Community ownership in Glasgow: the devolution of ownership and control, or a centralizing process

The largest housing stock transfer in Europe, the 2003 Glasgow transfer promises to ‘empower’ tenants by devolving ownership and control from the state to local communities. This is to be delivered through a devolved structure in which day to day housing management is delegated to a citywide network of 60 Local Housing Organisations, governed at the neighbourhood level by committees of local residents. The receiving landlord, the Glasgow Housing Association, has further made commitments to disaggregate the organisation via Second Stage Transfer in order to facilitate local community ownership, as well as management of the housing stock. This paper argues that whilst the Glasgow transfer has enhanced local control in the decision making process within the limits permitted by the transfer framework, it has nonetheless failed to deliver the levels of involvement aspired to by those actively engaged in the process. Displaying at times more of the semblance of a movement than an organisation, the Glasgow Housing Association operates a classic centre-periphery divide. These tense central-local relations have contributed to the emergence of conflict which has further undermined negotiations surrounding the realisation of full community ownership via Second Stage Transfer

'Community empowerment' in the context of the Glasgow housing stock transfer

A key objective of the Glasgow housing stock transfer in 2003 was promoting community empowerment, community control and community ownership. The first-stage transfer was from Glasgow City Council to Glasgow Housing Association and it was assumed by many that transfer to local housing organisations (LHOs)—thus promoting community ownership—would follow. This paper assesses the nature of community empowerment in LHO management committees and is part of a wider programme of research on governance, participation and empowerment. The study found that, despite its construction and aims, stock transfer policy is not able to deliver a uniform policy outcome in terms of community empowerment. No unitary relationship between community empowerment and community ownership was observed: it is suggested that the opportunity and capability to make choices about preferred management/ ownership arrangements is more empowering than ownership per se