"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation

"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation

“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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
    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
       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
    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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
    "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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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
"Why don't they ask us?" - The Young Foundation
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 Photo
Our 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                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 21
The 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                                                                                                                                                                             23
Furthermore, 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                                                                                                                       25
You can also read