LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bailey, Nick; Pill, M. (2014)
Publisher: Henry Stewart
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: UOWABE
Localism is an active political strategy, developed in a period of austerity by the UK's coalition government as a justification for the restructuring of state-civil society relationships. The deprived neighbourhood has long been a site for service delivery and a scale for intervention and action, giving rise to a variety of forms of neighbourhood governance. Prior international comparative research indicated convergence with the US given the rise of the self-help conjuncture and the decline of neighbourhood governance as a medium of regeneration. The subsequent shift in the UK paradigm from ‘big’ to ‘small state’ localism and deficit-reducing cuts to public expenditure confirm these trends, raising questions about the forms of neighbourhood governance currently being established, the role being played by local and central government, and the implications for neighbourhood regeneration. Two emerging forms of neighbourhood governance are examined in two urban local authorities and compared with prior forms examined in earlier research in the case study sites. The emerging forms differ significantly in their design and purpose, but as both are voluntary and receive no additional funding, better organised and more affluent communities are more likely to pursue their development. While it is still rather early to assess the capacity of these forms to promote neighbourhood regeneration, the potential in a period of austerity appears limited. Reduced funding for local services increases the imperative to self-help, while rights to local voice remain limited and the emerging forms provide little scope to influence (declining) local services and (still centralised) planning decisions, especially in neighbourhoods with regeneration needs which are likely to lack the requisite capacities, particularly stores of linking social capital. Initial conclusions suggest greater polarity and the further containment of deprived neighbourhoods.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Bailey, N. and Pill, M. C. (2011),'The continuing popularity of the neighbourhood and neighbourhood governance in the transition from the “big state” to the “big society” paradigm', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 927-942.
    • 2. Davies, J. S. and Pill, M. C. (2012),'Hollowing-out neighbourhood governance? Re-scaling revitalization in Baltimore and Bristol', Urban Studies,Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 2199-2217.
    • 3. Clarke, S. E. (1993),'The New Localism: Local politics in a global era', in Goetz, G.E. and Clarke, S.E. (eds) 'The New Localism: Comparative urban politics in a global era', Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
    • 4. Rhodes, R. (1997),'Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability', Open University Press, Buckingham.
    • 5. Geddes, M. (2006),'Partnership and the limits to local governance in England: Institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism', International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 76-97.
    • 6. Lawless, P. (2011),'Big Society and community: Lessons from the 1998-2011 New Deal for Communities Programme in England', People, Place and Policy Online,Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 55-64.
    • 7. Imrie, R and Raco, M. (2003),'Community and the changing nature of urban policy', in Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (eds) 'Urban renaissance? New Labour, community and urban policy',The Policy Press, Bristol.
    • 8. Martin, S. (2002),'The modernisation of UK local government: Markets, managers, monitors, and mixed fortunes', Public Management Review,Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 291-307.
    • 9. Lyons, M. (2007),'Place-shaping: A shared ambition for the future of local government', HMSO, London.
    • 10. Stoker, G. (2004),'Transforming local governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour', Palgrave, Basingstoke.
    • 11. Stoker, G. (2007),'New localism, participation and networked community governance', University of Manchester/ Institute for Political and Economic Governance, Manchester.
    • 12. Smith, I., Lepine, E. and Taylor, M. (eds) (2007), 'Disadvantaged by where you live? Neighbourhood governance in contemporary urban policy',The Policy Press, Bristol.
    • 13. HM Government (2011),'The Localism Act', HMSO, London.
    • 14. Bartels, K., Cozzi, G. and Mantovan, N. (2011),'Public spending and volunteering: “The big society”, crowding out, and volunteering capital', available at http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/29730/1/MPRA_paper_29730.pdf, last accessed on 9th June, 2013.
    • 15. Lodge, G. and Muir, R. (2010),'Localism under New Labour', The Political Quarterly,Vol. 81, No. s1, s96-s107.
    • 16. Davies, J. S. (2008),'Double devolution or double dealing? The local government White Paper and the Lyons Review', Local Government Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 3-22.
    • 17. Lowndes,V. and Sullivan, H. (2008),'How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for neighbourhood governance', Public Administration, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 53-74.
    • 18. HM Government (2010),'The Localism Bill Executive Summary', HMSO, London.
    • 19. Brenner, N. (2004),'New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood', Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • 20. Cabinet Office (2010),'The Coalition: Our programme for government', Cabinet Office, London.
    • 21. Lowndes,V. and Pratchett, L. (2012), 'Local governance under the coalition government: Austerity, localism and the “Big Society”', Local Government Studies,Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 21-40.
    • 22. Pill, M. C. and Bailey, N. (2013),'Community empowerment or a strategy of containment? Evaluating neighbourhood governance in the City of Westminster', Local Government Studies,Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 731-751.
    • 23. SQW Consulting (2008),'Neighbourhood management pathfinders: Final evaluation report', Communities and Local Government, London.
    • 24. Bristol City Council (2011),'Neighbourhood vanguard scheme submission document', City of Bristol, Bristol.
    • 25. Westminster City Council (2011),'Westminster community governance review: Public consultation', City of Westminster,Westminster.
    • 26. Department for Communities and Local Government (2010), 'Guidance on community governance reviews', CLG, London.
    • 27. Westminster City Council (2012),'Westminster community governance review, Cabinet report, 16 April', City of Westminster,Westminster.
    • 28. ,Westminster City Council. (2012),'London's first parish council on its way, as Queen's Park residents cast vote', Press Release, 28th May, available at http://www.westminster.gov.uk/press-releases/ 2012-05/london-s-first-parish-council-on-its-way -as-quee/, last accessed on 12th November, 2012.
    • 29. Department for Communities and Local Government (2011),'14 areas get 2012 starter gun to “pool and save” billions', Press Release, 21st December, available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/ 2056442, last accessed on 12th November, 2012.
    • 30. Bristol City Council (2013), 'Neighbourhood planning in Bristol', available at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/neighbourhoodplanning-bristol, last accessed on 9th June, 2013.
    • 31. Westminster City Council. (2013),'Neighbourhood area designations, Cabinet Member Report, 26 March', City of Westminster, Westminster.
    • 32. Coaffee, J. (2005),'New localism and the management of regeneration', International Journal of Public Sector Management,Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 108-113.
    • 33. Conservative Party (2010),'Open source planning: The Conservative Planning Green Paper', Conservative Party, London.
    • 34. Gallent, N. and Robinson, S. (2012),'Neighbourhood planning: Communities, networks and governance', Policy Press, Bristol.
    • 35. Jones, G. and Stewart, J. (2011),'So much for the Centralism Bill's aims', available at http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method= news.detail&id=94381, last accessed on 9th June, 2013.
    • 36. Stoker, G. (2011),'Was local governance such a good idea? A global comparative perspective', Public Administration,Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 15-31.
    • 37. Griggs, S. and Roberts, M. (2012),'From neighbourhood governance to neighbourhood management: A 'roll-out' neo-liberal design for devolved governance in the United Kingdom?' Local Government Studies,Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 183-210.
    • 38. Woolcock, M. and Sweetser A.T. (2002),'Bright ideas: Social capital - the bonds that connect', Asian Development Bank Review,Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 26-27.
    • 39. Cabinet Office (2012),'Open public services 2012', Cabinet Office, London.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article