (ebbs) 172


10/305

ix

4.3 Asheld, Bolsover and Manseld LEGI 182

5.1 Deprived areas and Regional Economic Strategies and 197

Employment Frameworks in the North East

5.2 Oldham: joining up local and neighbourhood-level programmes 200

5.3 Local authority approaches: the case o Manseld 2155.4 Local authority approaches: the case o Newham 216

5.5 Subregional dierences and partnerships in the East Midlands 218

List o tables, fgures and boxes


11/305

x


Acklmt

While we have been involved in researching and teaching in the eld

o local economic development and urban policy or many years, theinspiration or this book largely stemmed rom our involvement in

two particular pieces o research over the last ve years, which have

ocused on policy developments under New Labour. The rst o these

comprised a series o evidence-based reviews or the governments

Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) on the changes aecting the

economies o deprived neighbourhoods. As well as a review o the

literature relating to business and regeneration, worklessness and the

inormal economy, the research also involved a closer eamination o

what was happening in ve deprived localities within England. The

second was a study unded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as

part o its Transorming the Prospects o Places programme on the

implications o devolution and regional governance throughout the UK

or policies concerned with addressing the economic needs o those

living within deprived neighbourhoods. We are most grateul to the

many individuals who made these research projects possible including

the many policy makers, regeneration proessionals, community activists

and local residents who gave their time to answer our questionsand share their eperiences and insights with us. Although these

are too many to mention, we would particularly like to thank the

two research project managers, Andrew Maginn (o the Department

or Communities and Local Government) and Katharine Kno (o

the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), or their support and interest in

discussing the issues raised by the research, as well as Mel Evans, Ian

Sanderson and Colin Williams or their work on the original reports

produced or the NRU. Special thanks are due to our colleagues Rob

Baldock, Ian Vickers, Stacey Clit and David Etherington in the Centre

or Enterprise and Economic Development Research (CEEDR) at

Middlese University or their assistance with carrying out many o

the interviews and analysis o secondary sources on which the book

is based. We also need to say a special thank you to Sue Engelbert and

Pamela Macaulay, also o CEEDR, or their painstaking work in putting

the typescript together. And nally, as always with such endeavours, this

work could not have been completed without the unending support

and understanding o our amilies, to whom we owe our biggest debto gratitude.


CEEDR, Middlesex University


12/305

xi

Lt arvat

A8 Accession 8

ABG Area-Based GrantABI area-based initiative

ATJ Action Teams or Jobs

BIC Business in the Community

BL Business Link

BME black and minority ethnic

BMEB black and minority ethnic businesses

CBI Conederation o British Industries

CDC City Development Company

CEEDR Centre or Enterprise and Economic Development

Research

CGS City Growth Strategy

CLG Communities and Local Government

DBERR Department or Business, Enterprise and

Regulatory Reorm

DCLG Department o Communities and Local

Government

DCSF Department or Children, Schools and FamiliesDDEP Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership

DES Department or Education and Skills

DIUS Department or Innovation, Universities and Skills

DoT Department o Transport

DTI Department or Trade and Industry

DWP Department or Work and Pensions

eb4u East Brighton or You

ebbs East Brighton Business Support

EC European Commission

emda East Midlands Development Agency

EMRA East Midlands Regional Assembly

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

ESRC Economic and Social Research Council

EU European Union

EZ Enterprise Zone

GDP Gross Domestic ProductGEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

GO Government Oce

GOEM Government Oce or the East Midlands


13/305

xii


IB Incapacity Benet

ICIC Initiative or a Competitive Inner City

IDBR Inter-Departmental Business Register

ILM intermediate labour market

ILO International Labour OrganisationIMD Inde o Multiple Deprivation

JCP Jobcentre Plus

JSA Jobseekers Allowance

LA local authority

LAA Local Area Agreement

LAD local authority district

LEGI Local Enterprise Growth Initiative

LETS Local Echange Trading Systems

LFS Labour Force Survey

LSC Learning and Skills Council

LSEP Leicester Shire Economic Partnership

LSP Local Strategic Partnership

MANSKEP Manseld, Sutton and Kirkby Enterprise

Partnership

MASP Manseld Area Strategic Partnership

NDC New Deal or Communities

NDLP New Deal or Lone ParentsNDU New Deal or the Unemployed

NDYP New Deal or Young People

NEET not in education, employment or training

NHS National Health Service

NRF Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

NRU Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

NVQ National Vocational Qualication

ODPM Oce o the Deputy Prime Minister

PDF Phoeni Development Fund

PSA Public Service Agreement

PtW Pathways to Work

RDA Regional Development Agency

REF Regional Employability Framework

RES Regional Economic Strategy

SDC Sheeld Development Corporation

SES Social Enterprise Sunderland

SEU Social Eclusion UnitSIMD Scottish Inde o Multiple Deprivation

SME small and medium-sized enterprise

SOA Super Output Area


14/305

xiii

SRB Single Regeneration Budget

SRBCF Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund

SRP subregional partnership

TTWA Travel to Work Area

TUC Trade Union CongressUDC Urban Development Corporation

USM Under-Served Markets

VAT Value Added Ta

WIMD Welsh Inde o Multiple Deprivation

WNF Working Neighbourhoods Fund

WNP Working Neighbourhoods Pilot

List o abbreviations


15/305


16/305

1

ONE

i arc cmc rvval

itrct

The persistence o poverty, social inequality and social eclusion

spatially concentrated in certain localities and neighbourhoods is a

longstanding and prominent eature o urban landscapes. Such spatially

concentrated deprivation is largely tolerated and ignored on a day-

to-day basis, yet comes into political ocus during periods o social

unrest, whether in the orm o riots, gangland activity, terrorism or

more everyday antisocial behaviour. These events revive, albeit oten

only temporarily, well-rehearsed debates concerning the dangers o

concentrated deprivation in undermining social and community

cohesion and creating political instability, as well as the moral issues o

permitting the eistence o severe social inequalities and the costs o

spatial inequalities to wider economic perormance.

The shit towards a liberalised global economy has been characterisedby not only the persistence but also the entrenchment o concentrated

urban deprivation within the advanced Western economies. The

contemporary presence o spatially ocused poverty is not just an issue

or cities and regions eperiencing economic decline and readjustment,

but also or those that are economically competitive and prosperous. In

recent years London, Paris and Los Angeles cities that are commonly

seen as central hubs o the global economy have all had their own

traumatic eperiences o high-prole social unrest within deprived

inner or outer urban neighbourhoods.

It is against this background that policy makers have been ormulating

and implementing an array o policy interventions that seek to address

the problem o these so-called disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In

Britain, the link between social eclusion, community cohesion

and spatially concentrated deprivation has given rise to a plethora

o policy initiatives. Since 1997, the New Labour governments have

placed area-based initiatives (ABIs), such as the National Strategy or

Neighbourhood Renewal and the New Deal or Communities (NDC),at the centre o their social eclusion agenda. Yet despite considerable

investment in policy development and eperimentation there is no sign

that localised deprivation is set to disappear. Poor areas persist and new


17/305

2


areas o deprivation emerge. Even when areas do undergo regeneration

or gentrication, the evidence demonstrates that the majority o local

residents o such areas ail to benet.

The problems o deprived areas are multiaceted, with residents

commonly eperiencing higher levels o crime, poorer health,environmental degradation and poorer housing than those in less

deprived areas. However, it is the ailure o the residents o such areas

to benet rom processes o economic development that remains at the

core o the problem. Within liberal, market economies, labour market

eclusion remains central to issues o poverty and deprivation and

entering employment remains the most eective route out o poverty.

Issues o high levels o unemployment and low economic participation

rates, along with low levels o investment, are consequently dening

eatures o deprived neighbourhoods.

Yet tackling the economic basis o this problem remains problematic.

Despite an array o approaches that have centred upon varying

combinations o interventions related to physical redevelopment,

enterprise promotion and labour market integration, success has

been largely elusive. In this regard a eature o the high-prole

neighbourhood renewal and NDC initiatives in England has been their

relative ailure to address the economic dimension o the problems

besetting deprived neighbourhoods. These area-based approaches haveemphasised an integrated and holistic approach to neighbourhood

renewal including issues o employment and economic development

but the evidence suggests that the economic dimension o such

policy interventions has been weak and governance arrangements have

been poorly positioned to deliver eective economic development to

deprived areas. Recognition o this act has led to recent changes in

policy, unding and institutional arrangements, which have moved the

economic aspects o neighbourhood renewal centre-stage.

The ailure to date to address the economic needs o deprived

neighbourhoods suggests that a number o questions remain to be

answered i this most recent shit in policy direction is to be successul.

What are the lessons rom the last 40 years o intervention and have

they been learnt? Is there an adequate understanding o the dierences

between deprived neighbourhoods and how they are linked into the

wider economies in which they are embedded? Are the relative merits

and limitations o various place-based and people-based interventions

ully understood? Is there clarity over the rationale or interventionwithin deprived neighbourhoods and what is trying to be achieved?

What are the most appropriate governance arrangements or delivering

eective intervention in these areas and at what spatial scales should


18/305

3

In search o economic revival

they operate? Are there other models o sustainable local development

that oer eective alternative paths to the current neoliberal inormed

policy agenda?

This book seeks to address these questions through critically analysing

the economic nature o the problems o deprived neighbourhoods andthe policy responses that have developed to this within Britain. The

analysis centres upon understanding contemporary economic change

and the post-1997 period o the New Labour government, but is

placed within a wider contet o longer-term processes o economic

restructuring and a history o policy intervention that dates back or

well over 40 years. The arguments advanced draw upon both ndings

rom recent academic research and policy practice combined with

empirical evidence rom ve case study local areas within England,

selected to demonstrate dierent economic contets within which

deprived neighbourhoods are embedded in the contemporary

socioeconomic landscape.

The book ocuses on three elements that have dominated policy

development and implementation in relation to tackling concentrated

deprivation in recent years: work, enterprise and governance. The other

major element relating to the economic development o deprived areas

the physical redevelopment o such areas is here considered in

relation to the wider policy agenda and the issues o work, enterpriseand governance, but is not pursued as a separate theme. In terms o

the element o work, intervention aimed at reducing high levels o

worklessness and shiting residents o deprived areas in receipt o

welare benets into paid employment has been a predominant

ocus o activity. Alongside this, the promotion o enterprise and an

entrepreneurial culture within deprived areas, through both attracting in

businesses and developing indigenous businesses and sel-employment,

has been pursued as a means o developing the economic base and

competitiveness o such areas. With respect to governance, repeated

changes in institutional rameworks and governance arrangements

have attempted to improve the eectiveness o strategy development

and policy delivery o economic activity in deprived neighbourhoods.

Although strongly interrelated and potentially mutually reinorcing, the

pursuit o these dierent elements also reveals tensions between them,

rooted within the wider dominant discourse o urban development

that has inormed recent policy development.

The rest o this chapter sets out the scope and terms o debateor the rest o the book. The chapter rst locates the nature o the

problem o deprivation concentrated in particular neighbourhoods

within wider trends evident in spatial patterns o deprivation within


19/305

4


advanced Western economies generally and the UK in particular. The

chapter then outlines what constitutes a deprived neighbourhood and

the issues involved in mapping localised concentrations o deprivation.

Arguments or dierent styles o response, whether through the delivery

o mainstream policies or via area-based interventions, are introducedand an overview presented o how UK urban policy has addressed the

issue o neighbourhood deprivation in the post-Second World War

period. The nal part o the chapter ocuses on policy development

under successive New Labour governments and the varying rationales

that have inormed policy intervention, to identiy a number o key

themes to be eplored throughout the remainder o the book.

ity t prlm: patal cctrat prvat

The spatial concentrations o deprivation that are such a highly visible

component o contemporary urban landscapes in advanced industrial

economies are by no means new. Concentrated disadvantage has been a

eature o urban capitalist development throughout its history, not least

in the cities that grew out o the early phase o industrial capitalism in

the late 17th century. In the 20th century, epectations that economic

growth might remove such concentrated poverty, either on its own orin concert with a variety o state interventions, were seen to be largely

misplaced. Indeed what is impressive is the persistence o poverty in

certain neighbourhoods over decades and in some cases centuries.

That low-income, disadvantaged neighbourhoods persist through

successive periods o economic development indicates the structural

role they perorm within the operation o the wider urban economy

via the production and reproduction o low-cost labour to provide

cheap services to businesses and residents (Fainstein et al, 1993; Sassen,

2001). Indeed the original rationale or the building o many low-

income neighbourhoods was specically to provide low-cost labour

to particular industries or urban areas (Lupton, 2003).

Yet these patterns o spatial deprivation are not ed. Alongside

neighbourhoods o longstanding deprivation are other narratives o

change, o ormerly prosperous areas spiralling into dereliction, or the

much-vaunted gentrication and regeneration o previously deprived

neighbourhoods. This process o capitalist uneven development is

memorably described by Harvey (1985, p 150):

Capitalist development must negotiate a knie-edge

between preserving the value o past commitments made at


20/305

5


a particular place and time, or devaluing them to open up

resh room or accumulation. The inner contradictions

o capitalism are epressed through the restless ormation

and re-ormation o geographical landscapes.

Historically dierent phases o economic development produce

particular spatial and temporal es with their own geographic patterns

o growth and deprivation. In the current era o an increasingly

globalised economic arena, processes o structural and technological

change have interacted with state-sponsored processes o deregulation

and reregulation to create new landscapes. Signicantly, the current

phase o neoliberal, global economic development is characterised by

the continuation and, in certain cases, intensication o concentrated

deprivation. Indeed a prominent and repeated eature o the economic

heartlands o the global economy, the major global cities and economic

motor regions, is the close proimity o areas o great wealth to areas

o intense deprivation (Sassen, 2001).

Current landscapes o deprivation and social eclusion within

advanced industrial countries are rooted within, and constitutive

o, an increasingly apparent widening o social inequalities. This is

a particular characteristic o those countries that have aggressively

pursued neoliberal economic agendas. In Britain, successive studies havedemonstrated the trend towards increased levels o social inequality,

whether in terms o incomes, skills, education or health. Dorling et

al (2007), in their major study o changing area patterns o poverty

and wealth in Britain, conclude that, since 1970, area rates o poverty

and wealth have changed signicantly, with Britain moving back

towards levels o inequality in wealth and poverty last seen more

than 40 years ago. Green and Owen (2006), in their comprehensive

analysis o the changing landscape o work and skills in England and

Wales over the period 1991-2001, similarly conclude that the picture

is one o increasing polarisation in skills demand and supply across

the country.

In policy terms the pursuit o a competitive position within a

liberalised global economy has seen undamental shits in the role

o nation states towards a policy emphasis on supporting economic

competitiveness and away rom more traditional concerns with welare

and social justice. This transition has been characterised as a shit rom

a Keynesian welare state to a Schumpeterian workare state thatdates rom 1970s and intensied rom the early 1980s (Peck, 2001). In

Britain, this shit has been characterised by a major deregulation and

reregulation o state activity to promote economic competitiveness,


21/305

6


innovation and eibility. Such an emphasis has remained a dening

eature o economic, urban and welare policy under the New Labour

governments that came to power rom 1997, despite their introduction

o a range o high-prole policies related to poverty and social eclusion

that have struggled to promote a more equal society (Hills and Stewart,2005).

Against this background o economic liberalisation, rising social

inequalities and state activity increasingly ocused on promoting

economic competitiveness, it is perhaps not surprising that spatial

divergence has been evident. Recent years have seen the UKs regional

and local economies become more divergent, with divides evident not

only at the regional level between the ast-growing South East and a

ew other major cities, and the rest o the country, but also within cities

and regions. At the level o major English cities, there is a consistent

pattern o better-perorming cities, measured on the basis o indices

such as education, low worklessness, low poverty, average house prices

and lie epectancy, being located within the South and particularly

South East o England, and only a limited number o northern cities

showing similar levels o perormance (Dorling, 2006; Parkinson et

al, 2006).

In terms o levels o deprivation, this is generally a larger problem in

cities, rather than in towns and rural areas, with the metropolitan, largerand smaller cities o the North and West consistently demonstrating

the highest levels o deprivation (Parkinson et al, 2006, p 111). Levels

o deprivation across English cities show considerable disparities rom

the highest levels o deprivation in Liverpool through to the lowest

levels in southern cities such as Reading, Crawley and Aldershot (see

Figure 1.1).

Within cities themselves, research ndings demonstrate the persistence

o patterns o poverty and deprivation, and in certain cases indications o

increasing concentration, which are present even within cities enjoying

strong economic growth (Buck et al, 2002; Boddy, 2003; Boddy and

Parkinson, 2004; Turok et al, 2004; Parkinson et al, 2006). Overall, the

evidence across UK cities is, as Boddy and Parkinson (2004, p 416)

conclude, one o major variations in levels o social and economic

advantage and the concentration in particular neighbourhoods o

high levels o persistent disadvantage. Furthermore, the evidence also

suggests that these trends towards increasing geographical inequalities in

wealth, which started under the Thatcher period, have in act intensiedunder the New Labour government (Dorling, 2006).

Central to understanding the diering trajectories o the UKs

regional and local economies is an awareness o how processes o


22/305

7


Fr 1.1: Lvl prvat y val cty ela,

2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

York

Warrington

Preston

Telford

Blackpool

Wakefield

Burnley

Bolton

Grimsby

Doncaster

Blackburn

Barnsley

Rochdale

Aldershot

Crawley

Cambridge

Milton Keynes

Worthing

Southend

Swindon

Medway

Norwich

Oxford

Gloucester

Northampton

Luton

IpswichPeterborough

Plymouth

Derby

Mansfield

Hastings

Huddersfield

Birkenhead

Coventry

Wigan

Stoke

Middlesbrough

Bradford

SunderlandHull

Reading

Portsmouth

Bournemouth

Southampton

Bristol

Brighton

Leicester

Nottingham

Leeds

Sheffield

ManchesterBirmingham

Newcastle

Liverpool

London

Mean IMD Score

Source: Parkinson et al (2006, p 113)


23/305

8


economic restructuring and sectoral change, most notably the decline

o traditional manuacturing industry and the rise o new service

industries, have created new patterns o job growth and job loss

(Martin and Morrison, 2003). Although nationally the period o job

loss and mass unemployment o the 1980s was replaced by rising levelso employment and declining unemployment in the 1990s, processes

o labour market change have seen high levels o unemployment and

inactivity becoming entrenched within certain groups and certain

areas. Groups such as single parents, people rom minority ethnic

communities, older men and those with low skills are much less likely

to be in work. Spatially it has been the large cities in northern Britain,

Inner London, as well as ormer coaleld areas and some seaside towns

where levels o unemployment have remained well above, and economic

activity rates well below, the national average (Beatty and Fothergill,

1996; Green and Owen, 1998; Turok and Edge, 1999; Beatty et al, 2000;

Green and Owen, 2006). These relationships between sectoral and

labour market change and the perormance o selected local economies

are eplored in greater detail in the ollowing chapter.

Yet while this undamental restructuring o the economic base and

the resulting winning and losing local and regional economies is a

crucial starting point to understanding the etent and nature o area

deprivation, it is not enough to eplain the patterns o intense spatialconcentration o deprivation that are evident within prosperous and less

prosperous regions alike. For this, understanding is required o how these

new patterns o job growth and loss interact with a range o economic

and social processes that cumulatively act to reduce employment

prospects o residents and depress local economic activity. As is discussed

in detail in Chapter Two, these processes include the operation o

housing markets, local labour markets, and public and private sector

investment markets, as well as the particularities o neighbourhood

eects and ormations o local social capital. It is only through seeking

to understand how these diverse processes interact within and through

specic places that we can begin to understand the particularities,

patterns and dynamics o concentrations o deprivation.

It is or these reasons that the policy challenge presented by

deprived neighbourhoods is particularly dicult. Conceptually, policy

intervention requires understanding o how deep-seated economic

processes o change interrelate with a range o economic and social

processes across spatial scales operating rom the neighbourhood tothe global. Translating this into policy practice consequently requires

an integration and coordination o policy development and delivery

across spheres, sectors and levels o the political and policy-making


24/305

9


system; a means o working that the state apparatus has traditionally

ound dicult to achieve.

Rc prv r

In the UK over the past 10 years, deprived neighbourhoods have

become a well-established and central notion within the policy

agenda. This idea rose to particular prominence as a result o the

work o New Labours Social Eclusion Unit (SEU) in the late 1990s,

which identied concentrations o deprivation at the neighbourhood

level as a dening eature o the contemporary landscape o social

eclusion. The subsequent response to this analysis through the

creation o the National Strategy or Neighbourhood Renewal

ensured that prominence was given to the identication and targeting

o deprived neighbourhoods. Such an approach is not unique to the

UK. In the US, where polarisation between prosperous and deprived

neighbourhoods in urban conurbations is particularly stark, there has

been a longstanding identication o poor neighbourhoods as a ocus

or policy intervention (Galster et al, 2003). In Europe too, there has

been a range o programmes within member states and at the level o

the European Union (EU) oriented towards concentrated deprivation

within urban areas (Madanipour et al, 1998; Atkinson and Carmichael,2007).

Common to these agendas is the recognition that social eclusion is

concentrated in relatively small pockets, predominantly within urban

areas, not only within cities and regions undergoing economic decline

and readjustment, but also within those eperiencing strong economic

growth. These highly localised concentrations o various groups at r isk

o eclusion migrants, people rom minority ethnic communities, the

long-term unemployed, one-parent amilies, older people and young

people are characterised by an intensity o mutually reinorcing

processes o social eclusion that produce marked spatial polarisation.

In the most etreme eamples, social and spatial deprivation can

come together to orm ghettos o intense eclusion and an associated

underclass, as identied within many US cities (Massey and Denton,

1993; Wilson, 1996). However, the intensity o deprivation and racial

segregation that characterises US cities is not readily apparent within

European cities, where dierent social-spatial ormations mean that

the circumstances o spatially concentrated deprivation are qualitativelydierent (Wacquant, 1996; Marcuse and Van Kempen, 2000). Studies

o poor areas within the UK, or eample, have shown that despite a

high presence o ecluded people within poor neighbourhoods, overall


25/305

10


labour and housing markets are less divided, particularly in terms o

race. In addition, the continuing role or the welare state and amily

and community relations urther prevents the ormation o a ghetto

underclass (Buck et al, 2002; Watt, 2003; see also Chapter Two).

In the European contet, the analysis o spatially concentrateddeprivation, particularly inormed by the eperiences o inner-city areas

and peripheral housing estates, has centred on the multiple dimensions

o deprivation and social eclusion. The ocus here is how dierent

elements o deprivation come together, in specic areas, to produce a

mutually reinorcing process. The diculties that arise rom having a

large number o deprived individuals concentrated in a particular area

are compounded by associated area-based eects (or eample, lack

o inormation about jobs, lack o contact with the world o work,

area-based discrimination and stigma) and the particularities o any

given locality (or eample, peripheral location, poor inrastructure,

poor-quality local services and lack o transport). Together these actors

produce processes that act to maintain eisting poor areas in a state

o relative deprivation or create a cycle o decline in ormerly more

prosperous areas (see Chapter Two or a more detailed discussion). The

resulting policy emphasis is on how low levels o economic activity, and

poor housing, local environment, and public services combined with

the characteristics o the local populations, produce relative deprivationin terms o income, health, saety and quality o lie. It is also one that

recognises important dierences between areas and neighbourhoods

and the need or place-based interventions that are place sensitive.

What is a deprived neighbourhood?

Although the term deprived or disadvantaged neighbourhood acts as a

useul descriptor o what is an important eature o the urban landscape,

as an analytical term, what constitutes a deprived neighbourhood is

considerably more problematic. Conceptually, there are diculties

here both in dening what constitutes a neighbourhood as well as

how the relationship between deprivation and its spatial epression

is conceived.

The notion o neighbourhood is heavily contested (Galster,

2001; Kearns and Parkinson, 2001). There is no single, accepted and

generalisable denition as to what constitutes a neighbourhood; rather,

what emerges rom academic debate is a view o neighbourhoods ascomple, dynamic, multidimensional and subjective constructs with

identities and governance capacities that go beyond preconceived

geographical or administrative boundaries (Lepine et al, 2007, p 2).


26/305

11


Beneath this compleity, two key themes are apparent. First is the

idea o a neighbourhood as a bounded physical entity, eisting at a

particular localised scale. In this respect a neighbourhood is normally

seen as a small district pitched between a wider local area and the

narrower connes o a particular street or housing block. Yet there isno clear agreement as to what constitutes the scale o a neighbourhood.

In practice it may range rom an area that is little more than a street, to

a much larger area based around shops or a school that may comprise

several thousand people. While some neighbourhoods may be distinct

physical places clearly bounded by roads or rivers, more generally there

is an absence o obvious boundary lines, with those living in an area

likely to have strongly varying perceptions o the physical etent o

their neighbourhood.

A second theme is the neighbourhood as a socially constructed space.

Here the neighbourhood is signicant as an everyday lived space o

social interaction and reproduction and a source o attachment and

identity, eperienced dierently by individuals depending on their

particular characteristics (Sullivan and Taylor, 2007). As a socially

constructed place, the notion o neighbourhood is requently conated

with that o community, through the eistence o common identities,

practices and interests within a small shared space (Forrest and Kearns,

2001). Yet although eamples o strong place-based communities doeist, more commonly areas are characterised by the eistence o

multiple communities o interest and ragmented populations. This

makes any neat and tidy relationship between neighbourhoods and

community deeply problematic, instead pointing to a messy, comple

and dynamic relationship between individuals, communities and the

neighbourhoods in which they live.

These problems in dening what constitutes a neighbourhood lead

some to preer to talk only in terms o concentrated deprivation. But

this too is problematic, as it removes entirely the very sense o place

that is a critical element to the phenomenon under consideration.

Importantly, whether localised spatial patterns o deprivation are

discussed in terms o neighbourhoods or concentrations, they need

to be understood in terms o the spectrum o social processes that are

constituted in and through particular places rather than being in any

sense separate or isolated. These social processes distinguish themselves

in deprived neighbourhoods principally by the extentand degreeo

their impact and the problems that result, rather than being dierentby nature.

As a result, there are no simple cut-o points between deprived

neighbourhoods and others. Although a signicant proportion o


27/305

12


individuals eperiencing deprivation is resident in what may be classied

as disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the majority is not. Spatial scales are

not ed. When considering the operation o socioeconomic processes

attention should be ocused on the relations between places and scales,

rather than seeking to delimit and place borders around them (Massey,2005). A relational concept o both space and deprivation is critical or

any meaningul understanding o spatial concentrations o deprivation

and how policy should respond to them. The considerable danger o an

analytical and policy ocus on deprived localities or neighbourhoods

is the etishisation o a particular spatial scale; seeing it as a distinct

and separate entity, when in act problems o concentrated deprivation

need to be viewed as part o a particular epression o the operation

o socioeconomic processes over space and through time.

Within such a relational view o places and spaces, looking at

deprivation at dierent spatial scales whether internationally,

nationally, regionally, locally or at the neighbourhood level is

important because it produces dierent patterns and interpretations o

the etent and nature o the problem. A ne-grained neighbourhood

ocus, or eample, brings into ocus particular issues (or eample,

housing type and environmental quality), while a broader analysis at

the subregional/local levels brings insight into the operation o labour

markets and the interaction between labour supply and demand, aswell as the relationships between Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) and

housing markets that predominantly operate at these levels.

Analysis at the level o individual English cities, or eample,

demonstrates high levels o city-wide deprivation (measured in

terms o a mean score on the Inde o Multiple Deprivation; IMD)

in cities such as Liverpool (45%), Hull (42%), Sunderland (34%)

and Rochdale (33%) (Parkinson et al, 2006, p 113) (see Figure 1.1).

Similarly, in the city o Glasgow in Scotland, 48% o the population

live within the most deprived areas. When eamined at the regional

level, every city or town in the South and East o England has less than

its share o poorest areas (Parkinson et al, 2006, p 114). In contrast,

regions such as the North East and North West o England have high

proportions o their population, 38% and 33% respectively, living in

deprived neighbourhoods, demonstrating the importance o a regional

dimension to understanding the location o deprived neighbourhoods

(see Table 1.1). When regions, subregions or cities have such a large

proportion o their population living within a large number o deprivedneighbourhoods, the issue is rather less about the neighbourhoods per

se and rather more about the economic conditions at the level o the

city or wider region in which they are situated.


28/305

13


The appropriate scale or analysis and policy intervention is aparticularly important issue with regard to the economic dimension

o deprived areas and is discussed urther in Chapter Five. The roots

o the economic problems that aect such areas, and the economic

processes that are maniest within them, stretch ar beyond a highly

localised area, pointing to a policy response that needs to be sensitive

to, and coordinated across, a range o dierent scales. In this contet,

the deprived neighbourhood needs to be conceptualised as a particular

socially constructed place embedded in various economic and social

processes operating within and between dierent scales.

Mapping deprivation at the neighbourhood scale

The lack o denitional clarity relating to deprived neighbourhoods

ensures that its operationalisation or policy terms is problematic.

Denitions rom the British government ocus on deprived areas, and

the people who live within them, as disadvantaged relative to other

more prosperous areas:

People living in deprived areas are more likely to be worse

o than similar people living in more prosperous areas

Tal 1.1: spr otpt Ara (soA) t mt prv 20%

soA ela, y r, 2004

Number o SOAsin most deprived

20% o SOAs inEngland

Number o SOAsin the region

% o SOAs in eachregion alling in

most deprived 20%o SOAs in England

East 220 3,550 6.2

East Midlands 482 2,732 17.6

London 1,260 4,765 26.4

North East 631 1,656 38.1

North West 1,461 4,459 32.8

South East 271 5,319 5.1

South West 278 3,226 8.6

West Midlands 917 3,482 26.3

Yorkshire and theHumber

976 3,293 29.6

Total 6,496 32,482 20.0

Source: Department or Communities and Local Government, NeighbourhoodStatistics


29/305

14


[they] ... are less likely to work, more likely to be poor and

have lower lie epectancy, more likely to live in poorer

housing in unattractive local environments with high levels

o anti-social behaviour and lawlessness and more likely

to receive poorer education and health services. Living ina deprived area adversely aects individuals lie chances

over and above what would be predicted by their personal

circumstance and characteristics. (PMSU, 2005, p 10)

The more general challenges in identiying and measuring poverty

and deprivation are well recognised. The geographical mapping o

national patterns o relative deprivation can be conducted at a range

o spatial scales rom the regional through to the neighbourhood

level. Within the current UK policy discourse, the strong emphasis on

pockets o localised deprivation has produced a ocus on the small-

scale, neighbourhood, level.

The Index o Multiple Deprivation

In order both to capture the multiple dimensions o deprivation and

how these come together at the small-area level, and as a means o

operationalising the National Strategy or Neighbourhood Renewalin England, the UK government produced the Inde o Multiple

Deprivation (IMD), initially published in 2000 (DTLR, 2000) and

subsequently in revised orm in 2004 (ODPM, 2004) and urther

updated or 2007 (DCLG, 2008a).

The IMD is based on the concept o distinct dimensions o

deprivation that can be recognised and measured separately, and

are eperienced by individuals living in an area. The overall IMD is

conceptualised as a weighted area-level aggregation o the specic

dimensions o deprivation. The Inde is made up o seven distinct

dimensions o deprivation, called domains. Each domain contains a

number o indicators (37 in total), which comprise (with their relative

weighting indicated in brackets):

income deprivation (22.5%);

employment deprivation (22.5%);

education, training and skills deprivation (13.5%);

health deprivation and disability (13.5%); barriers to housing and services (9.3%);

living environment deprivation (9.3%); and

crime (9.3%).


30/305

15


Both Scotland and Wales have developed their own modied versions

o the IMD the Scottish Inde o Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and

the Welsh Inde o Multiple Deprivation (WIMD).1 Across all three

indices o multiple deprivation, the three domains o employment,

income, and education, training and skills are weighted as the mostimportant dimensions, together accounting or between 58.5% to 70%

o the aggregate weighting.

In identiying deprived areas the IMD uses a relative measure o

deprivation, commonly dening them in terms o the 10% most

deprived wards in the 2000 IMD, and the 10% or 20% most deprived

Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the 2004 IMD. I deprived areas

in England are dened in terms o the 20% most deprived SOAs,

9.8 million people live in these areas, just under 20% o the population.

However, not all people living in deprived areas eperience deprivation

individually. On average just under a third o those people living in

deprived areas are likely to be income deprived.

Figure 1.2 displays the distribution o the 20% most deprived

SOAs in England in 2004. Concentrations o deprivation reect the

processes o economic restructuring eperienced over the last 30 years,

with job losses in manuacturing and coal-mining sectors having had

major impacts on inner cities, large metropolitan cities, one-industry

towns and coaleld areas. As a result, deprived neighbourhoods in theUK are disproportionally ound in inner-city areas, mining, industrial

and seaside towns, and outer urban areas o industrial and residential

epansion. Most such neighbourhoods are located within deprived

urban wards, but within England, at least 16 o the 88 most deprived

districts also contain substantial rural areas (SEU, 2001).

Severely deprived areas are ound in all regions, as are areas among

the least deprived. However, as Table 1.1 demonstrates, the localised

distribution o the most deprived 20% o SOAs within England

does show strong regional variation. The North East has the highest

percentage o its SOAs in the most deprived 20% (38.1%), compared

with only 8.6% in the South West. London has a high number o SOAs

in the most deprived 20% o SOAs (1,260) accounting or a large

population o 1,934,000 people.

Constraints o the IMD

Identication o area-based deprivation using the IMD and its use asa means o targeting resources raises a number o issues related to the

manner in which it identies and prioritises certain types o deprived

areas.


31/305

16


First, such indices are constrained by the statistics routinely available at

the lowest spatial scales. In the UK, initially the electoral ward level was

used simply because it was the only unit at the sublocal authority levelor which there were adequate small-area statistics available nationally

with which to construct an IMD. Wards were ranked using the IMD

and the 10% most deprived wards, a total o 841, were then designated

Fr 1.2: Lcal cctrat trct lvl mmary t

iMd (ela) 2004

Source: ODPM, 2004


32/305

17


as the poorest neighbourhoods, 82% o which were concentrated in 88

local authority districts (LADs). From the outset there was a recognition

that electoral wards relatively large, variable in size and subject to

constant boundary changes were a poor proy or the neighbourhood

scale and as a means or reporting small-area statistics. Given that wards,particularly in urban areas, could be large (containing populations o

up to 30,000 people), small pockets o deprivation (or indeed wealth)

remained hidden within the Inde. Such problems were a major actor

in the creation rom 2004 o a new means or reporting small-area

statistics in England and Wales SOAs which were rst used in the

revised IMD in 2004. Super Output Areas have a consistent size, with

lower-level SOAs having an average population o 1,800 people, making

them more amenable to capturing the neighbourhood scale.2 However,

such statistics still remain only a proy; they are a statistical geography

that makes no attempt to capture or delimit neighbourhoods.

In terms o economic change at the neighbourhood scale, there

also remain severe limitations on available economic statistics. There

is a notable lack o data related to key issues such as levels o private

and public investment, enterprise start-ups and certain aspects o the

labour market, and no statistics at all related to the important arena

o inormal activity. In act, in relation to the economic dimension o

neighbourhood deprivation, much o the ocus has related to patternso worklessness.

Second, the manner in which the dierent elements o deprivation

are weighted within a composite inde produces dierent outcomes.

The manner in which the IMD is constructed makes it relatively

strong in identiying multiple deprivation in urban areas, where the

vast majority o the population reside. However, it is less eective in

identiying deprivation dispersed across more geographically sparse

populations as occurs in rural areas, and where the basis o deprivation

is also dierent, especially with regard to problems o accessibility to

jobs and services. Consequently, in areas with larger rural populations

there has been concern over the underreporting o rural deprivation

and both Scotland and Wales have revised their indices to include a

greater recognition o this issue.

Third, the ocus on identiying small-area-based deprivation

illustrates the tensions over the choice o scale at which the issue o

deprivation is looked at, the indicators used and the nature o the

problem subsequently identied. In a region such as the South West oEngland there is only a relatively small number o SOAs in the worst

20% nationally (8.6%). However, analysis at a higher spatial scale can

capture wider structural problems, related to processes o economic


33/305

18


development and labour market supply and demand in the subregional/

regional economy. In this regard, or the South West, the EU, using

cruder and more restricted criterion (Gross Domestic Product [GDP]

per head o population at 75% or less o the European average) applied

at the subregional/regional level, identies Cornwall as a priority area(Objective One) or assistance, even though relatively ew localities are

highlighted within the IMD.

Finally, although the IMD identies deprivation at the small scale it

is unable to say anything about the nature o the problem. For eample,

an SEU report (SEU, 2004)pursued the issue o worklessness through

small-area analysis down to the level o the street and the housing

block. While such an analysis permitted the identication o small-scale

pockets o labour market deprivation, it also amply demonstrated the

limitations o such an approach. Such maps o localised worklessness

were in act little more than maps o the distribution o public/social

housing.

Merely mapping localised economic deprivation provides only

very limited insights into the nature o the phenomena and how it is

embedded within the wider economic development process. Across

England, Scotland and Wales the IMD identies ormer coaleld

areas, older industrial areas, urban centres, one-industry towns and

some seaside towns,as particular oci o concentrated deprivation.However, the nature o the problems o deprived neighbourhoods is in

practice very dierent. The labour market challenges posed by a highly

stable, largely homogenous white population that has eperienced

intergenerational unemployment in a ormer coaleld area, such as

Easington in the North East or Manseld in the East Midlands, are

quite dierent rom those o an ethnically diverse, younger and more

transient population living in inner-city areas, such as Newham or

Tower Hamlets, within the economically thriving London region.

Generalisation across localities may obscure more than it reveals. The

dierences between deprived neighbourhoods are eplored in urther

detail in the net chapter.

Tackl lcal prvat

People versus place

A central policy concern in relation to tackling concentrateddeprivation is whether deprived neighbourhoods should be seen

either as a problem in their own right, and thereore in need o place-

based interventions, or as a maniestation o wider problems that


34/305

19


should be dealt with by people-oriented mainstream employment,

education, training and business support policies (among others)

ocused on individuals, households or rms. Given that the economic

problems eperienced within deprived neighbourhoods reect wider

socioeconomic processes (or eample in terms o deindustrialisation,rising inequality, labour market segmentation and so on), it might

seem appropriate that the problems o such areas are addressed through

mainstream programmes and policies. But deprived neighbourhoods are

not merely empty spaces within which these wider processes are played

out, but partially constitute these processes o change. Thereore the

particular characteristics o a given place and the manner in which they

are embedded within wider local/regional economies matter and policy

responses must thereore be responsive to such local dierence.

The argument or a place-based element to tackle the problems

o deprived areas is rooted within two actors. The rst relates to the

etent to which place-based actors, or what are commonly reerred to

as area or neighbourhood eects, eacerbate problems o deprivation

and social eclusion. There is considerable disagreement between

academics on the importance o neighbourhood eects in perpetuating

social eclusion. There are those who argue that they are o minor

importance in relation to other actors, while others argue that they play

an important role in compounding the eects o multiple dimensionso deprivation concentrated within a given locality. These arguments

are eplored in urther detail in Chapter Two. Although the problems

o deprived neighbourhoods are in the main the same in nature as those

suered elsewhere, the degree o poverty and deprivation concentrated

in particular places and its persistence over time and across multiple

dimensions, clearly produces a set o additional problems that justies

a place-sensitive approach.

The second is rooted in the act that a whole range o mainstream

policies consistently nd it dicult to address eectively the problems o

residents concentrated in deprived neighbourhoods. There are a number

o related reasons or this. First, mainstream policies generally target

on the basis o population characteristics and nd it dicult to take

account o the particular needs o areas acing concentrated deprivation.

Second, there is a generally poor take-up o mainstream programmes

by residents living within deprived neighbourhoods, whether this is in

terms o training schemes, business support or employment services.

This reects both a lack o trust and engagement with such servicesand oten also the absence o opportunities or incentives to seek

employment or develop entrepreneurial activity. Third, levels o public

spending rarely eectively compensate or the high unit cost involved


35/305

20


in tackling social eclusion within deprived areas, while prosperous

areas requently eert pressure to maintain their relatively high level

o service provision. Although ependiture within deprived areas

may be higher on a per capita basis, such spending is concentrated on

benet regimes, operating to maintain the status quo, rather than oneducation and training, which might lead to individuals competing

more successully in the labour market and attaining higher levels o

earnings. Finally, the poor coordination o mainstream programmes

at national and regional levels makes it dicult to integrate these

eectively at the local or neighbourhood level.

The role o area-based initiatives

The combination o the particular problems o deprived neighbourhoods

and the inability o mainstream programmes to address them eectively

has led to the development o a variety o area-based initiatives (ABIs).

In the UK there is a long history o such interventions, ranging rom

the Community Programme o the 1960s, to the Enterprise Zones

o the 1980s, to the National Strategy or Neighbourhood Renewal

introduced in the late 1990s (see Table 1.2).

As a policy response, ABIs have a number o common eatures.

Central is an emphasis on partnership working. Since the 1980s thishas broadened rom an emphasis on working in partnership with the

private sector to include the community and dierent public bodies

and government departments, to try to ensure the engagement o a

broad base o epertise and resources better directed to the needs o

deprived areas. Also crucial to ABIs is the encouragement o greater

eibility in local delivery, sensitivity to local needs and autonomy

in the management and delivery o local schemes. This element is

particularly important within the UK contet o a historically highly

centralised state system with limited devolution o power to regional,

local and neighbourhood levels. An additional eature o ABIs in the

UK contet is that, since the early 1990s, unds have normally been

allocated on a competitive basis, with the intention o providing an

incentive or actors to engage in partnership working and to pursue

more innovative solutions.

Despite the established history o ABIs and the prolieration o

this approach under the New Labour governments, there remains

considerable debate over their relative eectiveness (Griggs et al, 2008).Criticisms o ABIs are o two broad types. The rst ocuses on the act

that such initiatives are seeking to address wider social and economic

processes o change. Given that the problems o social inequality and


36/305

21


Tal1.2:

evolutoobrthurapolcy

Perio

d

Policies

Key

ea

tures

Mainactors

/partners

Spat

iallevelso

inter

vent

ion

1940s

1960s

New

Towns

Urbanclearance

Reconstruct

ionan

dphys

ical

regeneration

Improv

emento

hous

ingan

dliving

stan

dards

Nat

iona

land

loca

lgovernment

Publicsector-

ledinvestment

Privatesector

deve

lopersan

d

contractors

Rep

lacementorun-

down

inner-

cityareasw

ithdevelopmento

suburbanareasan

dN

ewTowns

Someattemptstore

habilitate

depr

ivedne

ighbourh

oods

Emphas

isonregiona

lpo

licyto

decentra

lisean

drelo

cate

industry

away

romthe

South

East

Late

1960s

1970s

Urban

Programmes

Commun

ity

Development

Pro

jects

Insiturenewal

andcommun

ity-

basedactionan

dgreater

empow

erment

Extens

iverenewal

oolderur

ban

areas

Resourceconstraintsonpu

blic

sector

andgrowtho

private

investm

ent

Loca

laut

horities

Some

decentra

lisat

ionan

d

commun

ityinvo

lvement

Grow

ingro

leo

privatesector

Focusonne

ighbourh

oodsc

hemes

within

loca

llevel

policies

Ongoingregiona

lpolicy


37/305

22


Perio

d

Policies

Key

ea

tures

Mainactors

/partners

Spat

iallevelso

intervent

ion

Late

1970s

Urban

Partners

hips

Recogn

itionostructural

pro

blems;

risingu

nemploymentan

dsocial

unrest

Rad

icalalternatives

rom

Right(ree

mar

ket

)an

dLet(pub

licowners

hip

andmo

dern

isat

ion)

Nat

iona

land

loca

lgovernment

Shittowar

dsmoreloca

lised

ocus

Decentral

isat

ionand

New

Towns

policies

halted

1980s

Urban

Development

Corporations

Enterprise

Zones

Majorsc

hemeso

physica

l

replace

mentan

dnew

deve

lopment

ofagsh

ippro

jectsan

douto

town

developments

Emphasisupon

laissez-

aire

approach,s

timulat

ionoenterprise

anddom

inantro

leorpr

ivatesector

Privatesector

led

Select

ivesupport

romnationa

l

government

Margina

lisat

iono

loca

lgover

nment

Lim

itedcommun

ity

invo

lvement

Emphas

isuponmajorregeneration

pro

jects

ininner-city

andormer

industrial

areas

Loca

l-level

intervent

ions

part

icular

lyrom

Lab

our-c

ontro

lled

authorities

Majorwea

keningoregiona

lpo

licy

Late

1980s

Act

ion

or

Cities

CityAct

ion

Teams

Task

Forces

Focusoncoor

dinationo

po

licies

withincitiesan

dsu

breg

ions

Nat

iona

lgovernmentan

dpr

ivate

sector

Recogn

itiono

ro

leo

local

authorities

Loca

l/city

leve

l

Subreg

iona

lact

ivityr

elated

toprogrammes

unded

byEU

Structural

Fun

ds

Tal1.2:

evolutoobrthurapolcy(cotu)


38/305

23


Perio

d

Policies

Key

ea

tures

Mainactors

/partners

Spat

iallevelso

intervent

ion

1990s

CityChallenge

Sing

le

Regenerat

ion

Budget

Partners

hip

dom

inantw

ithgreater

balance

betweenpu

blic

,privatean

d

volunta

ryan

dcommun

itysectors

Shitto

more

integratedan

d

comprehensiveresponse

Compe

tition

or

und

ing

Moree

mphas

isuponcommun

ity

engagement,

lessuponphys

ical

redeve

lopment

Partners

hip

betweenal

lkeyactors,

widenedto

include

loca

lauth

orities

andcommun

ity,v

oluntarysectors

Primar

ilyloca

llybase

dinterventions

Somere

introduction

ostrateg

ic

perspect

ivean

dgrow

tho

regiona

lact

ivity

(egviacreation

oGovernment

Oc

esorthe

Reg

ions

)

Late

1990s

early

2000s

New

Dea

lor

Commun

ities

(NDCs)

/Nat

iona

l

Strategy

or

Neigh

bour

hoo

d

Renewal

Multipleexamples

oABIs

Sustaina

ble

Commun

ities

Plan

Work

ing

Neigh

bour

hoo

d

Fund

/City

Strategy

Path

nders

Centra

locusonsocial

exc

lusion

andconcentrated

depr

ivat

ion,

particu

larlywork

lessness

Experimentationw

ithnew

approachesviamultiple

ABIs

Emphasisuponcitycompetitiveness,

innovationan

denterprise

Somed

evo

lutionopoweran

d

attemp

tsto

increase

loca

l-level

fexibil

ity

Partners

hipapproachcentra

l(egvia

Loca

lStrateg

icPartners

hips)

Increase

dcommun

ityinvo

lvement

andpart

icipat

ion

Keyro

leor

Reg

iona

lDevelopment

Agenc

ies

(RDAs)an

ddevelopment

osubregiona

lpartnersh

ips

Increase

dro

leor

loca

lautho

rities

in

econom

icdeve

lopment

Strong

ocusonneig

hbour

hood

leve

l

Recongure

dloca

l-le

velro

levia

Loca

lStrateg

icPartnersh

ipsan

d

Loca

lArea

Agreements

Variab

ledevo

lutiona

nd

decentra

lisat

ionopowerto

nationsan

dregionsan

dcities,

Attempttostrengthensu

breg

iona

l

leve

lviaMulti

AreaA

greements

Source:Expan

dedan

dadapte

drom

Atk

inson

andMoon

(1994);

Aud

itComm

ission

(1999,

p95);Ro

bertsand

Sykes,

(2000;

,p14)

Tal1.2:

evolutoobrthur

apolcy(cotu)


39/305

24


deprivation in deprived neighbourhoods are maniestations o patterns

o inequality set nationally and internationally, the impacts o area-

based policies are likely at best to be marginal (Townsend, 1979). Thus

Kleinman (1998) argues that in tackling poverty and deprivation the

ocus should not be on place per se, as the problems o poverty areonly in limited instances localised in character. Rather, such problems

are more generally widely distributed in relation to national and

international economic and social actors and hence require more than

local action as a solution. In act a danger with area-based policy is

that problems are mis-specied, with the risk o making the particular

locality appear to be responsible or its particular economic problems

and hence absolving national governments rom taking action.

The second criticism ocuses on the signicant challenges related to

the implementation and evaluation o area-based policy. O particular

importance here are issues o displacement and substitution, such that

the economic gains to certain rms and individuals as a result o a policy

intervention are oset by losses to others. This is particularly important

with regard to jobs, but also applies to service provision, money within

the local economy, and community participation. Similarly, the issues o

deadweight and non-additionality concern the problems o separating

out the impact o a particular policy intervention rom other inuences

and o estimating what would have happened in the local economywithout any intervention.

While such arguments provide or some a basis or the rejection

o ABIs tout court, in act they do not counter the rationale or ABIs

previously outlined. Rather, they point to the need or careul design o

such policies: or greater clarity about what can be achieved at the local

level, and greater emphasis on their coordination with interventions

at the national level and other spatial scales. As Kleinman (1998, p 3)

states, ABIs are highly important in terms o their role in providing

the appropriate level to organise eective partnerships operating with

a clear understanding o local conditions: But local initiatives cannot

alone provide solutions to problems whose causes are national or even

international. Local initiatives must be supported by the right kind o

policies at regional and national level.

Critically, the rationale or the use o ABIs is or them to addto the

positive impacts o mainstream policies and market mechanisms, not to

substitute them, in order to provide a more strategic and coordinated

approach to meeting the needs o deprived areas. For eample, as hasbeen demonstrated within evaluations o the City Challenge and Single

Regeneration Budget (SRB) programmes (DETR, 2000b; Rhodes et

al, 2002), the eectiveness o local employment and training initiatives


40/305

25


is related to demand conditions in the wider labour market. So the

challenge or ABIs is to ensure that maimum labour market benets

accrue to residents o deprived neighbourhoods who ace additional

problems in the labour market and/or are poorly served by mainstream

provision. Similarly, as Moore and Begg (2004) conclude with regardto their study on the competitiveness o urban areas, policy that

simply ocuses on the regeneration o specic areas is unlikely to be

successul. Rather, they argue, attention needs to be given to the wider

urban system, and policy should primarily ocus on the engagement

o mainstream government programmes and how these impact on

dierent parts o the urban system, rather than a narrowly dened

urban policy ocused only on areas o deprivation.

In practice, this interace between mainstream programmes and ABIs

is a problematic one, with considerable diculties in seeking to ensure

that mainstream provision meets the needs o specic places alongside

ongoing problems over the design and implementation o ABIs. The

debate over people or place remains central to current policy agendas

and subsequent chapters will consider these issues in greater detail in

relation to enterprise and employment interventions and the system

o governance and delivery o policies aimed at tackling the problems

o deprived neighbourhoods.

T vlt plcy practc

The problem neighbourhood in the evolution o urban policy

The recognition o problems associated with intense spatial

concentrations o poverty within urban areas can be traced back to the

19th century. Since Engels writings rst provided vivid descriptions

o the terrible living conditions o workers in Britains northern

industrial cities in 1844 (Engels, 1987), rationales or intervention in

deprived urban neighbourhoods have reected various combinations

o political, social and economic anieties rooted within the dominant

ideologies o the time (see, or eample, Stedmen Jones, 1971, and

White, 2003). While such disquiet has maniested itsel in a variety o

orms, most commonly it has related to the destabilising impacts o

spatially concentrated deprivation on wider society, the negative impacts

and economic wasteulness o spatial inequality on processes o urban

economic development, and the morality o accepting intense socio-spatial inequalities. The specic constitution o the rationales inorming

intervention within dominant policy discourses under the New Labour

governments is considered in more detail later in this chapter.


41/305

26


Responses to the problems associated with poor neighbourhoods

have resulted in a long and varied history o policy intervention in

the post-Second World War period (see Table 1.2). In reviewing the

development o urban and regional policy across this period it is readily

apparent that the nature o the problem o deprived neighbourhoodshas been conceived o and approached quite dierently and pursued

through a variety o dierent policy instruments. Yet underlying such

dierences there is also considerable continuity in terms o the basic

types o activity that have been pursued in relation to tackling the

economic dimension o the neighbourhood problem.

The rst o these relates to the physical redevelopment o deprived

areas; the so-called hard-based element o regeneration. Here the

emphasis is on land and property development and the improvement o

the physical environment: the demolition, rebuilding and renovation o

housing, industrial and commercial property, alongside improvements

in transport inrastructures to reduce marginality and increase access.

With respect to the non-physical or soter side o regeneration and

renewal, two main types o activity are apparent. First, an array o

instruments have ocused on the development o enterprise activity

related to such areas. These comprise both attracting inward investment

to the area and/or the stimulation o indigenous enterprise, either in

the orm o traditional business orms or through community andsocially based enterprise activity. Second, a variety o policy activities

related to the labour market have been developed. These have sought

to improve the employability o residents and better connect them to

available employment opportunities either through enhanced labour

mobility to jobs outside o the immediate vicinity, or through better

training and linkages to jobs available locally.

The balance between these dierent types o activity has shited

continuously over the last 60 years. In the immediate post-Second

World War period the reconstruction o towns and cities was the

priority emphasis. This ocus on the physical redevelopment o deprived

neighbourhoods, oten through the physical demolition o areas o

run-down housing and the decanting o residents in such areas to

new suburban developments or New Towns, continued throughout

the 1950s and 1960s as part o an era o city rebuilding, modernisation

and economic growth.

However, by the mid-1960s the limitations o this approach were

increasingly recognised. Rather than solving urban problems, suchapproaches oten merely transerred and reconstituted them in other

locations, such as in more peripheral housing estates. The emphasis on

slum clearance and relocation o inner-city populations was increasingly


42/305

27


questioned, as communities were ractured and inner-urban areas let

redundant, and immigrant populations became concentrated in certain

inner-city areas. Greater engagement with the emerging realities o

inner-city areas led to the Urban Programme launched by the Home

Oce in 1968, ollowed by a number o other policy initiatives,notably the Community Development Projects. These marked a shit

in emphasis towards the renewal o inner-city areas through attempts

to integrate the previously separate element o physical, economic and

social policy, through an approach that involved greater community

participation and state decentralisation.

During the 1970s, the problem o inner-city areas became increasingly

apparent. The impacts o long-term economic restructuring, particularly

through processes o deindustrialisation, resulted in high levels o

unemployment concentrated in particular inner-city and ormer

manuacturing areas and there was increasing concern in relation to

social breakdown and unrest. This culminated in a series o urban

riots in 1981, initially in Briton, but subsequently in Handsworth,

Southall, Toteth, Moss Side and smaller incidents across a number o

other towns and cities.

While the approach o the Urban Programme and Community

Development Projects was more sensitive to local and community

dierences, the programmes were increasingly criticised or theirtendency towards social pathology; the blaming o the victims or

their problems rather than looking or the wider economic and social

causes. The shit o control o urban policy to the Department o the

Environment in 1975 marked a move towards greater recognition

o the structural economic causes o inner-city problems. The 1978

Inner Urban Areas Act saw urban policy or the rst time becoming

a mainstream element o the national government agenda, with a lead

role or local authorities in tackling inner-city problems in a number

o selected areas.

Yet the increasing scope, scale and ongoing nature o inner-

city problems led to a search or more radical alternatives and the

redenition o the ocus o urban policy on the structural problem

o economic decline (Eisenschitz and Gough, 1993; Cochrane,

2007). From the Right, the dominant argument was that tackling

the economic decline o cities required a shit in emphasis towards a

market-based, private sector-led approach in order to strengthen the

economic competitiveness o cities. The election o the Thatcher-ledConservative government in 1979 marked the beginning o a major

shit in direction towards such a neoliberal approach. Predominant local

authority public sector ways o working gave way to a lead role or the


43/305

28


private sector working through privatepublic partnerships, alongside

the promotion o enterprise and large-scale physical

Documents

Renewing Neighbour Hood - Work, Enterprise and Governance