In England, there have been 40 years of area-based initiatives (ABIs) involving strategic national government intervention in local authority areas with significant regeneration needs. Whilst they have been examined individually, less consideration has been given to the layering and legacy of ABIs. Uncertainties include whether local authorities have institutionalised new ways of operating or whether layering complexities have acted as significant barriers. Focusing on Wolverhampton, in the West Midlands, this paper examines recent ABI experiences and discusses why support for City Challenge (1992–98) appeared stronger than the more recent New Deal for Communities programme (2001–11). Important ABI legacies include greater diversity of neighbourhood structures, anxiety towards ABIs where property markets are depressed and the realisation that, whilst partnership working has intensified, traditional exclusionary aspects remain. Achieving the most effective governance structures to facilitate urban regeneration remains an on-going challenge, including within emerging Coalition government policy frameworks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABCD (2006) The ABCD five year plan: 2006–2011. All Saints and Blakenhall Community Development, Wolverhampton.
2.
AtkinsonR. (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration, Urban Studies, 36(1), pp. 59–72.
3.
AtkinsonR.MoonG. (1994) The City Challenge initiative: an overview and preliminary assessment, Regional Studies, 28(1), pp. 94–97.
4.
BassettK. (1999) Growth coalitions in Britain’s waning sunbelt: some reflections, in: JonasA. E. G.WilsonD. (Eds) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later, pp. 175–193. New York: State University of New York Press.
5.
BastonL. (2000) Labour local government 1900–1999, in: BrivatiB.HeffernanR. (Eds) The Labour Party: A Centenary History, pp. 449–484. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
6.
BattyE.BeattyC.FodenM. (2010) The New Deal for Communities experience: a final assessment. The New Deal for Communities evaluation: final report—Vol. 7. Department of Communities and Local Government, London (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1488479.pdf).
7.
BCC (Black Country Consortium) (2005) Black Country study. BCC, Brierley Hill.
8.
Black Country LEP (2010) Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership: submission to government. BCC, Brierley Hill.
9.
CarleyM. (2000) Urban partnerships, governance and the regeneration of Britain’s cities, International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 273–297.
10.
ChattertonP.BradleyD. (2000) Bringing Britain together? The limitations of area-based regeneration policies in addressing deprivation, Local Economy, 15(2), pp. 98–111.
11.
CoaffeeJ. (2004) Re-scaling regeneration: experiences of merging area-based and city-wide partnerships in urban policy, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), pp. 443–461.
12.
CoaffeeJ.DeasI. (2008) The search for policy innovation in urban governance: lessons from community-led regeneration partnerships, Public Policy and Administration, 23, pp. 167–187.
13.
CoaffeeJ.HealeyP. (2003) ‘My voice: my place’: tracking transformations in urban governance, Urban Studies, 40(10), pp. 1979–1999.
14.
CochraneA. (1999) Just another failed urban experiment? The legacy of the Urban Development Corporations, in: ImrieR.ThomasH. (Eds) British Urban Policy, 2nd edn, pp. 246–257. London: Sage Publications.
15.
ColeA.JohnP. (2001) Local Governance in England and France. London: Routledge.
16.
CoulsonA. (2005) Partnership overload in north west Birmingham, Public Policy and Administration, 20, pp. 90–105.
17.
CowellR.MartinS. (2003) The joy of joining up: modes of integrating the local government modernisation agenda, Environment and Planning C, 21, pp. 159–179.
18.
DabinettG.LawlessP.RhodesJ.TylerP. (2001) A review of the evidence base for regeneration policy and practice. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
19.
DaviesJ. (2002) The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis, Public Administration, 80(2), pp. 301–322.
20.
DavoudiS. (1995) City Challenge: the three-way partnership, Planning Practice and Research, 10(3/4), pp. 333–344.
21.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2008) Transforming places, changing lives: a framework for regeneration. DCLG, London.
22.
DCLG (2009) London 2012 Olympic Games: scoping the analytical and legacy issues for communities and local government. DCLG, London.
23.
DeakinN.EdwardsJ. (1993) The Enterprise Culture and the Inner City. London: Routledge.
DETR (2000a) City Challenge: final national evaluation. DETR, London.
26.
DETR (2000b) Our towns and cities: the future. DETR, London.
27.
DinhamA. (2005) Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK’s New Deal for Communities, Community Development Journal, 40(3), pp. 301–312.
28.
DTLR (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) (2002) Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation from ten Single Regeneration Budget case studies. DTLR, London.
29.
EdwardsJ. (1997) Urban policy: the victory of form over substance, Urban Studies, 34, pp. 825–843.
30.
EvansJ.JonesP. (2008) Rethinking sustainable urban regeneration: ambiguity, creativity, and the shared territory, Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 141–1434.
31.
Express and Star (Wolverhampton) (2010a) Jury still out on new deal, 20March.
32.
Express and Star (Wolverhampton) (2010b) AWM offering 326 staff voluntary redundancy, 22July.
33.
Express and Star (Wolverhampton) (2011) Wolverhampton businesses fight back against council policies, 24February.
34.
FlorioS.EdwardsM. (2001) Urban regeneration in Stratford, London, Planning Practice and Research, 16(2), pp. 101–120.
35.
FordhamG.HutchinsonJ.FoleyP. (1999) Strategic approaches to local regeneration: Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, Regional Studies, 33(2), pp. 131–141.
36.
GHK (2008) Wolverhampton economic assessment study: final report. GHK, Birmingham.
37.
GoodwinM. (2004) The scaling of ‘urban’ policy: neighbourhood, city or region?, in: JohnstoneC.WhiteheadM. (Eds) New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance, pp. 173–183. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
38.
GoodwinM.PainterJ. (1996) Local governance, the crises of Fordism and the changing geographies of regulation, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, pp. 635–648.
39.
GyfordJ. (1985) The Politics of Local Socialism. London: George Allen and Unwin.
40.
HardingA.Wilks-HeegS.HutchinsM. (2000) Business, government and the business of urban governance, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 975–994.
HealeyP. (2004) Creativity and urban governance, Policy Studies, 25(2), pp. 87–102.
43.
HealeyP.CarsG.MadanipourA.MagalhãesC. de (2002) Transforming governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity, in: CarsG.HealeyP.MadanipourA.MagalhãesC. de (Eds) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux, pp. 6–28. Aldershot: Ashgate.
44.
HemphillL.McGrealS.BerryJ.WatsonS. (2006) Leadership, power and multisector urban regeneration partnerships, Urban Studies, 43(1), pp. 59–80.
45.
HendersonS. (2011) City centre retail development in England: land assembly and business experiences of area change processes, Geoforum, DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.04.00910.1016/j.geoforum.2011.04.009.
46.
HendersonS.BowlbyS.RacoM. (2007) Refashioning local government and inner-city regeneration: the Salford experience, Urban Studies, 44(8), pp. 1441–1463.
47.
HM Government (2010) The coalition: our programme for action. London.
ImrieR.RacoM. (1999) How new is the new local governance? Lessons from the United Kingdom, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, pp. 45–63.
50.
ImrieR.RacoM. (2003) Community and the changing nature of urban policy, in: ImrieR.RacoM. (Eds) New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 3–35. Bristol: The Policy Press.
51.
JonesJ. (1974) Patterns of Industry Explained. London: Wayland Publishers.
52.
JonesP.EvansJ. (2006) Urban regeneration, governance and the state: exploring notions of distance and proximity, Urban Studies, 43(9), pp. 1491–1509.
KearnsA.PaddisonR. (2000) New challenges for urban governance, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 845–850.
55.
LawlessP. (2006) Area-based urban interventions: rationale and outcomes: the New Deal for Communities programme in England, Urban Studies, 43(11), pp. 1991–2011.
56.
MaceA.HallP.GallentN. (2007) New east Manchester: urban renaissance or urban opportunism?, European Planning Studies, 15(1), pp. 51–65.
57.
MarrsC. (2010) What makes NDC work?, Regeneration & Renewal, 8March, pp. 21–21.
58.
NevinB. (1993) Developer-led land use strategies: the Black Country Development Corporation, in: ImrieR.ThomasH. (Eds) British Urban Policy and the Urban Development Corporations, pp. 104–122. London: Paul Chapman.
59.
NevinB. (1996) Renewing the Black Country: an assessment of the employment impact of the Black Country UDC, Local Economy, November, pp. 239–254.
60.
OatleyN. (2000) New Labour’s approach to age-old problems, Local Economy, 15(2), pp. 86–97.
61.
OatleyN.LambertC. (1998) Catalyst for change: the City Challenge initiative, in: OatleyN. (Ed.) Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy, pp. 109–126. London: Paul Chapman.
62.
PainterC.ClarenceE. (2001) UK local action zones and changing urban governance, Urban Studies, 38(8), pp. 1215–1232.
63.
PorterM. E. (1995) The competitive advantage of the inner city, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 55–71.
64.
QuilleyS. (2002) Manchester first: from municipal socialism to the entrepreneurial city, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(3), pp. 601–625.
65.
RacoM. (2003) Community and the changing nature of urban policy, in: ImrieR.RacoM. (Eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 235–250. Bristol: The Policy Press.
66.
RhodesJ.TylerP.BrennanA. (2005) Assessing the effect of area based initiatives on local area outcomes: some thoughts based on the national evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget in England, Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 1919–1946.
67.
RhodesJ.TylerP.BrennanA. (2007) The Single Regeneration Budget: final evaluation. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.
68.
RhodesR. A. W. (1981) Control and Power in Central–Local Government Relations. Aldershot: Gower.
69.
RobsonB. (1999) Vision and reality: urban social policy, in: CullingworthB. (Ed.) British Planning: 50 years of Urban and Regional Policy, pp. 68–183. New Brunswick, NJ: The Athlone Press.
70.
RobsonB.BradfordM.DeasI. (1994) Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy. London: HMSO.
71.
SearleG. (2002) Uncertain legacy: Sydney’s Olympic stadiums, European Planning Studies, 10(7), pp. 845–860.
72.
SkidmoreP. (2003) The Civic Heraldry of the Black Country. Kingswinford: Black Country Society.
73.
SmithA.FoxT. (2007) From ‘event-led’ to ‘event-themed’ regeneration: the 2002 Commonwealth Games legacy programme, Urban Studies, 44(5/6), pp. 1125–1143.
74.
StewartM. (2003) Towards collaborative capacity, in: BoddyM. (Ed.) Urban Transformation and Urban Governance, pp. 76–89. Bristol: The Policy Press.
75.
TaussikJ.SmalleyJ. (1998) Partnerships in the 1990s: Derby’s successful City Challenge bid, Planning, Practice and Research, 13(3), pp. 283–297.
76.
VigarG.GrahamS.HealeyP. (2005) In search of the city in strategies: past legacies, future imaginings, Urban Studies, 42(8), pp. 1391–1410.
77.
WainrightD. (2011) City branded a joke over derelict sites, Express and Star (Wolverhampton), 8April, p. 10.
78.
WallaceA. (2007) ‘We have had nothing for so long that we don’t know what to ask for’: New Deal for Communities and the regeneration of socially excluded terrain, Social Policy and Society, 6(1), pp. 1–12.
79.
WardK.JonasA. E. G. (2004) Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a critical re-interpretation of the new regionalism, Environment and Planning A, pp. 2119–2139.
80.
WCC (Wolverhampton City Council) (2005) ABCD New Deal for Communities: overview and scrutiny in Wolverhampton. WCC.
81.
WhileA.JonasA. E. G.GibbsD. (2004) The environment and the entrepreneurial city: searching for the ‘urban sustainability fix’ in Manchester and Leeds, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), pp. 549–569.
82.
WhiteheadM. (2003) ‘In the shadow of hierarchy’: meta-governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the west Midlands, Area, 35, pp. 6–14.
83.
Wilks-HeegS. (1996) Urban experiments limited revisited: urban policy comes full circle?, Urban Studies, 33(8), pp. 1263–1279.
84.
WilsonD. (2003) Unravelling control freakery: redefining central–local government relations, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(3), pp. 317–346.
