During the 1980s and the 1990s there were a number of policy initiatives designed to tackle the problems of the urban areas in the UK. By the early 1990s these initiatives represented the commitment of over £1 billion of public expenditure each year. The initiatives encompassed 'area'-based approaches like Enterprise Zones and Urban Development Corporations at one extreme through to more 'people'-orientated, project-led approaches as in the case of the Task Force Initiative. In 1994 the organisation of local-area regeneration policy was changed radically. Some 20 independently operated regeneration programmes were brought together into a Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) to be run by a single government department. A critical feature of the SRB approach to urban regeneration is its competitive nature whereby local partnerships bid for funds from government. Whatever the merits of such an approach in terms of local involvement and value for money turn out to be, there could be drawbacks from a competitive system since there is no automatic presumption that the allocation of regeneration resources will reflect the distribution of deprivation and thus the relative needs of local areas across England. The aim of the research has been to assess how well the allocation of regeneration funds under a competitive approach has, in practice, gone to meet relative needs and what the implications are for the evolution of local-area regeneration initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brennan, A., Rhodes, J. and Tyler, P. (1998a) Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Challenge Fund Budget: A Partnership for Regeneration—An Interim Evaluation. London: Department of Environment Transport and the Regions.
2.
Brennan, A., Rhodes, J. and Tyler, P. (1998b) New findings on the nature of economic and social exclusion in England and the implications for new policy initiatives. Discussion Paper 101, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.
3.
Cochrane, A., Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1996) Manchester plays games: exploring the local politics of globalisation. Urban Studies, 33, pp.1319-1336.
4.
Department Of The Environment (1997) Annual Report 1997, The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997-98 to 1999-2000. London: The Stationery Office.
5.
Department Of The Environment, Transport and The Regions ( 1997) Building Partnerships for Prosperity: Sustainable Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the English Regions. London: HMSO.
6.
Department Of The Environment, Transport and The Regions (1998) New Deal for Communities. London : Department of Environment, Trade and the Regions .
7.
Mawson, J., Beazley, M., Burfitt, A. ET AL. (1995) Single Regeneration Budget: The Stock-take . School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham.
8.
Pa Cambridge Economic Consultants (1991) An Evaluation of the Government's Inner City Task Force. Department of Trade and Industry. London: HMSO.
9.
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. London: The Stationery Office.
10.
University Of Manchester (1994) Index of Local Conditions: An Analysis Based on 1991 Census Data. London: Department of the Environment.
11.
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne and University Of Manchester (1995) 1991Deprivation Index: A Review of Approaches and a Matrix of Results. London : The Stationery Office.
