Urban Regeneration, Community Power and the (In)Significance of 'Race'

Paul J. Maginn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780815398806
• eBook ISBN: 9781351143585
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

The concepts of community consultation and participation have come to dominate academic and policy debate about urban regeneration partnerships. However, there has been relatively little discussion about the nature of 'community power' within regeneration partnerships. Adopting an ethnographic approach in the study of community participation and power and the significance of 'race' in three ethnically diverse neighbourhoods in London, this book highlights that there has been a 'pluralistic turn' in British urban regeneration policy. Local communities, often portrayed as the least powerful partner within partnerships, are shown to use various strategies to influence decision-making, thus giving rise to a new typology of pluralism - 'pragmatic'; 'hyper-' and 'paternalistic'. Furthermore, the significance of 'race' (and racism) within community forums and regeneration partnerships is challenged. The playful use of the term (In) Significance in the title is linked to the argument that, although racism exists, 'race' does not always matter.

Chapter 1
Introduction: Urban Regeneration, Community Power and 'Race'

Bringing the community into the practice of urban regeneration is a demonstrably more fraught exercise than governments have assumed it to be. In the more top-down forms of participation employed to discover opinions on an urban planning proposal (for example), involving the community might be little more than an exercise of tokenism. [...] The incorporation of community participation in urban regeneration in... Britain... has been on a much ambitious scale than is represented by the single public meeting designed to gain local reaction to a land-use change affecting the neighbourhood.

(Paddison, 2001:202)

Introduction

This book is based upon an ethnographic study of 'community power' and the significance of 'race' within urban regeneration partnerships (URPs) and local community forums in three ethnically diverse neighbourhoods in London —Northside, Southside and Westside.¹

The 'ethnographic story' presented herein paints a generally positive, but complicated, picture of the nature of power wielded by local communities over decision-making within URPs. This is contrary to the thrust of most of the British academic literature on urban regeneration policy, community participation and 'race' (Atkinson and Cope, 1997; Brownill and Darke, 1998; Brownill and Thomas, 1998; Munt, 1991). This is not to say that local communities have become 'more powerful' than their other partners on URPs. Rather, local communities are shown to be extremely resourceful agents capable of deploying a range of tactics and strategies to exert varying degrees of influence within the decision-making process at the local level.

More controversially, the findings from the three case studies bring into question the significance (i.e. prevalence) of 'race' and racism within URPs, community forums and the regeneration process in general. Hence, the playful use of the term '(In)significance' in the title of the book. It is important to stress that readers do not (mis)interpret this as a denial of the significance, historically and contemporaneously, of 'race' and racism within urban regeneration policy. Instead, it should be interpreted as an indication of the socially and politically contested, contextual and temporal (in)significance attached to 'race' within policy arenas.

URPs have become the major policy vehicle directed at resolving the myriad of problems that bedevil those localities now known as 'socially excluded neighbourhoods' within the UK urban policy discourse (DETR, 2001; DoE, 1997; SEU, 1998). Simultaneously, community involvement has become de riguer in urban regeneration and is seen as a prerequisite, by policymakers and many academics, for both policy and policy outcomes to be deemed successful (Atkinson, 1996; Foley and Martin, 2000; McArthur, 1995; Smith and Beazley, 2000; Taylor, 2000b, 2002; Wilks-Heeg, 2003). Relatedly, policy-makers have placed increased emphasis on the need for black and minority ethnic (BME) communities to be more involved in decision-making. The Conservative government's (1990-1997) approach on this front in relation to its key regeneration programme, the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), could be best described as implicit and incremental (DoE, 1995). In comparison, the 'New Labour' government's (1997-) approach has been relatively more explicit and pro-active (DETR, 2000; SEU, 2000).

Whilst there is a vast literature on urban regeneration, partnerships and community participation (for an overview, see Imrie and Raco, 2003; Roberts and Sykes, 2000), relatively little has actually focused on the nature of power and power relations within URPs and local communities, particularly ethnically diverse ones. It, consequently, is difficult to discern whether the trend of greater democracy and pluralism within urban regeneration policy, argued here to have (re)commenced with the City Challenge initiative in 1991 under the Conservatives and galvanized by 'New Labour' in 1997, is actually influential on policy outcomes at the local level. This book seeks to contribute to this gap in the literature. It does so by focusing on the locus of 'community power' as expressed through the formal and informal relationships between partners on local URPs based in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. Specifically, it focuses on relationships at two levels. First, it considers power relations between 'institutional partners' (i.e. local councils, housing associations, private developers and voluntary organizations) and the 'local community' partner. And, secondly, it looks at relations within community forums, the governance structure that enables local communities to participate officially within the regeneration process.

The Multi-agency Partnership Approach to Urban Regeneration

Urban regeneration policy has historically been the preserve of the state. Central government has primarily been responsible for setting the strategic policy agenda and providing funding. And, local government has assumed operational responsibility of policy programmes. As urban problems have become more entrenched and multi-faceted, a wider range of agents has been brought to the policy arena to work alongside the state. The logic behind this move is simplistic: urban problems can be addressed more effectively via the relevant agents pooling their resources and developing a comprehensive policy framework (Healey, 1997). Carter (2000) has noted that there is now an 'emerging consensus' within urban regeneration, and other policy fields, in the need for a multi-agency approach to tackle the problems within socially excluded neighbourhoods. Partnership, along with community participation, has thus become synonymous with urban regeneration policy (Bailey et al, 1995).

Partnerships and Partners

Contemporary urban regeneration policy is implemented on the ground via local URPs that comprise representations from a variety of 'partners' or 'interest groups'. These partners are readily identifiable in the broad sense. They include the public, private and voluntary sectors and the local community. These four groups should not be assumed to be homogenous in structure and outlook. It is more likely that difference of opinion and fractures will prevail within each grouping. Within the local community interest group, for example, there may be divisions along racial, gender or age lines. Such divisions invariably give rise to questions about representativeness, discrimination and exclusion and agenda setting within community forums and URPs. Similarly, within the local government sector there may be inter-departmental conflicts between town planners, housing officers and regeneration officers for example. And, there may also be policy differences between elected members on a local authority's regeneration committee. Ultimately, such conflicts point to the question of who has power within and between interest groups on local URPs.

The general consensus within the academic literature is that partnerships are essentially a positive thing and are here to stay. Yet, there are some major concerns about URPs, especially in relation to the empowerment and power of local communities within such formal policy arenas (Atkinson, 1999; Colenutt and Cutten, 1994; Cooper and Hawtin, 1997b; Stewart and Taylor, 1995; Taylor, 1995, 2000a, 2002).

Mackintosh (1992) has been particularly enthusiastic about the potential benefits of multi-agency partnerships. Whilst acknowledging that partnerships are conflictual policy arenas, Mackintosh has argued that partnerships realize three key benefits for those who participate within them. First, she claims that partnerships are synergistic structures. That is, when the different partners combine their various resources they are able to realize more than if they worked alone in trying to resolve urban problems. Secondly, partnerships help to enhance the budgetary capacity of individual partners as a result of financial resources being pooled. In particular, those with the least amount of financial resources will have access to monies that would normally be out of their reach. And, lastly, it is contended that working in partnership has a transformative effect on partners. That is, through being exposed to one another, the various partners learn about and, ultimately, incorporate elements of each other's values and practices into their own behaviour patterns. This process of mutual learning helps to bind the various partners together and, ultimately, reinforces the synergistic qualities of partnerships.

The various benefits identified by Mackintosh have been challenged. In overall terms, Mackintosh's standpoint on the benefits of partnerships are seen as being too positivist. Hastings (1996), in particular, has argued that the synergistic and transformational benefits are likely to be unevenly re-distributed within URPs. Specifically, she has expressed concerns that local communities are the agents least likely to benefit from participating in partnerships. This is a function of being the last group invited to the process, and being denied full access to pooled resources on account that they tend to bring comparatively few resources, especially financial, to URPs. Mayo (1997) is also cautious of the benefits of partnerships to local communities. She argues that the transformational impacts of partnerships are more likely to result in the 'transformation of the community sector's interests, by those of the private sector' (p. 13). In other words, communities will be rendered relatively powerless in their ability to influence the policy agenda or decision-making within URPs. For Mayo, a major reason for this is that partnerships are inherently market-oriented policy arenas that favour the interests of institutional agents from the private and public sectors. Ball et al (2003) have recently challenged this generalized view noting that 'the results of [our] survey of property developers... does not generally support the hypothesis that URPs provide synergistic benefits' (p.2251).

Ultimately, URPs are ladened with positive and negative attributes for all that participate in them. What seems clear is that central government, whatever their political hue, now see the partnership approach as the best and, possibly, the only way to tackle social exclusion.

URPs: Democratic and Pluralistic Governance Structures?

The existence of four broad interests groups within URPs points to the existence of a political dynamic. For sure, local URPs are portrayed as pluralistic and democratic policy arenas by central and local government. That is to say, the various partners are notionally deemed equal to one another with decisions arrived at via a process of negotiation and bargaining. Whilst the different agents that participate within URPs may be equal to one another, in the sense that they have a 'right' to participate in decision-making, they invariably come to the policy arena with varying resources. This, consequently, has implications on their ability to influence decision-making. Normatively speaking, agents with access to the most (and best) resources may be expected to command greater power than those with few or no resources. Local communities generally come to URPs with comparatively fewer resources than their institutional partners do. They, consequently, are often cast as the least powerful agent. But, is this always the case? As will be seen later in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, local communities are far from rendered powerless. In fact, they are able to draw on a range of resources and deploy various strategies to influence decision-making, albeit with varying degrees of success, within URPs.

Community Participation

Central government's commitment to partnership has also been complemented by a 'turn to community' in urban regeneration policy (Duffy and Hutchinson, 1997). In short, government has advocated that local communities should play a more instrumental role in URPs (DETR, 1997, 2001; DoE, 1994, 1995, 1997; ODPM, 2000). Burns and Taylor (2000) have argued that community participation is essential within URPs for a number of inter-related reasons. First, local communities have different perceptions as to their own needs, problems and solutions than policy-makers. Next, local communities' lived experiences and knowledge of urban problems is a valuable resource that can help to enhance the overall expertise within URPs. Third, participation provides an opportunity for communities to become empowered in their own struggle against social exclusion. And, lastly, 'active participation of local residents is essential to improved democratic and service accountability' within regeneration policy (Burns and Taylor, 2000: 50).

In order to participate formally within URPs local residents must generally do so by becoming members of a recognized community forum or steering group. Community forums are organizations set up, normally by the local authority, to enable the local community to come together and articulate their concerns and needs and have input into the decision-making process. Such forums, therefore, are supposed to act as the representative voice and negotiating agent of the wider community around the partnership table. This institutionalization of the local community legitimizes their participation within URPs. Some members of a local community, for whatever reasons, may not wish to participate in the regeneration process via formalized structures and processes. Instead, they may seek to influence decision-making from the outside by engaging in radical activities. Institutional agents, especially local authorities, within URPs may see such courses of action as obstructive and, perversely, undemocratic. Such radical reactions are to be expected, particularly when members of local communities see certain decisions as controversial. Moreover, informal participation by some members of the local community is arguably as legitimate as formal modes of participation. A radical course of action may be the only option open to certain groups, especially minorities, who feel that they and their interests have been excluded from community forums and URPs.

To reiterate, when local communities enter URPs they tend not to be endowed with the types of resources, for example, bureaucratic decision-making structures, a hierarchy of employees and funding streams, held by their institutional partners. This obviously has implications on their ability and capacity to participate effectively in decision-making. To compensate for this, local authorities have tended to assume responsibility for providing community forums with particular resources (e.g. office space and equipment, capacity-building training and tenant advisors). Funding for these resources tends to be derived from a mix of local authorities' own revenue streams and regeneration monies secured from central government. Arguably, the level and type of resources provided by local authorities (and other institutional partners) gives an indication of their commitment to community participation and empowerment. In short, the more resources provided the greater the commitment to community participation and vice versa.

Community Power

The active participation of local communities in URPs raises questions about the nature of their power or influence within URPs. Atkinson and Cope (1997) note that the academic literature on community participation and urban regeneration has been disappointing on the issue of power. Indeed, discussion has tended to focus on several key issues directly related to the concept of community participation but which fall short of the issue of community power per se. These include:

• defining who or what is meant by the 'local community' (Hill, 1994);
• outlining the various levels of community participation in decision-making processes via drawing on Arnstein's, (1969) seminal work on citizen participation (Burns et al, 1994; Burton, 2003);
• arguing that community participation is an essential prerequisite in order to realize successful outcomes in urban regeneration programmes (Taylor, 1995); and
• advocating that tenants need to be empowered in order to participate in the regeneration process (Craig and Mayo, 1995; Skelcher, 1993).

It is clear from the literature that local communities are seen as comparatively less powerful than their counterparts within URPs. They are often portrayed as the 'junior' partner within partnerships (Brownill and Darke, 1998; Hastings, 1996; Smith and Beazley, 2000). It is contended here, however, that there is a lack of clarity within the literature as to whether power is a process or the ability to influence policy outcomes. Furthermore, power is a relative concept. This relativity leads to confusion within the literature as to who is the most, or least, powerful within URPs.

The primary focus of this book is policy outcomes. In particular, it seeks to explore the impacts communities have on decision-making within URPs. Power is defined herein as the ability to initiate change, no matter how small, within the decision-making processes of URPs. Hence, if a local community is successful in altering a particular policy, either incrementally or significantly, it can be said that they have exercised some degree of community power. It is important to stress that in considering the issue of community power the aim here is not to assess the actual amount of power wielded by a local community or to prove that they are the least powerful agent within the three URP case studies. Rather, the objective is to determine and explain the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: Urban Regeneration, Community Power and 'Race'
• 2 The 'Pluralistic Turn' in Urban Regeneration Policy
• 3 Regenerating Pluralist Theory and Community Power
• 4 An Ethnographic Approach to Urban Regeneration and Community Power
• 5 Northside: Pragmatic Pluralism and the Declining Significance of 'Race'
• 6 Southside: Hyper-pluralism and the Fragmentation of the Local Community
• 7 Westside: Paternalistic Pluralism and the (Over-)Significance of 'Race'
• 8 Conclusions: Reconsidering Community Power and the Significance of 'Race'
• Bibliography
• Index