New Labours Approach to Neighbourhood Regeneration - Assignment Example

New Labour’s Approach to Neighbourhood Regeneration Background The New Labour government, since it came to power in 1997, pursued a policy which aimed at modernizing neighbourhoods across the entire country and this was done with the aim of ensuring that these neighbourhoods reached a point where the people who lived within them could be proud. This was an initiative which was based on the belief that affluent neighbourhoods were more advanced than those where low income individuals lived and this situation worked towards increasing the gap between the rich and the poor in Britain. In order to counter this, the Labour government came up with initiatives for neighbourhood regeneration which involved cooperation between the government and the residents in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods as opposed to adopting a course where the government had complete control (Burns, et al, 2002). In this manner, the Labour government worked towards the adoption of practices related to managerialism and civil participation in a manner which ensured that its ideology concerning regeneration was put in place in a manner which was as efficient as possible. Thus, the government, working in some form of partnership with the private sector and residents, worked towards the development of plans and implementation of these plans in neighbourhoods in a bid to ensure their regeneration according to the desired standards. For the first time in history, the Labour government came to recognize the need to involve residents in the development of their neighbourhoods and in order to develop this partnership; the government took steps to ensure the formulation of policies favouring it (Abbott, 1996). It is for this reason that a short time after coming to power, the New Labour government announced a Compact between it and the public to ensure that the latter was constantly involved in the making of any public policy agenda. This was the first step that this government took to ensure that the public was involved in these agendas and the policy would continue to grow in strength throughout the following decade. The result of the Labour stand towards public inclusion in policy making created a situation where the latter was involved in almost every aspect of the provision of public services to local communities and this included the provision of housing, social services, as well as the regeneration of neighbourhoods (Beider, 2007). Because of this cooperation, the government came to establish the Office of the Third Sector in 2006 whose main purpose was to consult the public concerning how best the government could work with them to ensure that there was the achievement of long term goals such as the creation of a more unified society. This new form of cooperation and consultation was announced in the 2006 budget and the findings of this consultation were published in the following year by the Treasury and Cabinet Office detailing the role of the public in social and economic regeneration in neighbourhoods. The findings outlined the future role of the public that reflected the neoliberal views of the Labour government and these included the need to have the public in the transformation of public services, mainstreaming neighbourhoods, encouragement of social enterprise, as well as strengthening communities to be able to be self-sufficient. Above all, the Labour government saw the need to ensure that all the people in diverse communities were marshalled in such a manner as to ensure the success of the social objectives that it intended for them. Thus, the Labour government chose as its main focus the social and economic regeneration of neighbourhoods that had a direct effect on the people who lived in them (Atkinson, 1995). Moreover, this focus would be given to those individuals, groups, or organisations that worked at a local level with the objective of promoting regeneration. The Labour government realised that the people who lived in the target neighbourhoods were better placed to ensure that there was the provision of more flexible and responsible services in a manner which enabled them to engage the rest of their communities and bring about positive change (Byrne, 2005). The organisations working at the local level also had a significant role to play because they would be able to have a positive influence on those areas which experienced multiple instances of deprivation and whose inhabitants might be distrustful of direct government intervention. New Labour’s approach to neighbourhood regeneration was completely in line with the neoliberal thought that was prevalent within its leadership and this was based on the belief that the civil society had to be directly involved in solving social problems. In addition to this, it was also the belief of this government that the involvement of civil society and organisations was the best method of ensuring that modern, neoliberal democracy was promoted within the society (Boddy & Parkinson, 2004). In this way, the Labour government chose to make civil society direct actors in the formulation and implementation of its public policies with the aim of ensuring that these two goals were attained. In addition, the aim of involving the civil society and organisations related to it in policy making was a method used by the Labour government to promote its policy of devolution of power in such a manner that these organisations, local governments, and the public at large could be able to become active participants in the creation of a neoliberal society (Boddy, 2003). They would be able to do this through the development of social capacity, unity and communal actions which would make sure that the regeneration objectives of the government were achieved in all neighbourhoods. It has been suggested that it was mainly because of Labour’s belief that the British society could be able to solve all the problems that faced it that encouraged it to pursue a policy of public involvement in neighbourhood regeneration. The Labour approach was also based on the belief that change could only come about through the direct involvement of the people who were directly affected by it. This would create a situation where there would be more public participation on the development of initiatives which would improve their lives in a manner that they desired as well as ensure the development of the desired social cohesiveness. Thus, four major areas of cooperation between the Labour government and the civil society were recognised and these included the following; the strengthening of communities, improving public services, developing social entrepreneurship, and finally, giving a greater say to civil society in matters concerning them. The result of these policies was that many civil organisations came to find themselves under a lot of pressure to perform in order to receive the funding they desired from the government. In addition, some had to change their original objectives significantly in so that they could fit those that they could be in line with those of the government and make it possible for them to meet performance targets. Among the complications which came about through the implementation of the regeneration policy was the development of the Sustainable Communities agenda, a proposal by the Labour government whose aim was to ensure that there was the bringing together of objectives involving the economy, society, and the environment and joining them to sustainable development (Burrows, 1998). While this may have been a most commendable initiative, it is a policy which came to be highly criticised for its simplicity because it did not provide any tangible means through which is could be effectively implemented. In addition, it was also found that it was as ambiguous as to be interpreted differently by different organisations and this would most likely have led to a lot of confusion. The end result of this initiative is that it led to the development of confusion among the various actors who were tasked with the implementation of the neighbourhood regeneration programs in accordance with government policies. Historiography Studies conducted in Britain have shown that the New Labour approach to regeneration is in line with the European Union standards which state that it is important to male local people active players in the regeneration schemes that aim at their localities (Dean & Hastings, 2000). Despite this approach having its origins in the Labour government, it has continued to be the basic practice of the government of the United Kingdom during the hegemony of the Conservative government. It has become common practice for locals to be involved in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods and the schemes in which they have become actively involved have included the physical redevelopment of local facilities, the reconstruction of housing, and in some cases, involvement in adult education (Burns, et al, 2002; Boddy, 2003). While these programmes have been good for community development, it has been found that the involvement of local people in the steering and delivery of neighbourhood regeneration has brought with it a lot of challenges. These have included the fact that in some cases, some of the people who have been called upon to become active participants in the regeneration programmes have either been ill equipped or unwilling to get involved. In addition, it has been found that many of the individuals who have been included into these programmes believe that they have been recruited not because of their professional knowledge of what has to be done for the programmes to be successful, but only because of the fact that they are ordinary people (Boddy, 2003). In essence, they have come to consider their involvement to be a waste of time because they do not know the first thing about what to do to be of help to any of the projects. The idea that they are better placed to be of any help to the implementation of programmes because of their experience living in the targeted localities is highly debatable. This is mainly because the involvement of some individuals does not necessarily mean that they are representative of the entire population living in their communities. While this may be the case, it has also become the norm for the government to expend a lot of time and money to ensure that there is capacity building within the community so that the latter can be actively engaged in regeneration. Most of the studies which have previously been conducted on community-based regeneration have a deficiency mainly because they more often than not concentrate on its positive aspects to the complete disregard of its failures. Among the most significant areas where there has been definite failure has been in some areas of Northern Ireland and Wales where this policy has to a large extent failed. In these areas, it has become common for the people involved in regeneration programmes to have a negative social experience when compared to other areas of the United Kingdom which have shown positive results towards the policy delivery (Byrne, 2005). Successive governments since 1997 have pursued a public involvement policy which has included service delivery and decision making, with the aim of ensuring that the public is more actively involved the regeneration of their own communities (Diamond & Liddle, 2005). Despite the government’s determination to devolve decision making on neighbourhood regeneration, there have been mixed results in the different areas of policy implementation. This is mainly because of the fact that neighbourhoods have now become units of governance because it is within them that major policy decisions are taken and implemented and it is on their basis that there is delivery of services (Boddy & Parkinson, 2004). They have also become spaces where there have developed forums for the exchange of ideas between the state and civil society concerning the best practices to be adopted to make neighbourhood regeneration possible. Currently, neighbourhood regeneration policies have come to include community participation as an important part of ensuring their success as well as an important aspect of governance. Some of the initiatives that involve community participation which have been facilitated by the government have worked towards the creation of a gateway towards engagement between the government and the public on crucial matters (Beider, 2007; Diamond & Liddle, 2005). While this has been the case, a lot of challenges have also developed and these have included the implementation of initiatives within a background of different contexts as well as the exploration of previously unexplored methods of engagement. In some areas, it has resulted in some resistance from the residents who have felt that they are not being well served by the new policies of engagement. References Abbott, J. 1996. Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. London, Earthscan. Atkinson, D. 1995. Cities of Pride: Rebuilding Community, Refocusing Government. London, Cassell. Beider, H. 2007. Neighbourhood Renewal and Housing Markets: Community Engagement in the US and UK. Oxford, Blackwell. Boddy, M. 2003. Urban Transformation and Urban Governance: Shaping the Competitive City of the Future. Bristol, Policy Press. Boddy, M. & Parkinson, M. 2004. City Matters: Competitiveness, Cohesion and Urban Governance. Bristol, Policy Press. Burns, D., et al. 2002. Community Self-Help. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Burrows, R. 1998. Unpopular Places? Area Disadvantage and the Geography of Misery in England. Bristol, Policy Press. Byrne, D. 2005. Social Exclusion. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Dean, J. & Hastings, A. 2000. Challenging Images: Housing Estates, stigma and Regeneration. Bristol, Policy Press. Diamond, J. & Liddle, J. 2005. Management of Regeneration: Choices, Challenges and Dilemmas. London, Routledge Read More