This paper revisits the data collected for the mid-term evaluation of the six Housing Action Trusts (HATs) to throw light on the theory of change embodied in this neighbourhood regeneration model. The analysis employs Ostrom's theoretical framework to understand the role that HAT residents played in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods and how specific structuring mechanisms helped to bring about change. The similarities and differences that have surfaced between the HATs and the New Deal for Community partnerships at their mid-point are compared. The analysis concludes that formal structures to empower residents are insufficient on their own and that empowerment comes through specific customised training for employment, decision-making rights and a culture of commitment from skilled support staff.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, T. (1998) The new communitarianism: urban renewal and empowerment . Paper presented to the ENHR Conference, Cardiff, September.
2.
Andersen, H., Munck, R. ET AL. (1999) Neighbourhood Images in Liverpool. "It's All Down to the People". York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
3.
Bad Ham, B. (2004) Participation-for a change: disabled young people lead the way, Children & Society, 18, pp. 143-154.
4.
Bailey, N. (1999) Putting local communities at the heart of regeneration: the rhetoric and the reality. Paper presented at the Institutional Capacity, Social Capital and Urban Governance seminar, University of Newcastle, April.
5.
Chumrow, J. (1995) HATs: a possible role model?, Parliamentary Affairs, 48(2), pp. 254-270.
6.
Clapham, D. and Kintrea, K. (2000) Community-based housing organisations and the local governance debate, UrbanStudies, 15(4), pp. 533-559.
7.
Dargan, L. (2001) A NEW approach to regeneration ? Reflections on the new deal for communities in Newcastle. Discussion Paper No. 02/ 1, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
8.
Detr (Department Of Environment, Transport And The Regions) (2000a) Final evaluation of City Challenge . DETR, London.
9.
Detr (2000b) Transferable lessons in regeneration from the Housing Action Trusts. DETR, London.
10.
DoE (Department Of The Environment) (1991) Proposed Housing Action Trust in Waltham Forest. Tenants' Expectations Document, DOE, London.
11.
DoE (1994) Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy. Inner Cities Research Programme. London: HMSO.
12.
Evans, R. (1998) Tackling deprivation on social housing estates in England: an assessment of the Housing Plus approach, Housing Studies, 13(5), pp. 713-726.
13.
Evans, R. and Long, D. (2000) Estate-based regeneration in England: lessons from Housing Action Trusts, Housing Studies, 15, pp. 301-317.
14.
Flyvberg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
15.
Hall, P. (1997) Regeneration policies for peripheral housing estates: inward- and outward-looking approaches, UrbanStudies, 34, pp. 873-890.
16.
Hall, S. and Hickman, P. (2002) Neighbourhood renewal and urban policy: a comparison of new approaches in England and France, Regional Studies , 36(6), pp. 691-698.
17.
Harrison, M. (1998) Theorising exclusion and differencing specificity: structure and minority ethnic housing, Housing Studies, 13(6), pp. 793-806.
18.
Karn, V. (1993) Remodelling a HAT: the implementation of the Housing Action Trust legislation 1987-92, in: P. Malpass and R. Means (Eds) Implementing Housing Policy, pp. 74-90. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
19.
Kubisch, A.C., Anspos, P., Brown, P. ET AL. (2002) Voices from the Field II: Reflections on Comprehensive Community Change. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
20.
Liverpool Housing Action Trust (1995) Annual report 1994-1995. Liverpool: HAT .
21.
Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance, Public Administration , 76(2), pp. 313-334.
22.
Mawson, J. and Hall, S. (2000) Joining it up locally? Area regeneration and holistic government in England, Regional Studies, 34(1), pp. 67-79.
23.
Murie, A. and Musterd, S. (2004) Social exclusion and opportunity structures in European cities and neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 41(8), pp. 1441-1459.
NAO (2004a) An Early Progress Report on the New Deal for Communities Programme. London : The Stationery Office.
26.
NAO (2004b) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. London: The Stationery Office.
27.
Nru (Neighbourhood Renewal Unit) (2003) New Deal for Communities: the national evaluation. London , ODPM.
28.
O'Malley, L. (2004) Working in partnership for regeneration: the effect of organisational norms on community groups, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 841-857.
29.
Odpm (Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister) and Home Office (2005) Citizen engagement and public services: why neighbourhoods matter. London: ODPM, .
30.
Ostrom, E. (1986) A method of institutional analysis, in: F. X. Kaufmann, G. Majone and Ostrom, V. (Eds) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector, pp. 459-475. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter.
31.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Ostrom, E. and Ahn, T.K. (2003) Foundations of Social Capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
33.
Pearl, M. (1997) Social Housing Management: A Critical Appraisal of Housing Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
34.
Perrons, D. and Skyers, S. (2003) Empowerment through participation? Conceptual explorations and a case study, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), pp. 265-285.
35.
Power, A. (1996) Area-based poverty and resident empowerment, Urban Studies, 33(9), pp. 1535-1564.
36.
Purdue, D. (2005) Performance management for community empowerment networks, Public Money and Management, April, pp. 123-130.
37.
Robinson, F., Shaw, K. and Davidson, G. (2005) 'On the side of the angels': community involvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal, Local Economy , 20(1), pp. 13-16.
38.
Seu (Social Exclusion Unit) (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Cm 4045. London: HMSO.
39.
SEU (1999) Report of Policy Action Team 17: joining it up locally. London: Cabinet Office.
40.
SEU (2000) National strategy for neighbourhood renewal: a framework for consultation. London: Cabinet Office.
41.
Silburn, R., Lucas, D., Page, R. and Hanna, L. (1999) Neighbourhood Images in Nottingham: Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Change. York: York Publishing Services.
42.
Silverman, R.M. (2003) Progressive reform, gender and institutional structure: a critical analysis of citizen participation in Detroit's community development corporations, UrbanStudies, 40(13), pp. 2731-2750.
43.
Somerville, P. (2005) Community governance and democracy, Policy and Politics, 33(1), pp. 117-144.
44.
Stewart, M. and Taylor, M. (1995) Empowerment and Estate Regeneration: A Critical Review. Bristol: Policy Press.
Sullivan, H. (2001) Maximising the contribution of neighbourhoods: the role of community governance, Public Policy and Administration , 16(2), pp. 29-48.
47.
Taylor, M. (2000) Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Neighbourhood Management . York: Joseph Rowntree Trust.
48.
Taylor, M. (2003) Public Policy in the Community. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
49.
Tiesdell, S. (2000) The development and implementation of Housing Action Trust policy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham .
50.
Vigar, G., Healey, P., Hull, A.D. and Davoudi, S. (2000) Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain: An Institutionalist Analysis. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
51.
Young, O.R. (1995) The problem of scale in human/environment relationships , in: R. O. Keohane and E. Ostrom (Eds) Local Commons and Global Interdependence: Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Two Domains, pp. 27-45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
