NEIGHBOURHOOD RESEARCH AND NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES: ARE THEY RELATED? Duncan Maclennan University of St Andrews
Dec 17, 2015
NEIGHBOURHOOD RESEARCH AND NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES:
ARE THEY RELATED?
Duncan MaclennanUniversity of St Andrews
OUTLINE
1. KEY QUESTIONS, ARGUMENTS
2. THEORETICAL QUESTIONS ON NEIGHBOURHOODS, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
3. IN PRINCIPLE POLICY INTERESTS
4. POLICY-MAKING REALITIES: UK AND OTHER EXPERIENCES
5. WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT RESEARCH IMPACTS ON POLICY
6. FUTURE RESEARCH ISSSUES
1. MY QUESTIONS.
PRIORS. IS THERE EVIDENCE ON NE IS IT EMPIRICAL, QUAL, EVAL,EXPERIENTIAL WILL IT IMPACT POLICY (existence, design?)
PAPER HAS RESEARCH IMPROVED? HAS POLICY EXPANDED, IMPROVED HAVE IDEAS LED POLICY CAN WE EXPECT, MEASURE RESEARCH IMPACT
2. REVEALING, REFRESHING NEIGHBOURHOOD IDEAS
Perspective: applied economics, real pol/econ. Understandings greatly improved in last two decades for
NEIGHBOURHOODS• Multiple Function Field Definition
– Fuzzy field definitions ( Galster, HAPs)– Multiple scales (Suttles)– Different typologies of places
• Perceptual differences (Downs and Stea)• Joint choices with property (home) choice
– Meanings of home, n’hood (Mallet, Forrest)• Constraints in choice, selection effects (social too)
2. NEIGHBOURHOOD COMPLEXITIES, CAPABILITIES
• Multiple Attributes (Lancaster, Quigley, Galster)– Properties, living and working spaces– Proximities; neighbours, facilities and wider city– Public service provision, costs and governance– Perceived Image, status, reputation – Patterns of Interactions
• Involving neighbour contact, Impersonal spillovers• Priced and not priced (externalities)
– Capabilities, institutions of places (resilience) (SEN)
ATTRIBUTES AS LASTING FORM OF CAPITAL, TIME MATTERS AS MUCH AS SPACE
2. NEIGHBOURHOODS: TIME• Expectations: of values, interactions?• Endogenous dynamic: ageing, repair• Exogenous dynamic
– Steady-state equilibrium (classic Filtering models)– Dynamic Equilibrium
OR RE STUDIED NEIGHBOURHOODS – Unanticipated shocks– Complex, partly-open systems with non-linear change– Thresholds, cusps, multiple equilibria (Schelling)
I ASSUME LATTER, PERVASIVE AND LARGELY IGNORED IN MODELLING, POLICY AND EVALUATION: LIMITS TO
ECONOMETRIC AND POLICY UNDERSTANDINGS; REPLICABILITY
2 EVIDENCE? : PLACE, Academic• Housing Demand , quality outcomes (UK, no)• Residential Attachment (UK, no)• Residential/Neighbourhood satisfactions (Yes)• Social capital studies (yes, limited, JRF• Geographies of disadvantage (Yes, index)• Neighbourhood Change (Gentrificat’n, Soc Estate; weak on general
patterns of change, drivers; unconvincing theory of change)• Qualitative as much as quantitative research
LOCALISED, PARTIAL, WEAK ON ECONOMICS
2. EVIDENCE: Evaluations
• Community and housing cost• LED literature• Partnerships• Specific area initiatives, Flagships• Specific area projects (Routine)• Programme evaluations (SRB, GEAR) etc• Conceptual frameworks
Never Systematically Reviewed, Positives but Problematic,
Do they consider dynamic, random elements in change, how replicible?
2. EVIDENCE: N. Effects, Mixed
• Pre school learning• School performance• Training Behaviour• Crime• Employment• Health• Social/Tenure mix
Particular People in particular Kinds of Places? Mixed conclusions, more to do. The experiental evidence, the ordinary
knowledge of experts, practitioners and politicians
3. TO WHOM DO NEIGHBOURHOOD OUTCOMES CHOICES MATTER?
For whom are neighbourhood outcomes a policy issue?• Individuals, quality and choice• Outcomes for the neighbourhood, community• Outcomes for spatial structure, city systems• Wider spillover effects: nation, global
HOW DOE WE CATERGORISE POLICY INTERESTS IN NEIGHBOURHOODS
3. POLICY AS POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Can be Conceived, Rationalised in different ways
1. REDISTRIBUTIVE Simple sectoral spends– Is this an effective way to alleviate poverty effects?– Does it reduce other expenditure claims (e.g.
housing investment reduces health claims)– Is policy aimed at the poorest places?– Are poor spatially concentrated?
3. POLICY AS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
2. ALLOCATIVE: Public economics of service provision/governance
– What are local outcomes desired– Does this need conjoined service delivery, locally– Does ‘local community’ have service say– Are capabilities for resilience, ‘normalcy’ present
EFFICIENT SERVICE ORGANISATION, COST, GOVERNANCE
3. POLICY AS PLACE PRODUCTIVITY
3. CREATIVE, space non-neutral, takes longer view• Juxtaposition, proximity synergies (location or accessibility effects, may be
traded)– Within the neighbourhood– Relative to other neighbourhoods
• Wider externalities (spillover effects, eg environment)• Neighbour Effects (social interaction effects)• Late start to identifying pathways to effects, causal chanins
TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECTS CAN YOU ANSWER 1 AND 2 WITHOUT CONSIDERING 3? YES
DO NEIGHBOURHOOD EFFECTS MATTER FOR POLICY MAKING? SHOULD THAT INFLUENCE RESEARCH AGENDA?
4. POLICY-MAKING REALITIES AND EVIDENCE ROLESThinking about place in Policy Has Improved. But does research progress policy, or vice versa?• Always a valid question for some researchers• And for some funders
Is it valid as a metric in REF? ESRC
What does this presuppose about research to policy innovation system? Incentive• Is not about private profits• Involves, usually, expenditure and distrib shift
Policy making may be sometimes evidence influenced but it is rarely evidence based. It is an inherently ethical, political process beset by conflicts and tradeoffs. It
involves, usually, Passion as well as Reason. Passion and reason are not always in Equilibrium, Balance differs over space and time. So also do political preferences. The same
‘facts’ or findings give different choices in different settings.
4. UK Policy drives research?US tradition of strong neighbourhood research. In contrast UK
• Uses until 2000’s US findings in teaching etc, Scant research on– City structures, factorial ecologies into 1970’s– Inner Cities research into 1980s weak on n’hoods– Rejection of ideas as ‘spatial fetishism’
• Welfare state housing into 1980’s emphasis on units, not places; – BTS and clearance (New Town exception?)– HAA, GIA, silos
LEFT UK RESEARCH WEAK ON UNDERSTANDING NEIGHBOURHOODS AND THEIR DYNAMICS
4…..and into 1990’s
1980’s sees start of different thinking (Glasgow)• Gear, UDCs, some better than others• Momentum of CBHA’s (cf England)• Riots in Inner Cities, England
BUT POLICY INVERSION, LIMITED TO SPENDING DEPARTMENTS; TREASURY SEES
THIS ALL AS DISPLACEMENT, NO PRODUCTIVITY EFFECTS.EVALUATIONS GIVE
DIFFERENT SENSE
GLOBAL ECONOMY
CAPITAL MARKET
MACRO-POLICY
LABOUR MARKET
HOUSING SYSTEM
Technology Deregulation
Incomes, Jobs, InequalitiesSOCIAL SEC
CITY
NEIGHBOURHOODSN'HOOD EFFECTS
4……..and at the start of the major policy expansion…
By mid-1990’s• SPI, Scotland, Carley in England• But no coherent theory of change, little evid• Evaluations chart programmes• Social exclusion discussion banned until 1996• Public admin still in silos as Blair starts; the multiple zones• JRF and ESRC progs postdate major shift; BUT LIMITED EMPIRICAL WORK ON
N’HOODS• SEU was critical and Delphi technique, attitudes outweigh data
IMAGINATIVE BUT UNRESEARCHED THIRD WAY THINKING PAVED BASIS FOR MAJOR PROGRAMMES. NEIGHBOURHOOD EFFECTS STEMS FROM THIS. PROGS HAD MAJOR FINDINGS INTERNATIONALLY TRANSMITTED
VIA WEB ETC
BOTTOMS UP : ENDOGENOUS CHANGE
EXTERNAL STABILITY. AGILITYCREATIVITY
SECTORS
PLACE
NEIGHBOURHOOD
CITY
LOCAL EFFECTS
SOCIAL CAPITAL EMPOWERS
4. HOW DID EVIDENCE COUNT?
Same evidence, sorts of Evidence, in Aus/Can
• Policy action requires one level with resources• Creating national views from below, cf UK• Policy and practice innovation inversions• Who are research targets, who wants it?• Different spatial expertise of top levels• Different policy research communities
Not simple split politics, bureaucracy to shape take -up
4. AN ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL PROCESS
Politics is• All parties and parliament, not just govt• Includes politicians, press and policy advisers• Hierarchies of Departments, Ministers
– Treasury and PM Office, associated Policy Units– Major versus minor spending ministries (housing versus
infrastructure?)
DIFFERENT INFORMATION CHANNELS TO THESE ACTORS, HAVE DIFFERENT COSTS AND RISKS, SOME INHERENTLY
POLITICAL
4. BUREAUS HAVE OWN OBJECTIVES
Within Departments, Status Hierarchy• Minister’s Office, Special Advisers (blocked?)• Department Management Group• Policy Directors• Research Divisions (ESRC Linkage?)
STAYING OUT OF THE PRECIPICE OF POLITICS DIFFICULT, FALLING INTO IT RAISES RETURNS
AND RISKS OF MAKING AN IMPACT
5. RESEARCH IMPACT, THE REF AND THE ESRCMaking an Impact on neighbourhood policy
• Research quality helps may be even necessary,never sufficient• The interaction with the bureaucracy, can be helpful, is filtered for
convenience, image• Interaction with politics has high returns, more direct, requires
better messaging
Academics can control the quality, message, range and persistence of communications; impact tests their skill as ‘politicians’ rather than as researchers. HEFCE and ESRC now confusing the two. What strategy for neighbourhood effects research findings?
6. NEIGHBOURHOODS RESEARCH PRIORITIES
• NE’s as the Higgs-Boson search in soc science? Too expensive to do properly, too unclear to message easily
• What can be messaged?
AND NOW• The new value of accessibility and proximity• The Big Society • Localism, and the demise of community and
neighbourhood?• How to galvanise UK thinking from below