This paper draws on theories of new institutionalism to examine the consequences of partnership working for the community sector. Three normative practices which are associated with partnership working—representativeness; consensus-based decisionmaking; and bureaucratic styles of working—are examined in relation to the experiences of two UK case-study localities in receipt of Single Regeneration Budget funding. The findings reflect a complex interaction between acceptance and noncompliance with these norms by community organisations which leads to a variety of outcomes for individual community representatives and for relations between community groups and regeneration partnership boards. In conclusion, it is argued that protecting the independence of local organisations can allow for opposition to partnership-based decisions but that this risks undermining holistic or strategic approaches to social problems. The actions of some community organisations in these two localities suggests that, although some aspects of partnership working are increasingly institutionalised within community sectors, organisations remain alert to opportunities to subvert these norms to further their own aspirations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastacioJGidleyBHartLKeithMMayoMKowarzikU, 2000Reflecting Realities: Participants Perspectives on Integrated Communities and Sustainable Development (Policy Press, Bristol).
2.
AtkinsonRCopeS, 1997, “Community participation and urban regeneration in Britain”, in Contested Communities: Experiences, Struggles, Policies Ed. HoggettP (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 201–221.
3.
BallochSTaylorM, 2001Partnership Working: Policy and Practice (Policy Press, Bristol).
4.
BewleyCGlendinningC, 1994Involving Disabled People in Community Care Planning (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
5.
BielefeldW, 1992, “Non-profit-funding environment relations: Theory and application”Volunta348–70.
6.
CastellsM, 1978City, Class and Power (Macmillan, London).
7.
CastellsM, 1983The City and the Grass-roots: A Cross Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements (Edward Arnold, London).
8.
ChananG, 1991Taken for Granted: Community Activity and the Crisis of the Voluntary SectorCommunity Development Foundation, 60 Highbury Grove, London N5 2AG.
9.
ChananG, 1992Out of the Shadows: Local Community Action and the European CommunityEuropean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18.
10.
ChananG, 1999Regeneration and Sustainable CommunitiesCommunity Development Foundation, 60 Highbury Grove, London N5 2AG.
11.
ChananG, 2002, “Community involvement: the roots of renaissance?”, Urban Research Summary 5Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
12.
ClarkeG, 1995A Missed Opportunity—An Initial Assessment of the 1995 Single Regeneration Budget Approvals and Their Impact on Voluntary and Community Organisations in BritainThe National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Regent's Wharf, 8 All Saints Street, London N1 9RL.
13.
CochraneA, 1986, “Community politics and democracy”, in New Forms of Democracy Eds HeldDPollittC (Sage, London) pp 51–77.
14.
DavoudiS, 1995, “Dilemmas of urban governance”, in Managing Cities: The New Urban Context Ed. HealeyP (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 225–230.
15.
DavoudiSHealeyP, 1995, “City Challenge: Sustainable process of temporary gesture?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1379–95.
16.
DiMaggioPPowellW, 1991, “Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality”, in The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis Eds PowellWDiMaggioP (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL) pp 63–82.
17.
DugganCRonayneT, 1991Working Partners: The State and the Community SectorWork Research Centre, 1 Greenlea Drive, Dublin 6W.
18.
DuncanPThomasS, 2000Neighbourhood Regeneration: Resourcing Community Involvement (Policy Press, Bristol).
19.
EmmanuelD, 1993Strengthening Citizen Action in Local Communities: Report of a ConferenceEuropean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18.
20.
GeddesM, 1997Partnership Against Poverty and Exclusion? Local Regeneration Strategies and Excluded Communities in the UK (Policy Press, Bristol).
21.
HastingsAMcArthurAMcGregorA, 1996Less than Equal? Community Organisations and Estate Regeneration Partnerships (Policy Press, Bristol).
22.
Kumar, 1997Accountability Relationships Between Voluntary Sector Providers, Local Government Purchasers and Service Users in the Contracting State (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
23.
LowndesV, 1996, “Varieties of new institutionalism : A Critical appraisal”Public Administration74181–197.
24.
McArthurA, 1995, “The active involvement of local residents in strategic community partnerships”Policy and Politics2361–71.
25.
MayerM, 1995, “Urban governance in the Post-Fordist city”, in Managing Cities: The New Urban Context Ed. HealeyP (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 231–249.
26.
MayoM, 1980, “Beyond CDP: Reaction and community action”, in Radical Social Work and Practice Eds BrakeMBaileyR (Edward Arnold, London) pp 182–196.
27.
O'MalleyL, 2000The Role of Community Groups in Area Based Regeneration Policyunpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, York.
28.
PacioneM, 1992,“Citizenship, partnership and the popular restructuring of urban space”Urban Geography13405–421.
29.
PhillipsA, 1995The Politics of Presence (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
30.
PrattJGordonPPlampingD, 1998Working Whole Systems: Putting Theory into Practice in Organisations (King's Fund, London).
31.
PurdueDRazzaqueKHambletonRStewartM, 2000Community Leadership in Area Regeneration (Policy Press, Bristol).
32.
ReitanT, 1998, “Theories of interorganisational relations in the human services”Social Service Review72285–309.
33.
SelznickP, 1996, “Institutionalism old and new”Administrative Science Quarterly41270–277.
34.
SkelcherCMcCabeALowndesVNantonP, 1996Community Networks in Urban Regeneration: It All Depends on Who you Know (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
35.
TaylorM, 1995Unleashing the Potential: Bringing Residents to the Centre of Regeneration (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
36.
TaylorM, 1997The Best of Both Worlds: The Voluntary Sector and Local Government (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
TaylorM, 2000b, “Communities in the lead: Power, organisational capacity and social capital”Urban Studies371019–1035.
39.
WillmottP, 1989Community Initiatives: Patterns and Prospects (Policy Studies Institute, London).
40.
WilsonACharltonK, 1997Making Partnerships Work: A Practical Guide for the Public, Private and Voluntary and Community Sectors (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
