Public Policy and Administration

Since 1997, there has arguably been a 'rediscovery' of those most at risk of poverty and social exclusion by New Labour. Within this context, it is important to consider the European, national and sub-national policy frameworks within which interventions are being developed. The European Union's 'Open Method of Co-ordination' is of relevance given its emphasis on making a decisive impact on poverty and social exclusion by 2010 through stimulating domestic policy processes in the form of National Action Plans on Inclusion (NAPSI). It also attempts to provide a coordinating framework for member states to exchange policy ideas and practices. As part of the development of the 2006-8 UK NAPSI, a Social Policy Task Force worked jointly with the Department of Work and Pensions to take forward the 'Get Heard' process — a mechanism to ensure that the views of those at the 'grassroots' could be fed into the process of developing the plan. This article presents key findings from one case study area (Merseyside). There is a subsequent consideration of the degree to which either informal or more formalized arrangements are conducive to securing enhanced horizontal and vertical integration in governance frameworks, policy making and service delivery for those most marginalized.

Community involvement is now seen as central to regeneration policy and practice. Yet it is by no means easy to achieve. This article explores the popularity of community involvement and points to some of the key lessons that can be drawn from recent, and past, research on the topic. I suggest that many of these lessons are not being applied and provide some suggestions for why this may be the case. I conclude that central government could do a lot more to enable the application of both individual and organizational learning.

The UK Government's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (2001) identified ways in which the voluntary and community sectors are to be supported in developing their `capacity'. We can begin to reflect on current practice and experience and identify early trends. This article will draw on a completed evaluation of the development of a community centre funded via the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It had as its remit that of increasing local capacity in the community and supporting new employment opportunities. The initiative established a local partnership that had a significant number of local residents and tenants on the management board. The article will suggest that while both the model developed and the expertise of those involved have a number of positive features there are important policy and practice issues still to be resolved. In particular, we need to be clear about both the intended (and unstated) assumptions surrounding `capacity building' and the potential limits to local or neighbourhood partnerships, and the real conflicts of interests they contain. Specifically, we need to think more clearly about securing relative independence for such initiatives, and what this may mean for all parties involved.

Contemporary innovation in local governance in England is, in part, trying to formalize partnership working, drawing on the supposedly exemplary experience of urban policy. The latter has a long history of efforts to promote more effective intergovernmental coordination, vertically between neighbourhood, local authority, regional and central government levels as well as horizontally across agencies, and diagonally with civil society. The reality, as this article demonstrates through the experience of New Labour's flagship New Deal for Communities initiative, is much more complex, even in the case of ostensibly more successful partnerships. In this article we evaluate two partnership case studies — one seen as successful and the other as problematic — in order to highlight the importance of inter- and intra-partnership governance and the potentially damaging concentration of partnership efforts upon meeting spending and outcome targets at the expense of a focus on more challenging issues such as community engagement and the development of creative and innovative solutions to complex problems. This analysis calls into question the practical viability of formalizing and promoting more joined-up governance, reiterating the longstanding difficulty policy makers have encountered in achieving more coordinated policy actions.

An integral part of the modernization ethos of contemporary governmental priorities in the UK is the interest provoked by the evidence-based policy movement. This is primarily influenced by concerns with establishing and sharing `what works'. It also resonates with a parallel development in public sector policy and practice which explicitly incorporates theories of learning as part of the zeitgeist of the `Learning Age'. This article considers the rhetoric and practice around the generation of policy learning and research-practice evidence with respect to the experiences of Business Improvement Districts in the UK by contrasting two modes of empirical research based on observation and experiential learning. It contrasts the dissemination practices with respect to the generation of evidence and what this means for the development of urban policy practices.