| Country | Main elements of policy
|
| The US | Community reinvestment act 1975—financial institutions have to serve community from which they derive deposits. Clinton administration strengthened criteria and improved monitoring. Recent urban policy—decentralised approach focusing on 7 policy areas.
72 cities designated as either empowerment zones/enterprise communities:
six urban empowerment zones receive $100 million in block grant plus tax credits.
Other zones and enterprise communities receive far less money.
emphasis on private sector involvement but policy moved on significantly since 1980s enterprise zones period.
also city wide economic development corporations.
overall, given the scale of the problem the policies are only scratching at the surface.
|
| Australia | Increasing recognition of the problems of distressed areas which often co-exist side by side with affluent areas.
"Building better cities" policy introduced in early 90s—targeted on most severely affected areas.
Partnership between three levels of government, private sector and the public.
First phase focused too much on renovation of housing stock and neglected economic and social development.
second phase of "better cities" attempted to address shortcomings by better linkages between mainstream labour market programmes and improvement in social and physical environments of areas.
|
| France | Contrat de Ville introduced early 1990s—contractual approach mainly between public sector players at different levels.
Policy trying to bend mainstream programmes and introduce different ways of working.
Ministry (DIV) specifically to co-ordinate central Government input and policies.
However, community and private sector involvement weak policy criticised for taking too long to implement and for spreading the jam too thinly and not targeting enough on deprivation.
Pact de Relance introduced in 1996—zones approach.
Gran project Urbains—located in 12 towns and cities close to Paris.
Emphasis on economic and physical improvements.
Economic development is repsonsibility of separate agency—DATAR.
Policy being reviewed (end January 1998). Changes likely to include increased emphasis on overall strategy and targeting on fewer areas.
|
| Germany | Highly decentralised Government structure—acts as barrier to co-ordinated approach.
Traditionally—including the 1971 West German urban renewal act—a strong emphasis on improving housing and the physical environmen. Also business parks.
IBAs—urban design and development ventures jointly funded by the private sector, the Lander and the LAs.
Economic regeneration relatively recent policy—funds earmarked for urban development to attract private investment into target areas no central data on extent and nature of problems makes it difficult to target. Funds allocated on the basis of population size—not need coal subsidy programme to address regional industrial decline.
|
| Ireland | Community development initiatives have a long tradition.
Ireland first country to introduce an anti poverty strategy (NAPs) in recognition that urban development uneven and rural poverty-attempts to put poverty and social exclusion at top of agenda.
aims to reduce by half the population identified as consistently poor by the year 2007.
Co-ordinated strategies to address education disadvantage, unemployment, income inequality.
emphasis on partnership and participation.
|
| Belgium | Each regional government seeking to address spatial segregation and neighbourhood decline
regular inter ministerial conference on urban policy to share information with the regions.
new Contracts de quartier programme focusing on 20 neighbourhoods in the greater Brussels area.
involves regional Government and the commune in a four year plan of urban regeneration covering housing/urban development, public spaces/environment and social cohesion.
emphasis on partnership between public and private sector.
Neighbourhood action plans developed in consultation with local residents—diverse activities aimed at combatting social exclusion.
Flemish regional Government introduced the Social Impulse fund—operates in a similar way to the SRB—aimed at improving quality of life in target areas.
|
| Denmark | Overall emphasis on housing policy and estate action type solutions to peripheral social housing estates.
|
| Netherlands | Emphasis on social housing renovation in 1970s.
urban regeneration policy in 1980s focused on 30 neighbourhoods social renewal policy introduced in 1989—covered most Dutch municipalities. Lot of attention on the Rotterdam example shift to a more integrated, multi sectoral and large scale policy approach in 1994.
Since 1994 focus on large cities—more bottom up than top down. Agreement between local authorities and national Government about which neighbourhoods to be targeted, range of policy programmes to be included and goals. Deprived groups within deprived neighbourhoods specifically targeted.
continuation of urban renewal policy until 2010.
|
| Greece | Highly fragmented system of sub national Government acts as obstacle to development or urban policy.
strong identification of people with their particular neighbourhood means communal authorities take a very local perspective.
system of local Government being radically reorganised—should result in a more strategic approach.
EU funding important—but few partnerships or public—private programmes beyond EU funded initiatives.
|
| Finland | Traditional welfare programme traditionally stopped growth of inequalities.
urban policy currently forcuses on housing programmes and physical improvement programmes.
growing interest in partnership and involvement of range of local organisations in regeneration.
|
| Norway | Welfare system v important.
because of fragmented system—no national urban policy.
increasing interest in partnership—multi agency approach.
cities programme—eg joint action in east Oslo including youth projects and integration of ethnic minorities who are concentrated on estates.
|
| Sweden | Funding for four strands of urban renewal programme increased greatly since the 1970s.
strong emphasis on physical improvement programmes.
increasing recognition that the causes of the problems need more attention. Also recognised need for more holistic approach.
|
| Italy | No integrated urban policy.
policy in 1992 was driven by national Government with an emphasis on construction projects.
recent emphasis on youth entrepreneurship suggest that more strategic, concerted approach may be forthcoming from central Government.
|
| Spain | Powers and policy differ from region to region.
signs that national policy may be emerging—Government recently undertook a study of problems of vulnerable areas.
|
| Wales | Regeneration policies centrally driven by Welsh Office.
Economic regeneration delegated to two grant in aid agencies: the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for rural Wales.
Also, inter agency partnership approach at the local level—funds not allocated on the basis of competition.
Strong private sector involvement.
Community involvement is weak.
|
| Scotland | Overall policy control within Scottish Office.
Scottish Enterprise has a major role in economic regeneration with delivery through 11 LECs.
Policies traditionally housing led/estate based. Recent move towards wider regeneration.
|
| Northern Ireland | Mainstream Departments responsible for delivery of policies—LAs relatively weak in their capacity to deliver economic development policies.
Funding is from the centre—delivery through agencies such as the Belfast Development Office and Laganside Development agency.
Policies targeted at fixed spatial areas.
high levels of community involvement.
|
