Regeneration

As long term readers of this blog, or my Amazon Reviews, under the impenetrable nom de plume of tallmanbaby, may be aware, I have some interest in regeneration. By this I mean the actions by government (UK in my case) to seek to intervene through aid, or other measures, to address persistent relative (or in some cases absolute) poverty in a discrete geographically determined area.

I have read
Urban Regeneration in the UK by Andrew Tallon, and I am currently reading
After Urban Regeneration edited by David O’Brien and Peter Matthews

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Urban-Regeneration-UK-Andrew-Tallon/dp/0415685036/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498537398&sr=1-18&keywords=regeneration

https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Urban-Regeneration-Communities-Connected/dp/1447324161/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=H0YPJEHBVCZ06HBZKSQJ

There are many interesting features to regeneration policy, for one thing it is explicitly treated as a policy with some sort of implicit goals and some sort of academic underpinning and assessment. Having said that, another interesting thing about regeneration is that despite the good intentions, and the academic input, there is not really much evidence that it has ever worked. Anyone outside London (and perhaps) a few other very rare areas, will be well aware that the areas of town that were run down and rough when they were children, will tend to still be run down and rough half a lifetime later. Persistent poverty and relative deprivation are things that tend to persist.

Having said that, just because it is difficult to firmly demonstrate that compassion yields tangible results, does not mean that we need be opposed to it.

An obvious dichotomy for thinking about regeneration is whether you are seeking to regenerate the physical structure, in which case you demolish old ugly buildings, and replace them with more modern and attractive ones. In which case you run the risk of gentrification, whereby the original inhabitants end up being displaced and replaced by adventurous middle class new entrants (I will leave off whether I agree with the term middle class for another day). Or are you seeking to ‘regenerate’ the actual inhabitants, in which case you could provide them with a community centre to increase social capital, community education to build skills and confidence, targeted support in accessing benefits, etc, in which case the more successful recipients of this targeted aid may simply up sticks and leave for a nicer area if they are successful in starting, or restarting a career.

Surely no one would disagree with the thought that the goals of regeneration are worthy, pockets of deprivation are clearly wrong, and it is clearly the role of government to tackle them. But there really seems little agreement, and little evidential basis for anything beyond that. Having said that in the UK active regeneration attempts seem to have been largely curtailed and funding has largely dried up.

I am concerned, hence my reason for writing this piece, that despite the money and academic effort that has gone into regeneration, the thinking has been unduly limited and constrained. Ideally you do not approach a policy problem with only one tool in your toolbox. If you only have a hammer then every problem will look like a nail.

I am therefore seeking to ask some questions about regeneration and the areas in need of regeneration, in the hope that they might prompt some fresh thinking

- why should we seek to regenerate at all, as our intentions will inform our actions and our measures of success.
- do pockets of persistent deprivation actually exist, are they genuinely different from adjoining areas in terms of objective measures, or are they just a lazy construct based on existing administrative area definitions
- do pockets of deprivation exist because of some intrinsic property of the area and infrastructure,
or because of some intrinsic property of those that live there,
or is there some magic recipe whereby different factors multiply the ill effects such that x and y provide a far worse outcome than simply the total of x and y.

In fairness this could be an artefact of the way we look at things. Hypothetically assume that there are ten variables that are actually impactful, and we only measure two of these. When we look at these two variables and they are both present there can be disproportionately bad outcomes. This could be because we have not taken into account other variables which are also associated and relevant, but have simply not been measured. Deprivation is frequently associated with disproportionately bad life outcomes, but this could be because deprivation is easier to measure, other unmeasured factors might actually be the determining ones.

- are pockets of deprivation of a long term nature, or purely temporary phenomena
- how resistant to change are areas of persistent deprivation
- is there demonstrable evidence that the interventions used to tackle deprivation have ever worked in any context
- are areas of deprivation a feature of our society, there will always be someone who come last in a sprint, no matter how good the athletes are, suggesting that the humane policy is to ameliorate conditions, and remove barriers to exit, but not to expect much much more
- if we are looking to work with communities then do positive and benificial communities actually exist in that sense. Is a demonstrably strong community associated (in terms of real correlation and not occasional anecdotal correlation) with better outcomes. I know that Robert Putnam has written on this (Bowling Alone) but this could well be another sacred cow. By way of example, small villages can have a strong sense of community, but then they can often be pretty toxic places to live, with feuds and animosity playing out over generations and little genuine pressure on strong individuals to temper unacceptable conduct. Very prosperous suburbs can be economic powerhouses in the statistics, but with no sense of community at all. You do not join a gated community for the social life. Perhaps the relationship between economic performance and social capital runs the other way, economic performance is strong where social life is poor. Perhaps there are various possible models, and no straightforward relationship exists.
- by seeking to build social capital, is there any evidence that some people will give a hand up to those less fortunate than themselves. I suppose that an influx of middle class professionals might lead to some new members on the local committees, they might lead by example, encouraging aspiration, but could such modest changes be expected to have a measurable impact.
- what do those in deprived areas actually want ? Do they want to see the area gentrified so they cannot afford a house, probably not. Do they want to become more middle class and shop at Waitress, probably not. If they are not currently working, do they want to work, or is that simply not an option for some reason.
- are we seeking to regenerate because we are seeking to meet the needs of an area that we have arbitrarily determined, or are we seeking to regenerate because our eye is offended at the sight of a run down area.
- in policy terms would it be better to have extreme deprivation spread about so that it is less obvious, or should we ensure that it is all in the same place so it is more easily addressed.
- is there actually far more extreme deprivation out with areas targeted for regeneration and if so, why are we ignoring it.
- are areas of extreme deprivation actually bad for inhabitants,
- are areas of extreme deprivation actually bad for society
- are areas of extreme deprivation actually good for inhabitants, they offer cheap and accessible housing that is readily accessible to even the most disadvantaged
- are areas of extreme deprivation actually good for society, they provide a visible reminder that our current society does not readily deliver the needs and aspirations of all its members

I have written this piece as a piece of pure speculation, taking an idea for a bit of a walk. I probably do not agree with most of the speculations I have made, I am really just seeking to see whether regeneration is actually a useful idea based on useful ideas. For the time being, I do suspect that regeneration is a lazy idea, a motherhood and apple pie notion, that is too often used to justify pork barrel politics, funding one area, inevitably at the cost of something else, without any proper understanding of the underlying issues or any real thought through goal.

If I see a beggar in the street I can give them money, I cannot change society to ensure that no one needs to beg on the street. However with regeneration we are not talking about me as an individual. With regeneration we are talking about the options and aspirations of government and the entire society. If we believe that areas of persistent deprivation demonstrate that something is not working in society, then should government not have as their aspiration to seek to create a society in which such persistent and obvious deprivation can no longer exist, with the eventual evaporation (or at least ameliorisation) of obvious areas of persistent deprivation being a welcome side effect of their eventual success across the piece.

Postscript - a late thought to add to this, it is worth considering the political dimension. Traditionally housing tenure has been quite politicised. With a ready assumption that council housing housed labour voters and private housing housed tory voters. On that basis a Labour administration at local authority or central level would be tempted to building more council houses to gain more voters in their area. In contrast a Tory administration at local authority or central level would be inclined to stop building council housing, allow right to buy, and see people priced out of areas. Looking at recent history in London it seems clear that there were not likely to be votes for Tory politicians coming from those in affordable housing, so a Tory administration might be less inclined to prioritise and support those people to stay in the council area. Having housing tenure politicised in this way is destructive and encourages the politics of tribalism, and difference, rather than competence and a vision for all.