For many years, United Kingdom governments have instigated urban regeneration schemes. The 1998–2011 New Deal for Communities Programme was designed to change 39 deprived English areas, with regard to place-based, and people-based outcomes. Change data for all NDC areas from a common base-line can be used to establish relative rates of change across these neighbourhoods. Three sets of factors might help to explain why some areas saw more change than others: NDC Partnership-level activities; characteristics of NDC areas; and the wider local authority context. Results suggest that little change can be attributed to the characteristics or activities of NDC Partnerships themselves. This raises questions relating to the ability of regeneration schemes to instigate positive change, the limited nature of people-based change, the perverse role of educational spend and differential change across clusters of deprived areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsR. (2008) Civic engagement, ethnic heterogeneity and social capital in urban areas: evidence from England, Urban Affairs Review, 44(3), pp. 428–440.
2.
AtkinsonR. (2002) Area effects: what they mean for British housing and regeneration policy, European Journal of Housing Policy, 2, pp. 147–166.
3.
AtkinsonR.MoonG. (1994) Urban Policy in Britain: The City, The State and the Market. London: Macmillan.
4.
BallM.MaginnP. J. (2004) The contradictions of urban policy: the case of the Single Regeneration Budget in London, Environment and Planning C, 22, pp. 739–765.
5.
BaumS.ArthursonK.RicksonK. (2010) Happy people in mixed-up places: the association between the degree and type of local socioeconomic mix and expressions of neighbourhood satisfaction, Urban Studies, 47(3), pp. 467–485.
6.
BuckN. (2001) Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2251–2275.
7.
CarpenterJ. (2006) Addressing Europe’s urban challenges: lessons from the EU URBAN community initiative, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 2145–2162.
8.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2008) New Deal for Communities: a synthesis of new programme wide evidence: 2006–07. Research Report No. 39, DCLG, London.
9.
DCLG (2009a) The 2008 partnership survey evidence from the New Deal for Communities programme. DCLG, London.
10.
DCLG (2009b) Four years of change? Understanding the experiences of the 2002–2006 New Deal for Communities panel. DCLG, London.
11.
DCLG (2010a) The New Deal for Communities experience: a final assessment: The New Deal for Communities national evaluation: final reportVol. 7. DCLG, London.
12.
DCLG (2010b) The New Deal for Communities Programme: assessing impact and value for moneyVol. 6. DCLG, London.
13.
DCLG (2010c) What works in neighbourhood-level regeneration? The views of key stakeholders in the New Deal for Communities Programme. DCLG, London.
14.
DCLG (2010d) Assessing neighbourhood level regeneration and expenditure: findings from the Bradford New Deal for Communities area. DCLG, London.
15.
DCLG (2010e) Improving attainment? Interventions in education by the New Deal for Communities Programme. DCLG, London.
16.
DCLG (2010f) Tenure and change in deprived areas: evidence from the NDC areas. DCLG, London.
17.
DCLG (2010g) Exploring and explaining change in regeneration schemes: evidence from the New Deal for Communities programme: The New Deal for Communities national evaluation: final reportVol. 5. DCLG, London.
18.
DCLG (2011) Regeneration to enable growth: what government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. DCLG, London.
19.
DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998) New Deal for Communities: phase 1 proposals: guidance for pathfinder applicants. DETR, London.
20.
DETR (2001) New Deal for Communities financial guidance. DETR, London.
21.
DoE (Department of the Environment) (1994) Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy. London: HMSO.
22.
FahmyE.GordonD.DorlingD.RigbyJ.WheelerB. (2011) Poverty and place in Britain, 1968–99, Environment and Planning A, 43, pp. 594–617.
23.
FeitjtenP.HammM. van (2009) Neighbourhood change … reason to leave?, Urban Studies, 46(10), pp. 2103–2122.
24.
FodenM.GrimsleyM.LawlessP.WilsonI. (2010) Linking interventions to outcomes in area regeneration: the New Deal for Communities programme in England, Town Planning Review, 81(2), pp. 151–171.
25.
GalsterG. C. (1990) White flight from integrated neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 27, pp. 385–399.
26.
GreasleyS.JohnP.WolmanH. (2011) Does government performance matter? The effects of local government on urban outcomes in England, Urban Studies, 48, pp. 1835–1851.
27.
GripaiosP. (2002) The failure of regeneration policy in Britain, Regional Studies, 36, pp. 568–577.
28.
HamedingerA.BartikH.WolffhardtA. (2008) The impact of EU area-based programmes on local governance: towards a ‘Europeanisation’?, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 2669–2687.
29.
HarrisA.GoodallJ. (2007) Engaging parents in raising achievement: do parents know they matter?Department of Children, Schools and Families, London.
30.
HaysR. A. (2009) The evolution of citizenship in a divided urban community: local citizen engagement in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Urban Affairs Review, 45(3), pp. 336–376.
31.
HippJ. (2010) What is the ‘neighbourhood’ in neighbourhood satisfaction? Comparing the effects of structural characteristics measured at the micro-neighbourhood and tract levels, Urban Studies, 47(12), pp. 2517–2536.
32.
House of Commons (2011) Regeneration, Communities and Local Government Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010–12. HC 1014London: The Stationery Office.
33.
KearnsA.ParkinsonM. (2001) The significance of neighbourhood, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2103–2110.
34.
KintreaK. (2007) Policies and programmes for disadvantaged neighbourhoods: recent English experience, Housing Studies, 22, pp. 261–282.
35.
LoopmansM. (2010) Threatened or empowered? The impact of neighbourhood context on community involvement in Antwerp, Belgium Urban Affairs Review, 45(6), pp. 797–820.
36.
LuptonR.PowerA. (2004) What we know about neighbourhood change: a literature review. CASE Report No. 27, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science.
37.
McCullochA. (2001) Ward-level deprivation and individual social and economic outcomes in the British Household Panel Study, Environment and Planning A, 33, pp. 667–684.
38.
NevinB. (2010) Housing market renewal in Liverpool: locating the gentrification debate in history, context, and evidence, Housing Studies, 25, pp. 715–733.
39.
NobleM.WrightG.DibbenC.SmithG.. (2004) The English Indices of Deprivation 2004. Office of Deputy Prime Minister, London.
40.
NobleM.WrightG.SmithG.DibbenC. (2006) Measuring multiple-deprivation at the small-area level, Environment and Planning A, 38, pp. 169–185.
41.
OakleyD.TsaoH. S. (2006) A new way of revitalizing distressed urban communities? Assessing the impact of the federal Empowerment Zone program, Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, pp. 443–471.
42.
QuerciaR. G.GalsterG. C. (2000) Threshold effects and neighbourhood change, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 146–162.
43.
RhodesJ.TylerP.BrennanA. (2005) Assessing the effects 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, pp. 1919–1946.
44.
RobinsonD. (2010) The neighbourhood effects of new immigration, Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 2451–2466.
45.
RobsonB.LymperopoulouK.RaeA. (2008) People on the move: exploring the functional roles of deprived neighbourhoods, Environment and planning A, 40, pp. 2693–2714.
46.
SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (1998) Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. SEU, London.
47.
ShawK.RobinsonE. (2010) UK urban regeneration policies in the early twenty-first century: continuity or change?, Town Planning Review, 81, pp. 123–149.
48.
SykesB.MustardS. (2011) Examining neighbourhood and school effects simultaneously: what does the Dutch evidence show?, Urban Studies, 48(7), pp. 1307–1331.
