Power, Responsibility, and Governance in Britain’S New Urban Policy

Abstract

Competition became a major feature of urban policy in Britain during the 1990s. The stimulus of competition was intended to improve regeneration policies, partly by galvanizing the collective resources of local actors. This article draws upon the findings of recent empirical studies of regeneration programs and partnerships to consider the implications of competitive urban policy for the theory and practice of governance. It is argued that promoting partnerships among local institutions and improving the quality of regeneration schemes through competition require positive support from central government. The responsibility for tackling difficult urban problems cannot simply be devolved to underfunded local initiatives.

Aboriginal Self-determination and Social Housing in Urban Canada: A Story of Convergence and Divergence

“…In the case of civil society actors representing collective interests in community social welfare, such entrepreneurial values have become a foundation of a new governance regime based on competitive urban policy (Kearns and Turok, 2000). In this scenario, Jessop's notion of refl exive self-organisation across sectors is infused with new power mechanisms for government control over the outcomes of social investment.…”

“…Most importantly, like at the level of the individual and family discussed earlier, through these resource, policy and accountability tools, the state is also able to normalise a culture of "enterprise and winning, at the expense of egalitarianism" (Kearns and Turok, 2000, p. 176). This is done, on the one hand, by using rhetoric of freedom and choice, while on the other hand rewarding only some of the collective actors and their local initiatives with social investment, often only a minority (for example, see Kearns and Turok, 2000) of those that engage in the social 'contest' .…”

Collaboration for Local Economic Development: Business Networks, Politics and Universities in Two Swedish Cities

“…social capital, partnership and industrial districts (Mayer, 1992(Mayer, , 1994Berggren et al, 1998). In contrast, the more pessimistic authors (Esser & Hirsch, 1994;Kearns & Turok, 2000;Engstrand, 2003) argue that there is little scope for freedom of action. There is no evidence of a trend toward more local industrial districts, and multinational companies still dominate many local economies.…”

“…There is risk that resources are devoted more to various application processes and to creating a long series of partnerships and networks rather than being allocated to practical development initiatives. Using experience from the UK, Kearns and Turok (2000) claim that the new competition policies reflect a meritocracy in which the government's aim is help to self-help. Those who fail to develop their social capital, their networks or their innovation systems only have themselves to blame.…”

Applying the Lessons Learnt

“…Thus, communities can be rather diverse, and in many instances conflictual and perverse (Banks & Shenton, 2001), not all members of the community hold the same beliefs or have the same needs. This makes the issue of community representation a difficult one, if the community is considered to be a homogenous mass then its diversity is ignored and true representation is not really achieved (Kearns & Turok, 2000). The problematics of defining 'involvement' can further muddy the waters, ranging from information provision to citizen control (Atkinson & Cope, 1997).…”