Written evidence submitted by the Institute
for Public Policy Research North
SUMMARY
— A more
"mainstream" approach to regeneration may hold out some
benefits but in a context of severe cuts to public spending and
on the back of a deep recession the risk of ceasing targeted investment
in the most deprived neighbourhoods risks significant longer-term
social and economic costs.
— There
is little evidence of learning from the extensive and detailed
evaluations of regeneration practice over the past two decades.
The current approach would appear to be driven more by an ideological
drive to reduce the role of the state.
— Key
lessons from ippr north research on regeneration can be summarised
as follows:
— economic
growth is necessary but not sufficient to improve deprived neighbourhoods;
— the
specific context of the functional economic area where a neighbourhood
is located has a significant influence on improvement;
— two
factors consistently emerged as having explanatory power for improvement—or
decline—in deprived neighbourhoods:
— residential
sorting; and
— the
internal and external relationships of a neighbourhood, or "community
outlook".
— other
factors—such as approaches to tackling worklessness—are
also important, but do not provide a consistent explanation for
differences between improving and lagging neighbourhoods.
How effective is the Government's approach to
regeneration likely to be? What benefits is the new approach likely
to bring?
It is difficult to describe the policies described
in Regeneration to enable growth as a particular "approach
to regeneration". With the exception of some of the targeted
investments, this is much less an "approach to regeneration"
and more a list of government policies that might have some bearing
on deprived communities.
In some respects this might be beneficial. Much critique
of the previous government's regeneration policy was that it depended
upon special, targeted funding with insufficient attention focused
on "mainstream" programmes and policies. Such an approach
has been deemed divisive between neighbourhoods and unsustainable
in the medium-long term. However, this new "approach"
is likely to be divisive and unsustainable for different reasons.
In terms of division, the lack of a targeted or place-based
approach is likely to benefit those people and places most able
to make the most of its provisions. For example, there are already
signs that free schools, rights to challenge and rights to buy
are being taken up primarily in more affluent communities rather
than in those more deprived communities which are most in need
of regeneration. Furthermore, some of the most significant targeted
investments will bring disproportionate benefits for the South
of England over against the North: levels of investment in Crossrail,
for example, greatly outweigh those in transport infrastructure
in the North of England.
The new approach will prove unsustainable too as
the geography of economic recovery and the strategy for economic
growth favours investment in those places where there is the greatest
likelihood of success, at the expense of those areas which are
already struggling. Whilst there is a strong logic for encouraging
agglomeration and supporting market-led improvement, we know that
wealth does not "trickle down" as effectively as might
be hoped. For this reason we do need targeted intervention on
those neighbourhoods and localities which are most vulnerable
to being left behind. Any approach to regeneration that does nothing
other than encourage personal social mobility out of the most
deprived neighbourhoods is destined to exacerbate inequalities
with severe social and economic costs in the longer term. This
will be made all the worse by the deep cuts currently being made
to public service provision. As the costs of inequality grow,
the approach will become increasingly unsustainable.
If this "mainstream" approach is to be
made beneficial it must be accompanied by significant capacity
and support for those areas most in need of regeneration. Most
analysis shows though that through the removal of area-based grant
and Working Neighbourhoods Fund the capacity in the most deprived
areas is currently under severe pressure.
Will it ensure that the progress made by past
regeneration projects is not lost and can, where appropriate,
be built on?
Given the brevity of the Regeneration to enable growth
document, there is little evidence that very much has been learned
from past regeneration projects other than perhaps that significant
targeted intervention does not always represent value for money.
Whilst there is a legitimate critique of the effectiveness of
large-scale, capital-driven regeneration projects or indeed more
community-led holistic approaches like New Deal for Communities,
to simply cease to invest in this kind of regeneration after a
severe recession seems would appear to ignore even the counter-factual
that without such investment over the past decade many places
might have been considerably worse than they are today.
The dismantling of Regional Development Agencies,
Local Strategic Partnerships and other local regeneration partnerships
poses a very great threat to regeneration, not only through the
loss of the "architecture" and investment that has underpinned
regeneration in the past decade, but also in the significant loss
of expertise and skill that has been gathered by regeneration
professionals over the years. As a very simple and small example,
the collapse of publications like Regeneration & Renewal and
NewStart magazine are indicative of a situation in which learning
and good practice about regeneration is increasingly difficult
either to gather or to share.
What lessons should be learnt from past and existing
regeneration projects to apply to the Government's new approach?
There is a wealth of research and evaluation about
regeneration projects, not least systematic evaluations of area-based
initiatives such as New Deal for Communities and reviews such
as that undertaken by Michael Parkinson on behalf of the Northern
Way. Space prevents attempting to summarise or highlight the findings
of these numerous report although ippr north has produced a literature
review of material evaluating regeneration programmes and approaches
to tackling deprivation which is available upon request. In the
space available here, we will set out the findings of a significant
piece of work produced by ippr north with the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation and The Northern Way during 2010.
During 2010, ippr north carried out extensive research
into the causes and consequences of deprivation during a decade
of economic growth in the North of England. The research has focused
on the economic performance of deprived areas within the functional
economic areas of the North. Alongside a detailed review of the
overall performance of the 8 Northern City regions in addressing
deprivation, it undertook a detailed comparative study of six
deprived neighbourhoods from three city regions in the North of
England.
A matched pair of neighbourhoods was selected from
each city region. In each case both areas share a number of characteristics,
but had differing economic trajectories over the early part of
this century, with one improving rapidly while the other lagged,
from a similar starting point.
The research asked two core questions:
— (1) Within
the context of the functional economic area, what are the key
factors that contribute to improvement for some deprived areas
and stasis or decline in others?
— (2) How
deprived neighbourhoods can be better linked to economic opportunities
in their wider local and city regional areas.
The findings showed that, by its very nature, multiple
deprivation is complex, and there is a longstanding academic debate
about whether policies to address it should target people or places.
This research demonstrates that policies focused on both people
and places matter. Policies geared towards people, such as measures
to increase labour market mobility and improve individual skills,
are very important in enabling individuals to get on. But, to
address wider issues of deprivation, they must be complemented
by policies addressed to the problems of places too, otherwise
some people and places will be left behind, storing up problems
for the future and further imbalancing our economy and society.
Policymakers should avoid a polarisation between
policies targeted at people and those targeted at places as the
interaction between people and places needs to be better understood
and incorporated into policy thinking.
A number of key messages emerge from the research
regarding the key factors that influence improvement in deprived
neighbourhoods, and their links to the wider local and city regional
areas:
— (1) Economic
growth is necessary but not sufficient to improve deprived neighbourhoods;
— (2) The
specific context of the functional economic area where a neighbourhood
is located has a significant influence on improvement;
— (3) Two
factors consistently emerged as having explanatory power for improvement—or
decline—in deprived neighbourhoods:
— residential
sorting; and
— the
internal and external relationships of a neighbourhood, or "community
outlook".
— 4) Other
factors - such as approaches to tackling worklessness - are also
important, but do not provide a consistent explanation for differences
between improving and lagging neighbourhoods.
Economic growth and the wider economic context
Overall the life chances for individuals and the
fortunes of neighbourhoods in which they live are significantly
determined by the dynamics of their wider functional economic
area, the strength of its economy and the availability of suitable
jobs. Economic growth prior to the recession coincided with improving
economic deprivation rates for the majority of poor neighbourhoods.
However, a number of neighbourhoods saw little or no improvement
and a small number declined, even in the most high performing
city regions.
The specific economic context of the city region
influences improvement. Strong economic growth from a low base
generally resulted in the strongest improvement to economic deprivation
rates, especially employment deprivation. It also appears that
the dispersed economic opportunities of polycentric city regions
(those with more than one economic centre) may have some advantages
to those living in deprived neighbourhoods, who often have shorter
travel horizons.
While economic growth should be a priority, it is
necessary but not sufficient to shift economic deprivation. A
rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. The relationship
between deprived neighbourhoods and their wider labour and housing
markets must also be understood.
Jobs, skills and welfare to work
Worklessness is a key challenge in all deprived areas,
but different deprived neighbourhoods face different contexts
of worklessness and demand for labour. All six of the case study
areas which have provided the detailed focus for this research
have large proportions of their working age population claiming
inactive benefits, but claims reduced more sharply in our improving
areas. Three factors influenced changes to out of work benefit:
— Population
change served to concentrate worklessness in the lagging neighbourhoods,
while in improving areas it diluted it.
— All
the case study areas had large numbers of claimants aged 50 plus.
Crucially, in improving case study areas, there have not been
new claimants to replace those reaching retirement age and younger
generations and incomers are not claiming out of work benefits.
This suggests a measure of improvement.
— The
context of the local labour market, including the availability
of accessibility of entry level jobs is crucial. But proximity
of jobs matters more for people accessing entry level employment,
meaning the location of entry level jobs is important.
Locally designed and neighbourhood delivered employment
support and training interventions do not offer an explanation
for different trajectories, as they were largely the same within
each pair, but they do offer a source of innovation. The most
successful schemes were flexible, sustainably funded and had a
local presence, but crucially they were also linked into opportunities
in the surrounding area. Local authorities, social housing providers
and social enterprises all ran successful schemes but all were
funded by revenue streams threatened by the budget cuts.
Our case studies demonstrate that effective employment
schemes, jobs on the door step and access to good public transport
is not always sufficient for people to move into employment. Other
factors such as travel horizons, motivation and attitude create
barriers to employment and explain some of the difference between
improving and lagging neighbourhoods.
Housing and residential sorting
The characteristics of places are critical for the
choices people make about where to live. Strategic place-focused
interventions, designed in partnership with the community and
with the wider housing market in mind, can pay significant dividends,
tilting a neighbourhood into playing a slightly different function
in its wider economic context and contributing to wider, and more
sustainable, neighbourhood improvement.
Where policy focuses only on individuals, the risk
is that individuals with more resources and more choices will
move to other neighbourhoods unless there are positive reasons
for them to stay. This results in deeper concentrations of deprivation
and "residualised" neighbourhoods with only the most
vulnerable and those with the fewest choices remaining. The process
of "residential sorting" that results in one area being
deemed desirable and another undesirable, is a pivotal part of
the story in explaining the different trajectories of our lagging
and improving areas. Whilst population mass is an important issue
for sustainability, it is the structure - who is moving in and
out of the area - that matters most in determining its character.
In lagging neighbourhoods, poor management and upkeep
of the area, poor facilities and housing, crime and antisocial
behaviour and, in some cases, isolation, led to areas becoming
neighbourhoods of last resort. This resulted in a residualised
population, concentrated deprivation and reputational damage.
In some cases it ultimately resulted in housing demolition, a
policy of last resort which carries heavy social, economic and
carbon emission costs.
Housing quality and choice, collaborative development,
and the "clean safe and green" agenda play a key role
in improvement, increasing residents' quality of life but also
making an area attractive to potential residents. By creating
neighbourhoods of choice the risks of residualisation and spiralling
decline can be minimised.
Some improving areas were considered to have been
"brought back from the brink" through relatively small
scale interventions designed in partnership with local residents.
This emphasises the importance of good quality and sustained neighbourhood
working, and the value of involving residents in monitoring neighbourhoods
for signs of improvement and decline.
New build also helped attract new people to improving
neighbourhoods, diluting the concentration of deprivation. This
should not simply be seen as a "gentrification" process,
as there is evidence of improvement among the "original"
population too.
Community Outlook
"Community outlook" also has explanatory
power for why some neighbourhoods have improved while others lagged.
"Outlook" refers to the internal and external relationships
of a neighbourhood that shape life for residents. For example
the extent of social networks, the strength and nature of social
capital, the vibrancy of voluntary sector organisations and the
links between residents and the wider area (as measured by their
travel horizons) and between community leaders and decision makers.
Our research shows that together these factors all influence the
general outlook of communities.
While the communities in all six case studies were
similar in a number of ways, some aspects of community outlook
seem to differentiate our lagging from improving neighbourhoods,
although establishing cause and effect is difficult.
Improving neighbourhoods had active and well connected
voluntary sector and community organisations, along with proactive
community leaders working to secure improvements to the local
neighbourhood. These achievements are often relatively small,
but can become powerful stories of neighbourhood success. As stories
of community action are rehearsed and repeated they can become
part of the story of place, and part of the image that the area
projects and which individuals learn to embody. This was ably
demonstrated by an effective neighbourhood social enterprise in
one of our improving case study areas, whose work was known across
the city.
Effective community leadership emerges from a range
of sources, including elected politicians (local and parish),
community activists and voluntary sector leaders. Those leaders
that are able to make wider links to decision makers and opportunities
would appear to be instrumental in enabling positive community
outlook. In improving areas there are also indications that residents
have wider travel horizons and wider work search areas, suggesting
more interaction with the wider area. However, cause and effect
are particularly difficult to disentangle here.
The relationship between voluntary and community
organisations and the public sector appears essential in terms
of enabling improvement. One (lagging) case study area offers
a cautionary tale about the sustainability of voluntary and community
organisations once public sector funding is withdrawn but in improving
areas there would seem to be a positive relationship between informal
community activity and improvement.
Negative community outlook is more likely where there
are high levels of worklessness combined with a number of other
factors, including: strong attachment to place, negative reputation,
tight social networks, weak community leadership and relative
isolation. These places are least prepared to embrace the government's
Big Society agenda, and this community outlook can pose a barrier
to the uptake of employment and other opportunities in the wider
area.
Does Policy Matter?
Whilst the operation of wider housing and labour
markets has clearly influenced the trajectory of our neighbourhoods,
public policy also plays a role. That said, the importance of
its contribution is difficult to quantify given the surprising
lack of recorded material pertaining to the local impact of projects
and programmes, and an absence of outcomes monitoring. This has
significant implications for future learning and innovation.
Speaking to residents and stakeholders about what
policy approaches have worked in their neighbourhoods reveals
a series of success factors, including:
— the
importance of targeted interventions;
— continuity
of funding;
— the
co-location of services;
— local
flexibility;
— the
ability to link social and economic interventions;
— partnership
working; and
— community
engagement.
Neighbourhood level delivery is particularly important
in areas where identities are strong and travel horizons short.
But to be effective it must be sustained over time, with neighbourhood
workers coming to see themselves as "part of the community".
Despite the importance of understanding neighbourhoods
in relation to their wider labour and housing markets, links between
strategies developed at city regional level and neighbourhood
delivery are patchy. In particular the links between economic
and physical development on the one hand and welfare to work on
the other are weak. In a context of constrained public spending,
it is essential that all public money levers maximum benefit,
with social programmes designed to ensure economic and physical
developments result in employment opportunities for those furthest
from the labour market.
Further details and the policy implications of these
findings can be found in the ippr north report Rebalancing Local
Economies: widening economic opportunities for people in deprived
communities (2010).
Will it ensure that sufficient public funds are
made available for future major town and city regeneration projects
as well as for more localised projects? What action should the
Government be taking to attract money from (a) public and (b)
private sources into regeneration schemes?
I would refer the Select Committee to the report
The Credit Crunch, Recession and Regeneration in the North: What's
Happening, What's Working, What's Next? produced by Michael Parkinson
on behalf of the Northern Way and the extensive evidence base
to be found on the Northern Way website relating to these matters.
How should the success of the Government's approach
be assessed in future?
At a regional/sub-national level, the success of
the government's approach needs to be measured in its own terms
on the extent to which it achieves a rebalancing of the economy.
In this case, this should include a spatial rebalancing between
functional economic areas. Having said that, it is important not
to be preoccupied with closing the gap between North and South.
Whilst there is a genuine need to increase productivity and economic
growth in the North of England, it is more helpful to compare
progress between what the OECD call "lagging regions"
in the UK and similar regions elsewhere in Europe.
At a more local level, in very simple terms, the
government's approach should be measured by the extent to which
there is improvement against the range of indicators of multiple
deprivation across all neighbourhoods, most especially those suffering
the highest levels of deprivation. Whilst government seems unconcerned
about "closing the gap" between rich and poor neighbourhoods,
there is growing evidence (for example in Richer Yet Poorer, ippr
north, March 2011) that inequality within and between city-regions
is damaging for everyone and so it is important that measures
of inequality form part of the analysis of success.
Finally, government is right to take an interest
in measures of well-being. ippr north research suggests that some
of the softer, social indicators (see section on Community Outlook
above) can be vitally important influences on the extent to which
individuals and neighbourhoods can connect with opportunities
for economic growth.
March 2011
| 
