Cultural Heritage in Times of Economic Crisis

Austerity, Localism, and the Possibility of Politics: Explaining Variation in Three Local Social Security Schemes Between Elected Councils in England

“…Data in relation to the Local Welfare Assistance schemes have kindly been shared by Church Action on Poverty. In 2018, Church Action on Poverty issued FOI requests to 163 local authorities to provide information about their Local Welfare Assistance schemes (Aitchison, 2018). There are 151 upper tier and unitary authorities in England, but in a small number of cases upper tier authorities have themselves devolved responsibility and budget for LWA schemes to district councils so there are a slightly larger number of relevant authorities.…”

“…Much of what we know about what has happened these schemes since their localisation has come from a number of think-tanks and third-sector organisations (e.g. Aitchison, 2018; Ayrton et al, 2019), who have sought to investigate the extent of provision some years after the devolution of powers to local authorities. These existing works paint a picture of substantial retrenchment in local social security provision in the period since localisation in April 2013.…”

“…Gibbons (2017: 18) finds that ‘Reviewing the websites of all English upper tier local authorities as at the end of April 2017, we find that twenty six (16 percent of the total) of these have now closed their local welfare schemes’, and that ‘a further 40 local authorities have set a budget for local welfare provision which is at least 60 percent lower than their initial 2013/14 allocations from DWP, excluding administration costs’. Research by Church Action on Poverty finds that the aggregate amount spent on Local Welfare Assistance schemes has declined from £172m, provided by central government to English local authorities in 2013/2014, to an estimated £46.4m provided for by English local authorities in 2017/2018 (Aitchison, 2018: 4). Variations in Discretionary Housing Payments have not attracted the same degree of attention but are of interest for the reasons discussed above.…”

Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice

“…the fragmented, competitive nature of the contracting sector) that have perpetuated and, arguably, held back the development of a mature and respected occupation. In the UK, where the link between the competitive market and archaeology has been strong (Aitchison 2010: 28), changes in legislative frameworks and the impact of developer-funded mitigation (Department of the Environment 1990) and competitive tendering on the profession have all been assessed in depth (e.g. Everill 2009; Thorpe 2015; Wilson 2016).…”