Regeneration is as much about people as it is about bricks and mortar

Since 1945 the issue of regeneration has been one of increasing political concern. As such, the processes and functions which underlie practical polices of regeneration have been the subject of contentious debate among academics and political commentators. Above all, the focus of such debate has centred on the how regeneration should be conceptualised in theoretical terms as this impacts directly on the form and characteristics that regenerative efforts take. Moreover, in order to uncover the essential issues with regards to regeneration it is vital that political agendas are exemplified in detail, as it is in the political arena that the basis of regeneration policy is to be found.
The purpose of this essay is to assess the primary focus of regeneration in terms of its goals and objectives. The initial question which is posed is therefore whether regeneration is more about people than it is about bricks and mortar. Above all, the very nature of this question indicates the general progression which has been witnessed in regeneration policy in the UK since the end of the Second World War. Ultimately, the focus of regeneration policy has moved beyond the narrow confines in which it once resided to encapsulate a much wider area of analysis. Thus, it is indeed correct to determine that regeneration today is certainly as much about people as it is about bricks and mortar. Much of this has to do with a change in the theoretical assumptions which guide overall social policy in general. Above all, in recent decades it has become increasingly apparent that issues such as poverty and exclusion have their roots in phenomena beyond the traditional structural and economic confines once thought. As such, in order to fully exemplify the degree to which regeneration is as much about people as it is bricks and mortar it is necessary to fully expound the political developments and ideological positions which direct regeneration policy. Indeed, such is the ultimate concern of this work.
As such, this work aims to highlight the development and changes in regeneration which have been witnessed over the last two decades through a thorough examination of the political foundations on which such changes rest. However, in order for such examination to gain an effective theoretical and contextual foundation it is first prudent to outline the assumptions which directed regeneration policy prior to the 1980s.
In the years that immediately followed the Second World War regeneration efforts centred almost entirely on the post war reconstruction of bomb damaged cities. As such, the essential focus for regenerative efforts lay in house building (Jones & Evans, 2008). Indeed, both the post war Labour government and the subsequent Conservative governments that followed directed significant resources to house building, personifying the extent to which such issues ranked as dominant political and social concerns (Jones et al, 2007). Therefore, the theoretical assumptions which directed regeneration policy focused in most part on structural concerns of redevelopment. Thus, bricks and mortar were the essential requirements and as such represented the primary focus of government regeneration efforts. However, regeneration policy in the post war decades was primarily directed by a clear ideological position regarding the role of the state everyday life (Jones et al, 2007). As such, consecutive governments throughout the 1950s and 1960s assumed direct government involvement in regeneration to be essential. Moreover, given that government was to be the primary actor by which regeneration efforts were directed, then the logical conclusion was that government took the sole responsibility for determining need and requirements in terms of regeneration (Jones & Evans, 2008). Furthermore, this theoretical foundation for regeneration policy also assumed that problems pertaining to poverty, inequality and exclusion were essentially caused as a result of structural failings. Thus, the combination of universal welfare and health provision along with a proactive regeneration policy directed by central government would alleviate if not indeed irradiate such problems (Jones et al, 2007).
As such, post war regeneration was formed on the principle that government control and direction of the regeneration process was the most beneficial method through which to carry out practical policy implementations. Therefore, regeneration policy focused almost entirely on structural concerns and was directed totally by central government. Thus, appropriating need and requirement in regeneration was the sole responsibility of government, with little consideration given to either local communities or the private sector.
Now effectively understanding the above discussion is essential in order for a comprehensive account of recent developments in regeneration policy to be provided. By the 1980s it was widely felt that regeneration efforts were failing to meet the social requirements they were intended to do (Glennerster et al, 2004). In 1977 a government white paper entitled Policy for Inner Cities suggested that failure in regeneration polices were due to the inadequate assessment of need and that issues such as poverty and inequality had “structural causes located in economic, social and political relations that originated outwith the affected areas” (Pacione, 1999, p. 331). As such, universal welfare provision and state directed regeneration had not succeeded in reducing poverty, inequality and exclusion as hoped because government directed policies had failed to account for the wider issues involved in regeneration needs (Glennerster et al, 2004). Thus, the Conservative governments of the 1980s utterly transformed the theoretical foundations on which regeneration policy rested and the role of government in the process.
Above all, private sector involvement personified the Conservative approach to regeneration (Jones et al, 2008). As such, the governments of the 1980s set about establishing a regeneration policy which gave the private sector a central role. Specific policy moves including the creation of Enterprise Zones and Urban Development Corporations which it was hoped would be able to better assess the level of need for regeneration and carry out for effective practical implementation (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). Central government therefore adopted a lesser role and the private sector assumed a central place in regeneration policy.
However, it is now widely considered that regeneration policy in the 1980s was a failure. A number of varied reasons are proffered in support of this assertion, however what is important for the current discussion is the charge that Conservative regeneration polices failed to account for the needs and requirements of local communities (Jones & Evans, 2008). The relative removal of central and local government from the regeneration process inevitably resulted in a wholesale failure to accurately assess regeneration needs. Moreover, the continued focus on structural considerations without accounting for wider social requirements in regeneration policy failed to understand the true nature of poverty and inequality just as previous governments had done.
As such, government regeneration policy in recent years has been directed on the basis of a clear wish to understand and thus avoid the failures of the past. Above all, the practical policy implementations of New Labour since 1997 with regards to regeneration have aimed to focus on two basic concepts. Firstly, there was a realisation that the issues of poverty, inequality and regeneration are varied and diverse and thus need to account for a variety of factors and concepts beyond the traditional structural basis (Imrie & Raco; 2003). Secondly, in order for effective regeneration policy to be undertaken it was viewed as essential that multi actor cooperation be established in way which placed the needs and requirements of local communities at the centre of the process (Imrie & Raco, 2003).
Although the regeneration polices of New Labour since 1997 have bore markedly similar ideological characteristics to those of the previous Conservative governments, it is nevertheless the case that the ‘third way’ represents a significant turning point in social and public policy in general (Imrie & Raco, 2003). Above all, the focus on collaboration between a variety of different actors has resulted in regeneration policy adopting significantly different characteristics. Furthermore, the redefining of the assumptions which underlie issues such as poverty, inequality and exclusion represent a concerted wish on the part of New Labour to offer effective and detailed policies aimed at tackling the root causes of such problems (Glennerster et al, 2004).
This change in focus provides a useful insight into the theoretical foundation of policy prescriptions New Labour aimed to generate in government. Above all, the governments’ wider social policy agenda aimed to systemically address the widespread problem of social and economic decline in many parts of Britain. For Labour, the primary problem lay not in lack of redistribution of wealth, but in the social exclusion that had pervaded many areas of Britain, which had suffered economic decline over the previous two decades (Imrie & Raco, 2003). As such, focusing on social and economic need became a vital consideration for regeneration policy. Previous Labour governments had argued that redistribution of wealth lay at the heart of the fight against poverty and thus, regeneration policy directly administered by the central government was one of the tools available for such a fight. Conversely, the Conservative had asserted that the private sector should largely determine the nature of redistributive efforts in a way, which allowed for wealth creation as opposed to wealth distribution. New Labour policy was thus a merging of the two concepts.
Nonetheless, a direct and active attempt to address economic and social deprivation in deprived areas of Britain has been the hallmark of the New Labour approach to regeneration. As such, numerous policy initiatives have attempted to focus on specific areas where protracted problems of economic and social dilapidation have been witnessed (BURA, 2009). The methods employed to achieve such regeneration have been diverse and cross over various government departments. For example, in 1999 the Department of Education and Employment established Education Action Zones in specific geographical areas where poor educational achievement had previously been widespread (McCarthy, 2007). Furthermore, Employment Zones were set up to combat the problems involving the long-term unemployed. Moreover, at around the same time the Department of Health established Health Zones in areas where poor health was viewed as a problematic factor. Other similar area based initiatives include; Crime Reduction Programme, Pioneer Community Legal Service Partnerships and the New Deal for Communities (McCarthy, 2007).
As such, it is possible to see how New Labour has attempted to cross-departmental boundaries in a way to provide a simultaneous and systematic attack on the causes of poverty (BURA, 2009). Thus, regenerative efforts since 1997 have included most of the main government departments.
However, what role did New Labour envisage for central government in urban and residential regeneration? Of course there would not be a return to the overt and direct government led regeneration polices of the post war decades, however, at the same time the policies of the Conservative governments of the 1980s had highlighted the dangers involved in allowing the private sector unchecked and unfettered power (Jones & Evans; 2008). As such, New Labour policy from 1997 up until today has allowed for private investment and enterprise to continue provided that regeneration programmes meet the required social and economic needs of deprived areas (Jones & Evans; 2008). Naturally, the only actor capable of ensuring that such focus is actively adhered to is the central government. Thus, government has once again been allowed to assume an active role in directing regeneration policy whilst simultaneously allowing for the private sector to continue its vital role in the process (Boddy & Parkinson, 2004).
As such, it is possible to see how New Labour has essentially attempted to build and improve upon the policy formulations of previous governments. Thus, although much of the legislative endeavours and logistical features of previous governments has remained, the focus and direction of such policy has altered significantly. Above all, this change of focus can be seen in the persistent wish of New Labour to instil the concept of partnership at the centre of urban and residential regeneration (Osborne, 2000). Therefore, it is important that we dedicate time to assessing the manner in which the idea of partnership has become integral to government regeneration policy.
Firstly, although New Labour has not returned to the centrally directed policy formulas of previous Labour governments, there has nevertheless been a reassertion of the role of central government in the urban regeneration process. In many respects, over the last 12 years government has reassumed its role as overall director of public policy processes. However, New Labour has been acutely aware of the need to ensure that a variety of other actors are included in the regeneration process in order to maximise resource potential and ensure efficient policy implementation. Given the natural connotations involved in the former, the private sector has continued to play an active and integral role in government regeneration efforts (Russell, 2001). However, in addition to private sector cooperation, New Labour has also brought other players into the process, most notably within individual communities themselves.
Naturally, local communities lie at the centre of analysis when it comes to regeneration. However, regional focus on need was an issue that did not receive much attention during the 1980s. As such, community actors increasingly play a leading role in deciding what form and characteristics local regenerative efforts should take. Naturally, an obvious benefit of this lies in the ability to accurately assess need. However, underlying this move toward greater community involvement in regeneration it is possible to see an overt wish in the part of New Labour to engender greater community responsibility and thus tackle the problems of degeneration from the inside (Scott & Moore, 2005). Now the emphasis on personal responsibility was a consistent feature of Conservative policy from 1979 to 1997. Indeed, the move away from a collective community mentality in many ways personified the Conservative approach (McCarthy, 2007). Many argue that this ideological position created the necessary atmosphere for degeneration in communities to be propelled when economic or social problems surfaced (Scott & Moore, 2005). Therefore, New Labour has overtly and deliberately attempted to include community actors in the overall urban regeneration partnership in order to propel a sense of community responsibility. The clear emphasis on people as opposed to bricks and mortar is obvious.
As such, when we further assess institutional developments carried out during New Labours governmental tenure it is important to bear in mind the theoretical assumptions that are intended to ensure the success of such developments. For example, a primary institutional change has been the introduction of Regional Development Agencies, which aim to reduce levels of inequalities that exist between different regions in England (HM Government, 2009). Thus, if an effective policy is to be achieved in this regard it is clear how the inclusion of local government and community actors in conjunction with the national government in London would be vital. Therefore, it is possible to see how New Labour has attempted to offer a ‘third way’ to the dialectic of direct state involvement vs. private sector leadership.
As such, we can see the methods that New Labour has employed in order to address the question of regeneration. Above all, this process has been personified by the wish to ensure that all affected actors (especially those in the community) are integral to the decision-making agenda and thus hopefully ensure effective results. However, to what extent have such efforts been successful in achieving their predetermined aims?
Firstly, the ‘third way’ has certainly reasserted the importance of central government as a force of direction in social and public policy (Jones & Evans, 2008). As such, regeneration efforts in residential communities have once again become the focus of central government thinking. Thus, the failures, which emerged from the 1980s, particularly with regard to private sector dominance, have to some extent been countered (Imrie & Raco, 2003). Naturally, the private sector still has an important role to play in New Labours vision of regeneration however the primacy of state involvement both at the national and local level has been reasserted in a positive fashion. Nonetheless, this reassertion of state direction has still been muted in many respects and has thus avoided the plethora of problems which centrally directed social policy encountered in the post Second World War decades (Cullingworth & Nadin; 2006).
Moreover, the willingness to include a variety of different actors, especially those at the local community level has resulted in institutional processes such as the Single Regeneration Budget being able to accurately assess where the greatest need resides and allocate available resources accordingly (Hall, 2000). In addition, the inclusion of local community actors in the overall process also actively combats social exclusion. Of course, the alleviation of social exclusion is one of the primary aims of New Labour social policy in general. However, numerous commentators on the subject have determined that such exclusion from the functional processes of society is a leading cause in creating degenerated communities in the first place (Scott & Moore, 2005). Thus, it is possible to see how New Labour has attempted to instigate a pre-emptive approach to the problem of poverty and degeneration in Britain’s communities.
However, possibly the greatest success of New Labour has been to redirect the focus of regenerative efforts to include a wide array of factors, thus fully appreciating the diverse nature of the problem. Indeed, this progression could certainly be characterised as altering the focus from bricks and mortar to people. Naturally, regenerative efforts aimed at housing and land development have been of paramount importance (Shapely, 2007). However, the realisation that urban and residential regeneration hinges on more than simply the rebuilding of buildings has allowed for the root causes of the problem to be addressed. Thus, initiatives aimed at education, employment, training, environment, health and family have all united together to represent a systematic attack on the primary features that exemplify communities in need of regeneration.
In conclusion, the various discussions above have exemplified the degree to which the direction of regeneration policy has developed over a period of decades. Moreover, it is possible to see the degree to which regeneration policy has altered significantly over recent years. Ultimately, ensuring the active participation of local community actors in the regeneration process has meant that the focus of policy prescriptions has moved away from ideas centring of bricks and mortar to that of people. Above all, the willingness to broaden the basis of analysis with regards to issues such as social exclusion and poverty accounts for this development. Given the theoretical soundness of recent policy manoeuvres is it indeed likely that future regeneration polices will continue to be formed on such a basis. Indeed, if hugely prevalent issues such as poverty and social exclusion are to be effectively addressed through policy moves in regeneration, it is essential that such continuation take place.