In November 2000, the government finally published its Urban White Paper. Our Towns and Cities: The Future appeared over a year after the Rogers’ Urban Task Force report, to which it provided an indirect official response, and no less than 23 years after the last such statement of government urban policy

Harding, A

Marvin, S

Wilks-Heeg, S

English

University of Salford Institutional Repository

No 29  March 2001Two cheers for theUrban White PaperIN NOVEMBER 2000, THEgovernment finally published itsUrban White Paper. Our Townsand Cities: The Future appearedover a year after the Rogers’Urban Task Force report, to whichit provided an indirect officialresponse, and no less than 23years after the last such statementof government urban policy. It isa substantial piece of work spreadover 160 pages and divided intoeight chapters. It is alsoaccompanied by further, weightydocuments; one detailing thestate of our towns and cities aswe move into the 21st century,the other capturingcontemporary, popular viewsabout UK urban life.  Our Towns and Cities was alwaysmore likely to be a restatementand repackaging of urban policyand programmes than its 1977predecessor, which started from amuch emptier canvass. So it is nosurprise that it has a mildlyreformist, rather thanrevolutionary, tone, withobservations drawn from 20-plusyears’ worth of experience. It hasextensive descriptions ofgovernment’s contribution tourban management and changeand no less than 105recommendations on how toimprove present practice. At thesame time, the core issuesconfronted by the two WhitePapers are so similar thatquestions are implicitly raisedabout how effective theapproaches of the last quartercentury have really been. Bothask how we ensure that thebenefits of economic andenvironmental change, muchmore apparent now than in the1970s, support improvements inthe quality of urban life ratherthan result in sprawl and theimpoverishment of existingurban communities. This timearound the driving force was thecurrent government’sdetermination to ensure that 60per cent of all new housing isbuilt on brown-field/urban,rather than green-field/suburbanor rural land. Lord Rogers’ brief was to proposehow this split might best beachieved but, in responding to it,his Task Force made it clear that avery diverse range of factorsinfluences the attractiveness ofUK urban areas. While Rogersinterpreted his brief expansively,his Task Force still offeredrecommendations that focusedoverwhelmingly – andunderstandably – onenvironmental and design issuesrather than economic and socialdrivers of change. The Task Forcereport was therefore too limitedin scope to provide the basis for acomprehensive White Paper. TheUrban White Paper should bejudged against a wider frameworkthan one purely focused on theadequacy of its response toRogers. How else should weevaluate it, how does it stand upto any tests we might proposeand what, if anything, is missingfrom it that might be importantto our urban futures? By Alan Harding, Simon Marvin and StuartWilks-Heeg, of the SURF Centre at theUniversity of SalfordReshaping urban policy?Local Work is published by the Centre forLocal Economic Strategies,  Ground Floor,Barclay House, 35 Whitworth Street West,Manchester  M1 5NGTel: 0161 236 7036Fax: 0161 236 1891Email: info@cles.org.ukWeb: www.cles.org.ukISSN: 09503080The views expressed in Local Work are notnecessarily those of the Centre for LocalEconomic StrategiesEditor: Pauline SturgesTel: 020 8761 1974Email: paulinesturges@onetel.net.ukPrinted by Russell Press, Nottingham 12Five tests for theWhite PaperSO HOW DO WE EVALUATE ITtaking into account the widerframework? And why did we needanother report so soon after theRogers’ one? The answer is that for allthe incremental improvements thepre-existing urban policy regimepromoted, that had some obviouslimitations beyond the under-utilisation of urban land, whichneeded to be addressed. Everyone hastheir own particular take on what thoselimitations were, but here we look atfive broadly shared criticisms of urbanpolicy since 1977 and see to whatdegree the proposals in the WhitePaper are likely to overcome them.  1. Urban policy has focused onthe problems of cities andignored their wider contributionto the national economyHERE, THE WHITE PAPER PROVIDESpromising signals of an importantshift in perceptions. Since the late1960s the term ‘urban’ in policydebate, has been synonymous withdecline and all the problems – jobloss, unemployment, loss ofpopulation, dereliction, hopelessness,rising crime rates and fear of crime,the fragmentation of communities,educational under-attainment and soon – that have accompanied it. Thisnegative association helped create themyth, to which London was no morethan a partial exception, that urbanBritain was much of a muchness. Thatit was locked in a downward spiral,poorly managed and generally unableto offer the sorts of environment thatpeople prefer to live and/or work inand visit.Like all myths, this one has its rootsin reality; in this case the profoundstructural economic change fromwhich few towns and cities werelucky enough to escape lightly.Equally, though, it ignores the factthat towns and cities, for all theirproblems, remain profoundlyimportant centres of economic,social and cultural activity andinnovation that largely determinethe quality of most of our lives. There are signs that this penny hasdropped in the White Paper and thaturban economies, in particular, arebeginning to be acknowledged ashaving a massive bearing on theperformance of the national economyin two contrasting senses. First, urbaneconomic underperformance willalways be a drag on the nationaleconomy if it remains uncorrected. Second, and more positively, despitethe locational freedom that isostensibly offered to businesses bynew information technologies, thereare clear signs that key economicactivities within the emerginginformation economy are becomingmore, not less concentrated in cities.Such growth is also paralleled byincreasing evidence that the centresof our towns and cities, in particular,are becoming more attractive asplaces to live, at least for certain sortsof households. The Rogers report has clearly led thegovernment to recognise that morecan be done about residentialattractiveness and that more attentionto principles of design is critical tothe creation of sustainable urbanneighbourhoods and lively citycentres. But fine wordsnotwithstanding, there is little in theWhite Paper to suggest that futureurban policy will be founded on abetter understanding of how ourmajor cities can contribute moreeffectively to national economicmodernisation. 2. Cities vary massively in theirproblems and potentials butas far as urban policy has beenconcerned, one size fits allONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS OFsub-national policy makers andpractitioners over the last 20 yearshas been that, despite manynationally sanctioned urbanprogrammes, policy change has beendriven from the centre rather than inpartnership with people who knowthe particularities of places best.When allied to another major driveby government in the same period –to improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of public sectorresources – this has led to an urbanpolicy regime that has shifted in itsorientation and content as the shortterm perceptions of government, andoften of individual ministers, havechanged. The result is a set of highlyregulated and heavily auditedprogrammes. What has been lost, it isargued, is the opportunity forinnovation and creativity inproviding local solutions to localproblems. Instead the stress has beenon initiatives that tick the right boxesand demonstrate the achievement ofoutputs felt to be most appropriate inWestminster and Whitehall.Again, the White Paper is alive to thisissue and calls for greater sensitivityon the part of national programmesabout what makes most sense locally.At the same time, though, there is noapparent let-up in nationalprescriptiveness and the notion thatthe centre, ultimately, is the fount ofall new ideas for urban change andmust regulate and oversee allinnovation. That is not to say, forexample, that the promisedexpansion in the number of UrbanRegeneration Companies (URCs) fromthe three pilot initiatives in Liverpool,Manchester and Sheffield will notresult in effective regenerationprogrammes. However it does suggestthat the major contours of changecontinue to be shaped by the centreand that flexibility in local responsesis just one possible outcome, ratherthan the most obvious one. 3. Urban policy has beenoverly dominated by ‘special’initiatives and too littleconcerned with vastly moresignificant mainstream servicesand programmesThe Urban WhitePaper should bejudged against awider framework …How else should weevaluate it, how doesit stand up to anytests we mightpropose and what, ifanything, is missingfrom it that might beimportant to oururban futures? 3THOSE WHO FEEL ‘SPECIAL’initiatives can’t be fully effectiveunless they result in a change ofculture and priorities in, forexample, health, housing, education,transportation, employment, andpolicing policies and practice,criticise the distinction drawnbetween ‘urban’ and mainstreampolicies and programmes . As aresult, the main service-providingagencies – particularly localauthorities – have developed asomewhat schizophrenic approach toregeneration. To what extent shouldthey focus on the needs of specificclient groups? Should they take aholistic view of how being arecipient of a number of discreteservices affects the behaviour andlife chances of individuals andcommunities? To its credit, theWhite Paper recognises both thecontribution that urban programmeshave made in ‘bending’ mainlineresources in support of sustainableregeneration, and the importance ofmainline provision in underpinningthe quality of urban life. It istherefore right to celebrate the factthat the government has begun toeffect substantial increases inspending in established policy areas. Even while making thoseobservations, however, the WhitePaper makes it evident that thedevelopment of mainstream serviceprovision will occur in parallel with afurther upsurge in ‘special’regeneration activity. To some extentthis is unsurprising. In the real worldof politics, a White Paper thatproposed little in the way of new andimmediate action would have beenvulnerable. The fact remains, though,that it is unclear how disconnectedlines of change – in mainstreamprovision and special regenerationinitiatives – will connect with oneanother. 4. National government urbaninitiatives are highlyfragmented, severely testingthe capacity of localpartnerships to ensureeffective coordination betweencompeting programme WHILE ‘JOINING UP’ HAS BECOME a mantra for policy makers, it is stillthe case that urban policy under thecurrent government has become morefragmented than ever. Special, area-based regeneration initiatives havemushroomed, in a host of policysectors – employment, health,education, housing, etc – that activelyencourage partnership with othersectors but remain independentlyfinanced and delivered. Once again,the White Paper recognises theproblem and the force of the critiqueadvanced, for example, in a majorreport by the Performance andInnovation Unit last year about theabsence of ‘joined up action’ inregeneration. But the sorts ofmechanisms that are paraded assolutions are all at an early stage ofdevelopment and appear not to havethe clout needed to ensure a majorrealignment of policy and resources ata local or national level. 5. The three big issues forurban policy – economiccompetitiveness, socialinclusion and environmentalsustainability – cannot beaddressed within any singlelocal authority areaTHE WHITE PAPER ARGUES THATthe government’s various attempts toreinvigorate local democracy anddevelop genuinely strategic localpartnerships will help provide themeans to address the ‘wicked issues’of urban life. At the same time thesewelcome reforms, virtually bydefinition, focus on existing localauthority districts whose boundariesmake little sense to the way cityeconomies work or the broadergeographical areas where manypeople spend their lives. The WhitePaper makes few specific proposalsabout how the government intendsto promote more strategic thinkingand collaboration between issues andacross districts, thereby guardingagainst parochialism and inter-district competition. Rethinkingurban policyBRINGING THESE STRANDS together, it is clear that the WhitePaper presents a welcome reappraisalof urban policy that addresses manyof the detailed recommendations ofthe Urban Task Force while taking onboard many of the criticisms ofprevious policy and practice. But thesheer volume of description andanalysis it contains means,paradoxically, that the overallimpression is of a whole that is lessthan the sum of its parts. It is alaudable, functional guide to futuregovernment intentions rather than adocument that sets out a ‘big idea’for the future of the nation’s cities.That it ultimately fails to do forurban policy what its predecessorachieved in much less favourablecircumstances leaves readers feelingthat opportunities were missed. Whatthose opportunities are will obviouslydiffer in the eyes of the beholder. Butby way of conclusion it is worthraising five issues on which theverdict on the White Paper must be‘tries hard, but could do better’.Customisingurban policyWHILE IT ACKNOWLEDGES THEneed for solutions to be tailored tothe needs of particular urban areas,the White Paper says remarkably littleabout particular cities, as opposed tosuccessful regeneration initiatives incities. So there is no sense of anational urban hierarchy or of thedifferential contributions ofindividual towns and cities to thenational economy. Instead, the futureof Bournemouth appears to be just asimportant, in national terms, as thatof Birmingham. While there areobvious political difficulties forgovernment in differentiating overtlybetween the potential of cities, itneeds to be recognised that they arenot all of a piece. Rather, theeconomic potential of keymetropolitan areas needs to bemaximised if we are to escape thesituation whereby successiveeconomic upturns are focused onLondon, the South East and keyurban/suburban centres in the Easternand South West regions, but have toIt is a laudable, functionalguide to futuregovernment intentionsrather than a documentthat sets out a ‘big idea’for the future of thenation’s cities.4be dampened, through macro-economic policy instruments, beforetheir effects feed through fully toprovincial cities. Urban policy has to be more carefullycustomised to meet the needs andexploit the potentials of differenttypes of towns and cities. Policyneeds to be targeted at groupings ofcities that are able to interactivelyshape policy – the Core Cities group,freestanding cities and market townsare one obvious hierarchy.Making urbanconnectionsWHILE THE WHITE PAPERconstantly refers to the need for morecoordinated approaches and theavoidance of fragmentation, it isdifficult to see how a combination ofthe mechanisms it offers as solutions –better departmental collaboration atnational level through the newRegional Co-ordination Unit, beefedup government offices at regionallevel, and new local initiatives like theURCs and Local Strategic Partnerships– have the capacity to promote thenecessary depth of change.Proposals for more effective workingand coordination at the level ofnational, regional and local level needto be strengthened. More thoughtneeds to be given to mechanisms thatdevelop effective conduits betweenthese levels – not just in terms ofimposing national policies on theperiphery but allowing cities andregions to shape national policies andpriorities.Mainstreamingurban policyWHILE THE PROPOSALS FOR better linkage between mainstreamand ‘special’ regenerationprogrammes is more than welcome,they mean it is no longer clear whaturban policy is in the early 21stcentury. Definitions have becomeblurred without there being anyclearer view of the way mainstreamprogrammes and regenerationinitiatives can be ‘joined up’.The needs and potential of cities arestill ‘invisible’ to many mainstreamgovernment departments. Soconsiderable effort needs to be madein raising the visibility of urbanissues and sensitivity of policies tothe regeneration process in health,social services, education, the homeoffice and the treasury. Until urbanpolicy is fully mainstreamed, centralpolicies are likely to provideconflicting and uncoordinatedinitiatives at a local level.VirtualgovernanceTHE WHITE PAPER HAS VERY LITTLEto say about the relationship between‘the urban agenda’ the managerialreforms internal to existing localauthorities (mayors, cabinets, LSPs,Best Value, etc) and the government’sintentions in respect ofregionalisation and devolution inEngland. Again it may seemcounterintuitive, but there are goodgrounds for arguing that cities needto be strengthened through thedevolution process in England. Alsothat there is no necessary antagonismbetween promoting more effectiveeconomic, social and environmentalstrategies at the sub-regional, oftenmetropolitan, scale and thestrengthening of regions. Shifts in the style and structure ofurban governance do not, in the firstinstance, need complex, costly andcontested structural reform. Changecould be based on more freedomsand flexibility for local publicagencies and the grouping ofresources currently administered at adistrict scale by regional and nationalagencies in return for greater,strategic cross-district coordination. Itmay ultimately involve more formal,structural changes. Constructingurban futuresWHILE THE URBAN WHITE PAPERhas done a good job of collatingmuch of our existing knowledge andexperience of the effectiveness ofurban policy, we still lack thecapacity to develop a prospectiveunderstanding of the potentialdevelopment trajectories of cities.Across many other areas of policy,central government has investedsignificant resources in developing itsown foresight and futures capacity.Internationally, many governmentshave developed futures capacity toaddress the needs of cities andregions. There is a need for centralgovernment, in partnership withcities, to start developing the researchand policy capacity that provide thetools and processes to identify,anticipate and simulate threats andopportunities in the developmenttrajectories of cities. Such capacitywould improve the effectiveness andefficiency of urban policy and test thefeasibility and complexity of urbanpolicy shifts and initiatives.Author detailsAlan Harding, SimonMarvin and StuartWilks-Heeg, SURF,University of Salford.The authors can becontacted at CUBE,113–115 PortlandStreet, ManchesterM1 6FB.Tel: 0161 295 4018.There is a need forcentral government, inpartnership with cities, todevelop the research andpolicy capacity thatprovides the tools andprocesses to identify,anticipate and simulatethreats and opportunitiesin the developmenttrajectories of cities.

Two cheers for the urban white paper

https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/file/1448397/1/LW29March_01.pdf

Two cheers for the urban white paper

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Salford Institutional Repository