In this paper I explore the scale of community economic development (CED) and the barriers impacting upon its evolution within an English region—Yorkshire and The Humber. CED has been widely perceived by a range of policymakers as one mechanism through which to moderate the scale of economic decline in more disadvantaged localities. A number of funding sources, and in particular European Structural Funds, have increasingly allocated resources to creating and sustaining CED projects. But evidence from this region points to a very limited population of community businesses which undertake trading activities. Moreover, the sector is bedevilled by a series of constraints including those revolving around finance and partnership working. A number of policy developments could enhance the status and sustainability of CED projects, including a more structured approach towards the funding and operation of intermediary agencies. Even then, CED is likely to prove only a marginal player in economic reconversion. The scale of market failure in ‘CED localities’ points to the need for a more interventionist and collective approach to regeneration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoddyM, 1999, “Geographical economics and urban competitiveness: A critique”Urban Studies36811–842.
2.
BorzelT A, 1998, “Organising Babylon: On the different conceptions of policy networks”Public Administration76253–273.
Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, “Bringing Britain together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal”, Cabinet Office, Cm 4045 (The Stationery Office, London).
5.
CarleyMKirkK, 1998Sustainable by 2020? A Strategic Approach to Urban Regeneration for British Cities (Policy Press, London).
6.
CheshireP, 1999, “Cities in Competition: Articulating the gains from integration”Urban Studies36843–864.
7.
ClarkeMStewartJ, 1998Community Governance, Community Leadership and the New Local GovernmentJoseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York, North Yorkshire YO30 6NP.
8.
Coalfields Task Force, 1998Making the Difference, A New Start for England's Coalfield CommunitiesCoalfields Task Force, established by the department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
9.
DETR, 1997Building Partnerships for Prosperity Cm 3814, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London).
10.
DETR, 1998a, “New deal for communities”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
11.
DETR, 1998b, “Single Regeneration Budget bidding guidance, a guide to partnerships”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
12.
DETR, 1998c, “Community based regeneration initiatives: A working paper”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
13.
DETR, 1998d, “Making the difference: A new start for England's coalfield communities: The Government's response to the Coalfields Task Force report”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
14.
DETR, 1999a, “A new deal for communities: Developing delivery plans”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
15.
DETR, 1999b, “Cross cutting issues affecting local government”, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
16.
DonovanMHarveyAThomasI, 1998Enabling Community EnterpriseLocal Government Management Board, 41 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8NT.
17.
DowdingK, 1995, “Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach”Political Studies43136–158.
18.
European Commission, 1993, “Growth, competitiveness and employment—the challenges andways forward into the 21st Century”, June 1993, Bulletin of the European Commission, Brussels.
19.
European Commission, 1996, “Social and economic inclusion through regional development. The community economic development priority in European Structural Funds Programmes in Great Britain” (The Lloyd Report), European Commission, Brussels.
20.
European Commission, 1997, “First report on local development and employment initiatives; lessons for territorial and local employment pacts”, European Commission, Luxembourg.
21.
GOYH, 1997, “Programme wide appraisal of the 1994 – 1996 Yorkshire and The Humber region Objective 2 Programme”, Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, City House, New Station Street, Leeds LS1 4US.
22.
GOYH, 1999, “Final evaluation of the Yorkshire and The Humber Objective 2 1994 – 1996 Programme”, Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber, City House, New Station Street, Leeds LS1 4US.
23.
HartleyJLawtonA, 1998Leading Communities: Competencies for Effective Community LeadershipLocal Government Management Board, 41 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8NT.
24.
HaytonK, 1998, “Using construction projects to create jobs and training opportunities—the City Challenge experience”Town Planning Review69115–134.
25.
Heeley Development Trust, 1999, Annual Report, Heeley Development Trust, Prospect Road, Sheffield.
26.
HutchinsonJ, 1994“The practice of partnership in local economic development”Local Government Studies20335–344.
27.
KrugmanP, 1995Development, Geography and Economic Theory (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
LeatD, 1992Grant-giving: A Guide to Policy-makingJoseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York, North Yorkshire YO30 6WP.
30.
LGA, 1998Realising the Potential in Urban AreasLocal Government Association, Local Government House, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ.
31.
LloydPRamsdenP, 1998Local Enterprises in Enterprising Communities: Area Based Employment Initiatives in the UKEnterprise plc, Lancashire House, 42 rue Breydel, 1040 Brussels.
32.
LowndesVSkelcherC, 1998, “The dynamics of multi-organisational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance”Public Administration76313–333.
33.
McArthurA, 1995, “Innovative approaches to neighbourhood regeneration by housing associations in England”Planning, Practice and Research10317–331.
34.
McArthurAMcGregorAHastingsA, 1996Less than Equal? Community Organisations and Estate Regeneration Partnerships (Policy Press in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol).
35.
McGregorAFergusonZFitzpatrickIMcConnachieMRichmondK, 1997Bridging the Jobs Gap: An Evaluation of the Wise Group and the Intermediate Labour MarketJoseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol.
36.
MayoEFisherTConatyPDolingJMullineuxA, 1998Small is Bankable: Community Reinvestment in the UKJoseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York, North Yorkshire YO30 6WP.
37.
MurtaghB, 1999, “Listening to communities: Locality research and planning”Urban Studies361181–1193.
38.
NCVO, 1996Further to Go; An Assessment of the 1996/7 Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund Approvals and their Impact on Voluntary and Community OrganisationsNational Council for Voluntary Organisations, Regents Wharf, 8 All Saints Street, London N1 9RL.
39.
PlummerJZipfelT, 1998Regeneration and Employment. A New Agenda for TECs, Communities and Partnerships (Policy Press, London).
40.
RacoM, 1999, “Competition, collaboration and the new industrial districts; examining the institutional turn in local economic development”Urban Studies36951–968.
41.
Sheffield Hallam University, 2000“A strategy for CED in Yorkshire and The Humber: A report for Government Office, Yorkshire and The Humber”, The Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Sheffield S1 1WB.
42.
ShuttJCanbellMHaughtonG, 1998, “Yorkshire and The Humber: State of the region. A report for Yorkshire and The Humber Development Agency”, European Regional Business and Economic Development Unit, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metroplitan University, Leeds.
43.
SkelcherCMcCabeALowndesVNantonP, 1996Community Networks in Urban Regeneration (Policy Press in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol).
44.
SkinnerS, 1997Building Community StrengthsCommunity Development Foundation Publications, 60 Highbury Grove, London N5 2AG.
45.
StillwellJ, 1999, “The government's response to the Coalfields Task Force report: An assessment”The Regional Review9(1) 18–19.
46.
TalenE, 1999, “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism”Urban Studies361361–1379.
47.
TurokI, 1999, “Urban labour markets: The causes and consequences of change”Urban Studies36893–915.
48.
WardMWatsonS, 1997, “Here to stay: A public policy framework for community based regeneration”, Development Trusts Association, 20 Conduit Place, London W2 1HS.
49.
WilliamsC CWindebankJ, 2000“Self-help and mutual aid in deprived neighbourhoods: Some lessons from Southampton”Urban Studies37127–147.
50.
WorpoleKGreenhalghL, 1999The Richness of Cities, Urban Policy in a New Landscape (Comedia and Demos, London).
