Anecdotal evidence suggests that 'gated communities' are

No abstract

No abstract

Discourses on anti-social behaviour in the UK are embedded within a wider politics of conduct based around concepts of citizenship, self-regulation, welfare conditionality, obligations to communities and rights and responsibilities. This paper explores how the regulation of behaviour is framed within ideas of community and contractual governance and identifies the central role for housing within strategies aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour and promoting civility. It discusses the use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders in governing conduct within a wider package of regulatory mechanisms including Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and tenancy agreements. An increasing focus on governing the interactions between neighbours is identified along with techniques to achieve this, including the growing use of conditionality in welfare entitlement. The paper argues that the regulation of conduct is symbolic of significant realignments of the roles of various actors in policing residential areas and raises fundamental questions about the link between conduct, citizenship rights and the scope and ambition of governance interventions aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour at individual and community levels.

Current policy and discourse concerning the governance of anti-social behaviour in the UK has emphasised the spatial concentration of disorder on particular social housing estates. Policy has sought to respond by devolving management of the processes of social control to local neighbourhoods. Local authorities, and social housing agencies in particular, are being given an increasing role within multi-agency partnerships aimed at governing local incidences of anti-social behaviour. This paper places this emerging role for social housing agencies within theories of governmentality and wider trends in urban governance and suggests that present developments may be understood through a paradigm of housing governance. Drawing on studies in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the paper examines the role of social housing agencies in the governance of anti-social behaviour. It argues that social housing agencies face a number of dilemmas in reacting to their emerging role and that such dilemmas re ect wider concerns about the new urban governance.

No abstract

Article:Fletcher, D. and Flint, J. orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-9575 (2018) JOHN FLINT University of Shefield, EnglandAbstract In a contemporary evolution of the tutelary state, welfare reform in the United Kingdom has been characterised by moves towards greater conditionality and sanctioning. This is influenced by the attributing responsibility for poverty and unemployment to the behaviour of marginalised individuals. Mead (1992) has argued that the poor are dependants who ought to receive support on condition of certain restrictions imposed by a protective state that will incentivise engagement with support mechanisms. This article examines how the contemporary tutelary and therapeutic state has responded to new forms of social marginality. Drawing on a series of in-depth interviews conducted with welfare claimants with an offending background in England and Scotland, the article examines their encounters with the welfare system and argues that alienation, rather than engagement with support, increasingly characterises their experiences.

The construction of identities for subjects as self-regulating agents characterises processes of governance in advanced liberal democracies. Such identities implicate subjects within moral bonds of responsibility and agency to prescribed ethics of normalised consumption and duties to community. Within this 'ethopolitics' of social housing in the UK, the conduct of tenants and practitioners is framed within a conceptual triangle of consumerism, communitarianism and managerialism. This paper examines specific technologies used by Scottish social housing agencies to construct identities of agency, self-regulation and responsibility amongst their tenants. It identifies the rationales, processes and implications of these techniques for tenants and practitioners and suggests that emergent ambiguities in the reconfiguration of governing identities reflect conflicting conceptualisations about the role for social housing.