"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
2 “Why don’t they ask us?” The role of communities in levelling up ICS Working Paper 2 - Fixing Local Economies, July 2021 Authors: Caroline Yang, Caroline Stevens, William Dunn, Emily Morrison and Richard Harries with contributions from Victoria Boelman, Kerry McCarthy, Liam Harney and Alice Bell
Will public funds be invested where people living here think it best?
(Female, 44, South West)
How can we have more say about spending decisions?
“Why don’t they ask us what will work rather than (Female, 72, North East)
telling us what we need?”
How do we create a more equal society? So many very wealthy
(Female, 51, North West) households, but also a lot living in deprivation.
(Male, 27, West Midlands)
Is there a plan in place for the areas less developed in South
Yorkshire? If not, why not? Why is there a huge lack of funding for
small businesses? The effect of this is that employment opportunity
for young people in my area is scarce.
(Male, 24, ICS Agenda, 2020)”
To secure a future more commerce needs to be introduced and the
coastal surroundings maximised to encourage tourism.
(Female, 71, North East)
There needs to be an input of light industry to create jobs for
local people.
(Male 62, Wales)
I want to know if there will be investment in culture which could
improve job opportunities for myself and others as well as boosting
the area’s economy and make it a more vibrant place to live in.
(Female, 34, Northern Ireland)
What is the projected economic growth for the city? Will further
development plans attract businesses? Local as well as national.
(Male, 29, West Midlands)
We need a transfer of assets to the Town council, and more County
investment in community assets.
(Male, 71, Wales)
2 3
Executive
Summary
This report has three aims:
1. To provide an overview of regional development • Where funds and interventions have had higher
in England from the turn of the century to the levels of community involvement, these have
present. typically been disconnected from the structures
where decisions are taken, undermining their aim
2. To highlight trends of inconsistency and
of building community power into local economic
inequality, both between areas and within areas
solutions.
of England, across four epochs.
The report poses four essential questions for
3. To propose new approaches that prioritise the
policy makers:
self-determined needs of communities and
engage them more deeply in the development 1.Through what lens and at what spatial level
process – giving them a greater stake in the should levelling up interventions be targeted to
success of their communities. have the most impact on and resonance with
communities?
Its key findings are that:
2. How can the gap be closed between local
• Interventions have consistently failed to address
community priorities and those of regional and
the most deprived communities, contributing
national funds and interventions?
to a 0% average change in the relative spatial
deprivation of the most deprived local authorities 3. What alternative mechanisms and new
areas; approaches are needed if levelling up is to target
the most deprived communities?
• The majority of ‘macro funds’ and economic
interventions over the last two decades have 4.What are the enabling strategies that tackle
not involved communities in a meaningful nor chronic problems such as post-industrial
sustainable way; economic decline, which need to cut across
spatial & governance boundaries?
• The focus of interventions to build local
economic resilience typically concentrate on a 5.The funding allocated to level up is not sufficient
relatively small number of approaches, which to counteract the decade long impact of public
risks missing crucial dimensions of local need, sector cuts which have reduced the capacity
opportunity and agency, and reinforcing gaps of many places to capitalise on economic
between the national and the hyper-local; intervention; nor is it enough to counteract the
financial impact of Covid-19 and Brexit for the
• Interventions have tended to concentrate on
most deprived places.
‘between-place’ spatial disparities in economic
growth at the expense of ‘within-place’ A list of recommendations based on the findings of
inequalities that exist inside local authority this report is provided in the conclusion.
boundaries, which is where the economic
strength or weakness of a place is most keenly
felt by communities.
4 5
Introduction
"Will we be listened to? The housing and will further marginalise and disenfranchise
business being built on the floodplain (which communities from the promises of those in power.
actually flooded again in the last month) In this way, levelling up is more than an election
was petitioned. Local council turned down promise and an urgent and important policy
the application yet government overruled. commitment – it is also an opportunity to build
The system is ridiculous in a town like this. much needed trust and civic strength between
Designed by idiots in London, that know people and government.
nothing of the town. This was all petitioned
and protested. We were ignored." Over the last two decades, interventions for
(Female, 34, North West) economic improvement have not benefited
communities in England as well as they could.
In this report, we aim to provide a critical view of This is evident in the statistics which reveal
the evidence about how policies and interventions the profound economic inequality that persists
for local economic development have affected across the country, and the lack of resilience
communities in England, in order to support a local economies have shown in the face of the
true realisation of the Chancellor’s commitment Covid-19 pandemic (Centre for Cities, 2021a). It is
to ‘ensure no region is left behind’ (HMG, March equally evident in the testimony of communities
2021). Our focus on understanding what works for themselves: our nationally representative study of
communities and furthermore – what doesn’t – community priorities across the UK found concerns
emerged from the results of the national agenda about the fragility and future of local economies
for communities Safety in numbers? (ICS, 2020) to be a top priority in every devolved nation (ICS,
which found fixing local economies to be one of the 2020). In addition, a 2021 study by the Institute for
top priorities for communities in the UK. Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that economic inequality
between areas is now seen by the British public as
Our commitment to a better approach to local the most serious form of inequality within the UK
economic development also stems from our (IFS, 2021).
commitment to listening to what matters through
the direct involvement of communities in research Given this context, it is apparent that now is a
and evidence. The development of local economies crucial time to rethink how economic interventions
is an area of government policy where, unlike health, can better deliver for communities. Brexit is set to
the involvement of communities has been largely pose serious challenges to the future of economic
overlooked and the voice of communities frequently development in the UK as key funding streams such
not considered nor even invited to the table. This is as the European Structural and Investment Funds
despite communities being astute to the priorities (ESIF) are withdrawn, leaving behind a substantial
for economic intervention in their local area and gap in the regional funding landscape (McCann,
having significant insights and place memory about 2016). On top of this, the pandemic is estimated
where interventions have – and have not – resulted to make the government’s ambition to ‘level up’
in positive outcomes for the local area. the economic performance of UK cities and towns
four times harder, particularly for places in the
The process of levelling up therefore has a civic North and Midlands (Centre for Cities, 2021b).
as well as an economic responsibility, as the And not only that, but areas with strong economic
consistent experience of being unheard, and performance prior to the pandemic, like London and
furthermore of seeing the local impact of failed or the surrounding areas in the South East, may risk
even detrimental, often national-led, interventions, levelling down (Ibid).
6 7
This report sets out to examine the landscape of As such, part of this report will also examine the
intervention focused on supporting local economic extent to which community involvement has been
development over the last two decades. It considers a part of local economic intervention over the past
the types of intervention delivered against the two decades. We analyse the degree to which
issues communities see as important, and presents communities have (or, more often, have not) been
an analysis of trends in the performance of local involved in shaping and delivering key interventions
economies in England since 2000. and major development funding since 2000. The
report reflects on the question of whether greater
Communities are key stakeholders within local involvement in these interventions could have
economies, on the sharp end of when they grow, helped deliver stronger outcomes for communities.
decline and fail. Discussions with communities We conclude that community involvement has been
across England for our agenda-setting research seriously undervalued as an approach to closing
(ICS, 2020) revealed a nuanced picture of the way the gap in the relevance and effectiveness of local
people have experienced shifts and changes in their economic intervention. Ultimately, this report
local economies over the last two decades. These advocates for the value of community-engaged
communities speak to the experience of unequal approaches to economic development and the
investment and support for local economic growth importance of incorporating such approaches into
within local authority areas as well as between them; current and future interventions.
of leaders’ failure to anticipate, mitigate and manage
transition for communities when once-thriving Our findings regarding the inadequacy of current
economies become ‘laggards’ or fail; of a perceived approaches to economic intervention are
inability to participate in, feel ‘ownership over' or corroborated by studies evidencing the negligible
'belonging to’ the changed economy. Our sister impact of such schemes and investment over the
report, Discomfort, Dissatisfaction and Disconnect past twenty years and beyond (McCann, 2019).
(ICS, 2021) reveals communities concerned with the The ‘net effect’ of economic interventions such
experience of economic hardship in their local areas as city grants, local strategic partnerships, growth
and left to wonder why visible and vital aspects initiatives, regeneration schemes and regional
of their local economies have been allowed to growth funds is reported as ‘not much’ (The
stagnate. We are thus confronted with an uncertain Economist, 2020, discussing McCann, 2019).
and unequal local economic landscape. Increasingly, we know what has not worked to
improve local economies. The question is: how
When we examine the major economic interventions might we do things differently to ensure social and
implemented since the turn of the century, we see economic outcomes that communities can feel?
a mismatch of priorities between those pulling the
levers of economic power, and communities that “Can we trust the local government to protect
maintain their own views on the support their local our community now? And can we trust the
economies need in order to thrive. There is also national government to properly fund our local
a general recognition that the manner in which services?” (Female, 53, South East)
economic strength is currently measured may not
adequately consider indicators of economic well- This working paper is the second in a series consider-
being that communities see as important (IFS, 2020: ing how local economies can deliver better outcomes
5). Economic output and productivity are useful for communities, and it is by no means the final word.
statistics, but these measures do not necessarily The Institute for Community Studies (ICS) continues
capture the nuanced ways in which local people to map the flow of investments into local authority
experience cycles of economic change in their areas and their impact, and we welcome engagement
everyday lives. These communities are now asking and support in this endeavour. Having identified what
why more effective models of intervention, that does not work to build inclusive growth to community
result in economic outcomes that resonate with benefit, our next steps are to identify cases of stand
them, have been so elusive (ICS, 2020). out interventions that have turned economies around
to the inclusive and sustained benefit of the commu-
nity. It is what works in progress.
8 9
Chapter 1: Part 1 Macro-economic development schemes into local
economies since 2000
The landscape of local economic
development and the role of
communities, 2000-2020
In this chapter, we begin by discussing the The trend at the heart of our analysis is a 0% average
landscape of local and regional economic change in the relative economic deprivation of the
development since 2000, highlighting the major most deprived local authority areas between 2004
schemes, funds and interventions that have aimed - 2019. This means that local areas that started the
to stimulate growth and boost economic resilience era as the most deprived places in England are still
at the local level. in the bottom-ranking group today--and experiencing
the greatest relative economic scarcity and
We then move on to discuss communities’ view stagnation fifteen years later.
of the key priorities for action regarding their
local economies. Identifying community priorities This finding, considered against the backdrop of
helps us understand how to capitalise on the two decades of policy intervention and billions
opportunities of people, place and potential to drive in funding aimed at developing local economies,
faster, durable and more inclusive growth (Haldane, prompts the question of why this intervention has Figure 1: Timeline of sample of major economic development funds, agencies and interventions active between 2000 - 2020, analysed
for levels of community engagement. Source: Institute for Community Studies, 2021.
2014). When we speak to communities about what proved so ineffective in shifting the relative spatial
matters in a local economy we find that they can inequality of England’s local economies. This sharp
ably identify where intervention is needed, where it statistic of ‘0%’ change in which areas are most
has previously failed and where opportunity can yet deprived, is built upon in the findings from our We turn now to a discussion of the economic Over the past two decades, the European Union
be created. nationally representative exercise in understanding development landscape since 2000 as a way has played a critical role in the UK funding arena,
communities’ priorities for the future of local to contextualise our discussion of community contributing an average of £4.1 billion per year just
Finally, we consider in depth the level of community economic development, where the experience of priorities and the role of communities in the between 2014 and 2020 for regional development,
involvement present in the macro schemes outlined consistent ‘failed’ investment approaches, and delivery of economic interventions. agriculture support, research and innovation, and
in the first part of the chapter. This section is the ‘lack of’ appropriate economic development other areas of need (House of Commons, 2020:
divided up by political administration as we assess schemes, was front and centre. The timeline above illustrates a sampling of the p.11-15). Within the group of EU funds known as
the level of community involvement present major funds, agencies and interventions active the European Structural and Investment Funds
under various governments, highlighting gaps and Against the backdrop of analysis of billions within the past 20 years aimed at strengthening (ESIF) are two key sub-funds: the European
shortcomings in the delivery of macro-level funds of pounds of funding into local economic the economy of local places - with investment Regional Development Fund (ERDF), aiming to
and schemes in each era. development in the last two decades, this report totalling over £20 billion. This section discusses “promote economic and social cohesion within the
thus asks what has been happening to result in the the expressed aims and priorities of these major EU through the reduction of imbalances between
trends we see across local economies today; and funding schemes. A table containing a compilation regions or social groups,” and the European Social
why there has been so little change particularly for of important funding resources since 2000 can be Fund (ESF), aiming to “provide financial assistance
the poorest communities. found in Appendix 3. for vocational training, retraining, and job creation
schemes” (Ibid: 12).
10 11
Since the turn of the century, there have also been
a consistent procession of schemes focused on
Strength in Places Fund, supporting place-based
research and innovation, and the £182 million
Community priorities for local economic intervention
local economic development with varying degrees English share of the Coastal Communities Fund,
Figure 2 shows a breakdown of issues that Our UK-wide analysis of community priorities also
of reach, scope and priorities, funded and led by aiming to develop coastal economies in particular.
communities have identified as priorities for revealed that communities’ focus for economic
the UK government. With a particular focus on Another major player in the regional development
action in their local economies, with the data development and for how to address inequalities
England, some of the most ambitious funds have space separate from Government is the National
emerging from a nationally representative study by in economic growth, development of sectors and
included the £9.1 billion Growth Deals and the £2.6 Lottery Community Fund, which has distributed
the ICS (2020) which utilised a priority-setting in industry, labour markets, and skill and enterprise
billion Regional Growth Fund, which broadly aim £10 billion to communities across the UK since
partnership approach centring community voice, opportunities, is more localised than originally
to stimulate economic growth and employment in 2004 (awarding £433.4 million just to England in
within wider evidence about the strengths and thought.
local areas. Other major funding streams include 2019/2020) (National Lottery Community Fund,
vulnerabilities of local places.
the £730 million Growing Places Fund, targeting 2020) and non-departmental public bodies such as
Two clear categories emerged in the discussion of
key infrastructure projects, the £186 million the Arts Council of England and Sport England.
Alongside well known themes of declining high economic inequality:
streets, the loss of social and economic life in town
centres and the importance of finding solutions for • inequalities ‘within-place,’ i.e. within the
infrastructure (primarily public transport), and the boundaries of a local authority, city-region or
need for local employment; the change in ease of geographic region; from neighbourhood to
access to local amenities due to the reduction in neighbourhood, between boroughs and districts
appropriate basic - and a diversity of - shops and of a city; or indeed between an urban area and its
services for many suburban, rural communities and surrounding suburban or rural counterparts;
market towns was striking. All responses in this
category cited accessibility (defined as proximity and • inequalities ‘between-place’ i.e. between different
availability) of amenities as the key issue, identifying regional areas across England, Scotland, Wales
this had changed considerably within the last ten and Northern Ireland individually; or between
years and was negatively affecting communities’ the economic strength of devolved nations
quality of life and the security of amenities to older, themselves.
poorer, and less mobile populations in particular.
Figure 2: What matters to a local economy in a community? Priorities for action on different themes in local economies. (Sample n=
426 of a 2293 UK-wide sample collected in 2020; 25% of 2293 people cited local economies as their top priority within communities.
Source: ICS, 2021)
12 13
Our analysis revealed communities caring far
more about addressing inequalities within place,
resources, living standards and prosperity) in their
economic interactions with place.
Intervention on whose terms?
and prioritising how economic development could
Communities' priorities not only revealed of economic intervention, and raises questions
rectify the inequalities between local towns in It is striking that the theme of being ‘left behind’
disaffection about the declining or precarious about whether policy should place a renewed
a region, or between poorer and more affluent features so strongly at the within-place level,
state of many aspects of local economies, but also emphasis on the horizontal and vertical structures
boroughs in a city. 79% of responses focused on with the need for investment schemes and
concern about the approach to, or in some cases and mechanisms that bring the organisation of
the condition of the economy within local authority, models that tackle within-region or within-local
the total lack of - intervention that would address economic intervention closer to community level.
city-region or neighbourhood boundaries and authority poverty, opportunity and inequality as
decline and stagnation.
just 21% focused on the state of local economic the highest priority issue (45%). This speaks to
At the same time, this work identified a significant
development between places--between regions communities’ experience of uneven development
Over a quarter of responses (27%) question if local opportunity for future strategies that could affect
at the devolved nation or at the UK-wide scale. In and economic inequality between close neighbours
economic interventions worked and suggested these concerns. The data affirmed communities’
the within-place category issues of unemployment living in proximity within the same boroughs and
that what has been done in many communities desire to participate in economic solutions, to be
were an exceptionally high priority (91%) with clear neighbourhoods, and how this affects their sense of
hasn’t worked. Within this data segment we involved as decision-makers and to take an active
need to build stronger and balanced labour markets economic fairness, which we discussed in greater
heard frustrations about the failure of past role in addressing the priorities that matter to them.
within local authority areas and regions and not depth in Working Paper 1 of this series, Disaffection,
economic interventions and commentary on where Up to now, community involvement has largely been
concentrate labour markets solely within major Dissatisfaction and Disconnect (May 2021).
communities believe intervention is needed. Central a missing element in many of the major schemes
urban or ‘opportunity’ towns.
points within discussion of failed intervention were targeting deprivation and economic development,
These findings raise questions of on what level
unfinished or abandoned projects of infrastructure and we see this as a significant shortcoming but
This spatial distinction is critical to understanding economic interventions need to be framed and
or sector development, with economic intervention also as an opportunity to improve.
how the majority of communities judge the designed; what localised measures and outcomes
had had limited impact (31%); where a higher
success of their economy or the equality of their would look like that reflect in the hyperlocal
proportion criticising that the intervention had Central to our analysis of the timeline of schemes
own opportunities within it. It points to where (neighbourhood) and local (within-place) needs and
been a poor fit for the community (65%). Within for local economic development over the last
communities want to see development and growth; opportunities of the economy – and what distributed
discussion of where a lack of intervention was two decades was an assessment of the level of
and at what level of perceived vision of society, level of local evidence, insight and governance is
experienced, communities cited the lack of a clear community involvement within how these schemes’
sometimes called the ‘imaginary’ (Anderson, 1989) needed to deliver such schemes and achieve these
strategy (57%) as the primary issue and an all too were designed; how decisions were made over the
– they envision how the economy could look or outcomes effectively. Chapter 4 discusses the
slow pace of change as the other major concern. priorities they target in the local economy; and how
operate differently to better serve their needs. This implications of this for developing a better approach
they were delivered. This assessment is on the
is a significant insight into the spatial level at which to local economic development for communities.
Overall, 41% of responses criticised how basis of the hypothesis that stronger involvement
communities are looking to see and have access
economic development was happening in their of communities in local economic development
to change (jobs, infrastructure and amenities,
local areas. Very striking is the high priority given would lead to better outcomes for communities in
by communities how the governance of local their local economy. The next section discusses
economic development is organised and whether the findings of how far community involvement
it is effective. Communities questioned why they has been part of the trajectory of local economic
were not more involved in planning or delivering intervention from 2000 to present.
the interventions implemented in their area. The
primary concern was about decision-making We advocate for an approach to economic
(47%), followed by transparency and an expressed development that foregrounds meaningful
concern about the lack of action on the part of community involvement, in which community
those in power locally, and nationally. members participate as equal stakeholders in the
design and delivery of economic interventions that
The proportion of concerns about governance is address community priorities and outcomes. We
even higher when we consider that it was one of also acknowledge that this involvement has to
the top issues raised within discussions about the cross-cut spatial and governance boundaries and
failure and lack of interventions more specifically, to have enabling conditions, in order for this to
which have their own categories. This was not work outside of a vacuum. Chapter 4 proposes the
concentrated in any particular part of the country beginning of how there can be a joined up solution.
but reflected in responses from every UK region. There are also a range of methods for involving
This demonstrates communities caring about the communities in this kind of work, and the ICS’s full
reality of the process and impact of governance typology of approaches can be found in Appendix 2.
Alena - stock.adobe.com
14 15
Community involvement in macro schemes for Community involvement is not integrated to a
meaningful extent into schemes and structures
face off against the perception that communities
lack ‘expertise’ on the top of ‘how things work’
local economic development at the levels of governance above the hyperlocal, and ‘what needs to change’ (Ibid). One study
meaning that communities also have little to no considering local economic development proposed
Despite the encouraging amount of funding that has Intervention schemes with the lowest levels input into the role their town or borough plays in terms of limitations: “It is naive to assume (on
been dedicated to strengthening local economies of community involvement are majority UK within a broader local authority area (Pike et al, some topics) that small, local groups can either
over the past 20 years, our analysis has revealed government led or EU funded schemes. The 2020; Pike, Marlow et al, 2015; Shutt, 2020). This articulate or garner the resources to meet their
a disappointing lack of meaningful community balance of funds with Low and Medium levels of prevents communities from influencing higher- requirements” (What Works Scotland, 2017). In
involvement in many of these major development community engagement cross-cut both time and level economic policy and from participating in contrast, this report and its companion, Discomfort,
schemes. Below we outline our assessment of the political administrations, and includes five funds decisions that will shape the form and function Dissatisfaction and Disconnect (ICS, 2021) suggest
level of community engagement in the design, award administered under the current Conservative of the economy at the region- and city-level and this is not the case, and that communities do
and delivery approach - within the macro schemes government. The proportion of funds with different other multi-scaler levels of governance above the possess the expertise needed to participate
focused on local economic development from 2000 levels of engagement is demonstrated in the hyperlocal. in the identification of problems, the setting of
to present (see Appendix 3). diagram below. priorities and the delivery of solutions regarding the
There is considerable political and administrative wellbeing of their local economies.
Across the 34 intervention schemes we have Figure 3 illustrates the findings of the level of reticence when it comes to involving communities
identified, just five are assessed as having High or local and community involvement across the in economic intervention at a higher level. Some This is not to propose that the purpose and role of
Very High levels of community involvement. The different spatial dimensions of where schemes have argued that the responsibility for driving community involvement in economic development
majority--just over half--are assessed as having are distributed. The scale of intervention and the economic improvement should not lie with should be the same at each level of governance or
Low levels of community engagement, which in spatial level at which intervention is targeted is communities, for whom the governance of such geographic scale. Community involvement can and
the majority of cases means that community- also a critical consideration in local economic interventions might be an excessive burden or should play different roles at the hyperlocal versus
engaged elements are non-existent. Within these development (Smith, 2000, p.724). There is detached from the ‘real-world’ of policy making in the regional level. But this does not detract from
schemes, community voice, local priorities and an increasing need to understand how local terms of time frames or cul-de-sacs of deliberative the concern that community priorities, voice and
more meaningful involvement are absent from the communities and their residents are impacted activity without consensus (Making, 2020). participation are mostly absent from the macro-
design, award criteria and delivery mechanisms. socially and economically across different Literature across the last decade has discussed level of economic intervention.
geographical scales--from the neighbourhood- the risk that the “new localist discourse” of
level to the national--in ways that are inclusive of government policy language may be “providing The issue is especially pressing given the recent
distinctive local experiences (Wise, 2017). a thin veil for public sector cuts” (What Works launch of various new funds for levelling up,
Scotland, 2017) and that devolved responsibility particularly the Community Renewal Fund and
If we consider the distribution of schemes with for driving economic development should fall to the Shared Prosperity Fund, to be designed and
Low, Medium and High community involvement communities that lack the capacity and resources administered at the national level. The approach
according to their geographic scale of operation, of central government. In other words, the fear is to levelling up will likely vary from place to place,
we find that community involvement is most that if we confuse ‘involvement’ in local economic targeting different issues in local areas struggling
prevalent within schemes and programmes working development (i.e. sharing responsibility with with distinct social and economic problems (IFS,
at neighbourhood and local authority level. The communities over decisions about what should 2020; Hope not Hate, 2020; 360 Giving Local Trust,
strength of community involvement decreases as happen) with ‘power’ (i.e. the capacity to make it 2020). As such, it is important that these schemes,
we move through the levels of governance, with happen) that we are setting up communities to administered at the national level, connect deeply
economic development schemes operating at fail in the face of macro-level and long-entrenched with communities through deliberative approaches
regional and national levels typically demonstrating barriers to change. in which community priorities and the context of
low to minimal levels of community engagement. place are prime considerations in the design and
This effectively siloes community involvement A second argument revolves around the sense delivery of these levelling up interventions.
into the levels of governance which have a that communities cannot effectively articulate
comparatively limited impact on driving system- their needs and priorities nor identify and action The following sections explore differences and
level growth and economic change. solutions beyond the hyperlocal or neighbourhood distinctive approaches to community involvement
Figure 3: Concentration of schemes for local economic
development over the last 20 years ranked ‘Low’ to ‘High’ in terms level. Our 2020 report considering the challenges in the macro schemes we have identified
of efficacy of community involvement. of community engagement methods such as since 2000. We analyse in greater depth where
co-production and participatory research has community engagement was included or not, to
raised issues of cost, credibility and lack of best what end and, where possible, the extent of its
practice models (Yang & Dibb, 2020). On top of effectiveness across different types of intervention.
this, community engagement approaches must
16 17
Chapter 1: Part 2
In contrast to the failure against the macro Action Zones; the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund;
outcomes - the system of sub-national coordinated Community Empowerment Fund, and Community
governance – of a more ‘devolved and flexible Chest - all established following the findings of the
approach’ to local economic policy, has been Social Exclusion Unit (SEU).
commended by critics and this is supported by
Community involvement in local evidence (Shutt & Liddle, 2020; Dalingwater, 2011;
PWC, 2009). Regional Development Agencies
Central to Labour’s policy were the nine RDAs
and the creation of local authority-led LSPs. LSPs
economic development
(RDAs), the major mechanism for the governance of were envisaged to draw together and furthermore
local economic funding and strategies, were found coordinate public, private, business, voluntary and
to be ‘really effective’ by the official evaluation in community sector organisations and were central
2009 (PWC, 2009) and to be ‘performing well’ in to the administration of the principal funds under
Community involvement under New Labour: If white generating growth (NAO, 2009). the New Deal for Communities: the Neighbourhood
elephants could talk (and act) Renewal Fund and the Community Empowerment
This section examines the evidence from official Fund. The focus was principally on supporting
Our analysis considers a number of schemes Central to achieving this vision were commitments evaluations, published and peer reviewed evidence the 88 most deprived neighbourhoods, in working
launched in 1998 under the New Labour to not only greater devolution of funding but an and the analysis of how the policies worked on collaboratively to improve the social, economic and
government. The coming to office of the Labour emphasis on local and regional priorities for what paper and in practice, to consider why this disparity wellbeing outcomes of a place. Labour’s approach
government under Tony Blair was marked by this funding was spent on and how economic existed - between a system that was seen to has been credited in facilitating a ‘closer linkage’
its explicit commitment to reducing spatial strategies were to be organised (Balls, 2000). be working, but which failed to reduce regional of economic and social agendas (Bennet, Fuller &
and economic disparities between parts of the economic inequality. In this we consider what Ramsden, 2004) recognising the dependencies of
country; to a more devolved region-led approach Our analysis considered four funds central to this can be learned and what role local priorities and outcomes in the most deprived and economically
to economic intervention, and to exploiting mission under New Labour for their level of local community involvement played in the strengths and disadvantaged parts of the UK in particular.
‘indigenous’ strengths (in economic sectors, and community involvement. Three out of the four weaknesses of New Labour’s approach.
industries, geographies) of each region and city funds analysed were assessed as having Medium
(Darling, 1997; Balls, 2000; Blair, 2001). levels of community engagement whilst one was Major funding schemes under this period can be
assessed as Low. The other major funds in this categorised under a shift to a ‘regional governance
A substantial coordinating structure connecting period--primarily EU structural and investment model’ where a sub-national layer of governance
national policies and their respective funding funds--were all administered with Low levels of was envisaged to enable a ‘bottom up’ delivery
streams to mechanisms of regional and local community engagement, the result both of EU of regional economic policy (Balls, 2000) with
decision making and delivery was developed; thus design and the UK government approach in delivery. key schemes including the Enterprise Areas;
the following section discusses it at some length.
Assessments of the success of Labour’s policies –
"My vision is of a nation where no one is both in achieving and sustaining economic growth,
seriously disadvantaged by where they live". and in establishing and consolidating local-led
(Blair, 2001) strategies for how to do this that resonated with
local stakeholders – have found success to be
The case for this was longstanding but also limited. Despite some successes on individual
prescient: the focus of the sub-national layer of economic indicators, during three terms in office
governance defined by ‘the regions’ as a relatively they failed to reduce the inequality gap between
new territorial unit (Mired, 2011) was to seek to the northern and southern regions nor between
reduce acute economic inequalities following the regional and sub-regional disparities. It is however
transition of structural industrial change, which suggested that structures such as the Local
had affected all regions outside of London and Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) had a positive impact
the South East, particularly the North East, Welsh in shared action on social and wellbeing outcomes
Valleys and Central Scotland regions. When New at local and hyperlocal level, as well as on people-
Labour came to power, the per capita GVA in focused economic outcomes of jobs and pathways
the North East was 40% lower than in London into work, though they did not shift the macro
(Dalingwater, 2011, p.3). picture of spatial inequalities.
18 19
PA Images / Alamy Stock PhotoOur analysis assessed LSPs as having a Medium In assessing the LSPs as achieving a Medium level Finally, in assessing where the ‘control’ of the LSP The official evaluation and subsequent evidence
level of community involvement. As the principal of community and local involvement, this considers model sits according to the ICS typology, funding synthesising case studies of different LSPs
mechanism for how Labour’s vision of local both the criteria and design by which the they were was limited to resource the LSPs as a coordination (University of Warwick, 2005; Bailey, 2003; 2005)
economic development inclusive of local priorities set up and also what is known about the outcomes mechanism and furthermore there existed a found that meeting the goals of local collaboration
and shaped by an agreed local vision and local this resulted in in practice. ‘paradox’ in the central government led governance and including local priorities was ‘patchy’ across
social outcomes, this assessed indicates that the of resource and its defining of the rules or ‘terms’ all the LSPs, and that for some LSPs, ‘fundamental
LSPs fell short of achieving their role. The design principles under which LSPs were for engagement (Bailey, 2005). This included a processes of engagement remain ‘on the to do list’
established was the principal reason for their commitment to flexibility which enabled areas of (2004, p.11) – four years after the establishment
LSP aims, as they relate most closely to community falling short of achieving a higher level of local poor and limited local involvement to occur and of the LSPs in 2000. Assessed against the ICS’s
or local involvement were: relevance and community involvement and thus furthermore models of involvement in some LSPs typology, this reduces the value and efficacy of
not meeting the opportunity they presented as which actively disenfranchised local partners, community involvement significantly within the LSP
• To allow local authorities to commit themselves a ‘new decision making arena’ (DETR, 2000; including business and the community and structure, meaning despite LSPs driving activity
to delivering key national and local priorities University of Warwick, 2004). voluntary sector, as our synthesis of case studies across a number of notable areas, determining
in return for agreed flexibilities, pump-priming and meta-analysis shows. what these priorities are for activity and strategy
funding, and financial rewards if they meet their The guidance for how to build a governance with local stakeholders has not been a consistent
targets. structure and local membership of the LSP that In how they worked in practice, the mandate of part of their work.
represented all communities and stakeholders LSPs for cross-local collaboration and community
• To narrow the gap between the most deprived of the local economy was limited, hence the involvement did create the conditions for a The evaluation of the progress of the LSPs against
neighbourhoods and the rest of the country, coherence, inclusiveness and strength of LSP’s Medium level of community involvement: it put twenty principal goals, found that less than 10%
with common goals of lower unemployment and membership in drawing together different representatives from community and voluntary of LSPs felt they had made ‘major progress’ on
crime, and better health, education, housing and stakeholders for the local economy was largely organisations, as well as local businesses and public the goals of having ‘greater legitimacy in the
physical environment. determined by historic relationships. Thus efficacy services, within a relationship and shared directive eyes of communities’ and in local stakeholders
relied largely on the maturity of partnership between for local regeneration via the forming of Community and strategies ‘having an effective influence
The official evaluation of the LSP model explains different sectors and entities within an LSP Strategies. The evaluation found the way LSPs were on regional and national issues’ (University of
the Theory of Change behind the LSPs for how (University of Warwick, 2004, p.13-14) and not on permitted to operate, as opposed to how they were Warwick, 2004, p.16-19).
these aims were to be achieved as: inclusive representation by design. initially set up as spaces of coordination, risked
‘marginalising public view’ (University of Warwick, In fact 45% of LSPs said that they had either made
‘A framework of strategic partnership at local There were no continual indicators established 2004, p.19), rather than centring the importance of ‘no progress’ against the goal of ‘local strategies
level that will create more inclusive and to monitor the level of local stakeholder and local voice and priorities. achieving greater legitimacy in the eyes of the
pluralist governance…bringing together key community involvement either in the regular community’ or that it was simply ‘not a priority’
organisations and actors from the three spheres decision-making of the LSP nor in the development Certain LSPs underwent extensive consultation (2004, p.17). Across all the goals they reported
of state, market and civil society, to identify of the community strategies, hence determining exercises to form the Community Strategies (Bailey, against, the two goals of ‘meeting the needs or
communities’ top priorities and needs and work how effective the LSPs had been in facilitating 2003; Bailey, 2005; Fuller, 2006), whilst assessment priorities of local neighbourhoods’ and ‘achieving
with local people to provide them’ (University of or strengthening this was difficult to assess. of other case studies including qualitative research greater legitimacy in the eyes of the community’
Warwick, 2004, p.5) In models for strong community and local with community representatives which had been were the ones most frequently said ‘not to be a
involvement, the importance of a baseline study part of these processes, found that for the majority, priority’ by LSPs. Finally less than 10% had made
Consideration of the Theory of Change by the and key indicators that drive accountability and the involvement of community networks was often progress against the goal of including marginalised
official evaluation recognised that the effectiveness measure progress are key (Chanan, 2003; ICS, too late once plans were considerably developed; groups in decision making (University of Warwick,
of achieving it relies on networked governance – 2021). Equally building capacity nor remuneration was superficial or light touch; or even positioned 2004, p.16-19).
where the ‘loose and fluid’ framework meant that was not considered to support community the community and voluntary sector as the
how each LSP would organise involvement of local representatives involvement in what became quite dissenting or outside voices to a dominant group of
stakeholders and communities would a) differ and bureaucratic structures (Bailey, 2003; 2005). This partners (see Bailey, 2005; Fuller & Geddes, 2006).
fluctuate and consequently b) mediate the extent is despite the official evaluation concluding that In lacking models to debate and resolve tensions
to which the LSP could deliver on local strategic when LSPs worked best, they were when there was in place and economic agendas at local level, our
priorities (2004, p.7). shared local leadership and when the voluntary review shows LSPs tended towards ‘superficial
and community sector felt valued (University of consensus’ in their strategies rather than a strategy
Warwick, 2004, p.20). with shared ownership and moreover – clear
actions that local stakeholders and communities
can participate in delivering (University of Warwick,
2004, p.12-13).
20 21The goals that were prioritised and which the
majority of LSPs had shown ‘major’ or ‘some’
Local involvement in the Regional Development
progress against– aside from developing a Agencies (RDAs)
collaborative strategy which was in practice,
often not truly debated, agreed nor owned (see Given the segmentation between funding schemes and drivers with certain regions’ strengths; and
discussion above) – were those focused on sharing for locally prioritised or community led approaches indeed a failure to recognise their vulnerabilities.
data and evidence; embedding priorities within for addressing deprived areas and neighbourhoods It is evident from the policy drivers and the case
partners strategies; and working to understand via the LSPs on the one hand, and the channelling studies of what RDAs focused on in practice, that
the priorities of larger partners (mainly public of greater investment, levers and influence to the drivers of economic growth that were being
services, businesses or the largest voluntary maximise economic growth and develop local primed through the RDA structures were not locally
organisations) (2004, p.18). Hence it could be strategies through the RDAs on the other, this next specific enough and in some cases constitute
argued that the majority of LSPs were content section assesses how far local and community a mismatch between the region’s strengths and
with and only managed involvement ‘by proxy’ involvement was achieved within the work of the readiness and the model of economic potential.
(with a few dominant partners rather than broader Regional Development Agencies.
collaboration, representation and community The indigenous strengths (Balls, 2000) of these
legitimacy) or focused on ‘quick win’ relationships, Central to this is understanding two criteria in the regions and the adaptive capacity of some of
rather than a more inclusive local membership White Paper which created the RDAs. These criteria the sectors in their industrial past - which had
and accountability. The majority of case studies collectively were regarded as the ‘strategic added been dominated principally by heavy industry and
analysed bear this out, with the exceptions to this value’ the RDA model was to facilitate to enable manufacturing - seem to have been overlooked by
being the fewer part. this region-led approach to economic development: the emphasis on five ‘national’ drivers which could
not be applied easily at the regional level, outside
These results demonstrate the challenges of • by exhibiting leadership so that national, regional of London and the South East (Toumaney, 2002;
providing a framework and establishing an agency and local institutions could be harnessed to Dalingwater, 2011). It has been found that too much
for coordinating local involvement (the LSPs) exploit the indigenous strengths and tackle the emphasis was placed on driving and incentivising
without providing measurable, locally endorsed particular weaknesses of each area; and high technology industries and the knowledge-
criteria, specifying the structures for involvement, economy (Driver, 1999; Wood, 2009), as two
or resourcing the role of local and community • by providing the environment for businesses and examples. These were sectors and economic levers
involvement sufficiently. As well as the LSPs and communities to maximise their potential through which regions that had been locked in to institutional
the funds they administered lacking formal drivers reforms that strengthen the key drivers of and industrial models that were substantially
and incentives for assuring community involvement, productivity and growth at the most appropriate different, and a legacy from their industrial past,
the lack of progress against the goals above is spatial level. were unprepared and unable to make a sudden and
perhaps unsurprising when the process and paper transformative shift to. Moreover, the recognition of
that established LSPs lacked meaningful structures, In practice, the aims and approach of the RDAs are the scale and support needed for shifting to adapt
models and capacity building for cross-community assessed as Medium in achieving greater local and to these new sectors and industries was lacking
involvement to be realised. The official evaluation community involvement in economic development. (Martin, 2001; Dalingwater, 2011); there was no
found ‘engagement structures did not exist… nor (do The reasons for this assessment, which again falls specific programme or enabling model to coordinate
LSPs) have robust structures for resolving tensions short of the ambition of New Labour, are as follows. and resource ‘filling the gap’ of transforming
or taking hard decisions’ and that there were also institutional, people and capacity infrastructure,
capacity issues within the staffing and resource The principal limiter to the efficacy of the RDAs as which was needed to embed these markedly
for LSPs (2004, p.12-13). This occasionally led to a coordinating sub-national system of economic different sectors within post-industrial regions.
Community Strategies or engagement models such governance and to its strategic value goals in
as committees being led by local government or particular was the remit of programmes and
other actors – thus disempowering the voice of policies that the RDAs were commissioned to
communities within the LSP and its activity, and deliver. It has been assessed that whilst the
reducing the linkage and transmission of local coordinating structure was in fact ‘really effective’
priorities to regional and national level regeneration at providing more ‘devolved’ leadership and flexible
agendas (see Fuller & Geddes, 2006). regional partnership approaches (PWC, 2009) – the
policies and specific interventions which were being
channelled through and promoted via the RDAs
represented a mismatch of economic opportunities
22 23Furthermore, those focused on the gap between Analysis of the positioning of the substantial funds
Labour’s successes in building the ‘supply side’ of to enable the values of community-led regeneration
employability and their limitations in not enabling a and neighbourhood renewal to become a reality,
sustainable ‘demand side’ in local economies, have also provides insight as to why the gap may have
argued that the lack of local ownership of sectors widened rather than narrowed between the most
and industries driven by the RDAs (responding to affluent and poorest regions – and communities
government priorities) contributed to why employers – during the Labour period. The organisation of
did not stay for the longer term in many deprived policies placed those to tackle the most deprived
areas (Dalingwater, 2011). These factors have areas and communities (via the SEU) at a distance
contributed to criticism that the RDAs were in fact from those focused on driving economic renewal,
‘regional arms of central government’ – rather than employment, local economies and productivity
fully embodying local and regional expectations and (via RDAs). Community and local involvement, far
priorities (Toumanay, 2002). from being centred by the regional coordination
structure, was in fact concentrated in schemes
Despite consistent language of people-led regen- and funds designed to work at the hyperlocal level;
eration or community and neighbourhood renewal whilst local involvement was not empowered on a
within Labour’s third way manifesto (Giddens, 1998) consistent and inclusive scale within the RDA and
a spatial mismatch where the drivers of economic regional structures where power over the design
policy for the regions were described as ‘mistaken and operation of local economies and influence
application of a national innovation policy on the over the distribution of investment, was arguably
urban (sub-national) scale’ (Wood, 2009) is evident. concentrated.
Our assessment of the level of community It has been assessed that growth and success
involvement in the operations of the significant under Labour was ‘more evident in areas with
agencies, most principally the RDAs during access to well-funded urban regeneration
this period, reveals a ‘one-way’ street of local programmes’ (Bennett, Fuller & Ramsden, 2004)
involvement to be another challenge to building which could capitalise on the drivers for technology,
partnerships that could maximise the potential of knowledge, entrepreneurship and innovation
true local power in economic development. The sectors, which did not include the persistently
lack of consistent and constructive structures for deprived areas of the country. The creation of
strategic priority-setting with local stakeholders the SEU and the multiple schemes underneath
and local communities within the RDA strategies, this with their higher proportion of community
which made ‘community’ an ‘efficient tool for involvement but substantially less power and
the local organisation of government initiatives’ influence, thus arguably separated out, rather than
(Fremeaux, 2005, p.271) but not equal partners in facilitated greater inclusion of, deprived places
local economic design, delivery nor outcomes. within the way regional economic development
was orchestrated. This has been criticised as
A further intervention aimed at embedding local having the consequence that ‘one set of policies
priorities within the RDAs strategies for regional was developed for the urban middle classes, one
economic development was the Regional Assembly for the urban poor, and another for the reform of
model, created out of the ‘Your Region, Your Choice’ the political establishment governing both (Amin et
White Paper. However this model again only al, 2000, p.viii), which in practice created a greater
achieved Medium levels of enabling community divide between the beneficiaries of the urban
involvement. The Regional Assemblies were created renaissance and the experience of deprivation for
to follow, not inform nor reorientate, the direction other(s) (communities)’ (Hoskins & Tallon 2004;
and work of the Regional Development Agencies. Atkinson, 2005; Amin, 2000). The lack of change
Furthermore, the relationship between the regional shown by the statistics, neither in narrowing the
assemblies and the RDAs has been regarded as spatial inequality gap nor in relative deprivation for
‘passive’ and ‘difficult to influence’ (Mawson & Jeffry, the most deprived places in England (as discussed
2002; Pearce & Ayres, 2007). in Chapter 3), corroborates this.
24 25You can also read
