The Big Society, Localism and Housing Policy: an ESRC Seminar Series
Seminar 2: Queens University Belfast: Thursday 24 October – Friday 25 October 2013
Localism, Welfare reform and Tenure Restructuring in the UK
Seminar Report – Dr Jenny Muir, October 2013
The Seminar
The second seminar in the ESRC funded Big Society, Localism and Housing Policy series took place in Queen’s University, Belfast on 24 – 25 October 2013. The seminar entitled - Localism, Welfare Reform and Tenure Restructuring in the UK - sought to explore, both conceptually and practically, how localism and welfare reform are understood and enacted and the implications of this in terms of access, provision and tenure of housing across the different regions of the UK. These concepts and attendant issues are not limited to the UK and the contribution of David Hulchanski, University of Toronto, provided a wider perspective, complementing and contextualising the issues raised by the diverse range of practitioners, policymakers and academics in attendance.
A total of 33 people attended, from the following organisations: Building and Social Housing Foundation, Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Crisis, Disability Action, Heriot-Watt University, Mencap Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations, Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Northumbria University, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Queen’s University Belfast, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Sheffield Hallam University, University of Birmingham, University of Reading, University of St Andrews, University of Sheffield, University of Toronto, University of Ulster, University of York.
Key themes included: the implications for welfare provision and understandings of citizenship and entitlement engendered by the nebulous and flexible concepts of Localism, the ‘Big Society and the ‘Broken Society’; the impacts of welfare and planning reforms on the supply, access and tenure of housing and, in particular, the repercussions for lower income groups; and regional differences in their interpretation and implementation.
Thursday 24th October
Broken Britain, the Big Society and implications for housing policy: John Flint, University of Sheffield
In his opening presentation, John Flint examined the implications for housing policy emanating from the often conflicting discourses and practices of the Big Society, particularly the Localism agenda. He acknowledged parallels and continuities with previous governments’ rhetoric of crisis and associated policies, but also that this current response to a perceived social, moral and cultural decline underpinned by welfare dependency and state intervention, epitomised by 2011 riots and encompassed under the rubric of Broken Britain, has distinct characteristics. The localism agenda and the Big Society serve the political purpose of redefining government, and, rather than being evidence based, rely on a set of imagined relationships. Crisis is presented as the norm and presented as the result of a culture of ‘welfare dependency’ which has created unsustainable and unwarranted expectations which are reframed by shifting the responsibility for both creating and addressing them from the state to individuals and communities. Moreover, the rhetoric of localism is at odds with the lived reality as the ability to ‘stay put’ is being removed by the temporal and spatial compression of expectations of and rights to housing, while social housing decisions increasingly reflect local value-based criteria rather than need. Hence the ‘right to the city’ becomes greatly circumscribed, especially for the poor and for young people.
The paradox of the Big Society and localism is that they require belonging and a sense of place, which is being eroded by other government policies as well as by aspects of localism itself. What emerges is a spatial solution to the wider uncertainties in society based on a decline in housing opportunities – a new norm not a crisis. The discursive power of the notions of Broken Britain and the Big Society is that, despite their basis in an imagined set of distorted relationships and their lack of an empirical base, they become taken for granted, stifling alternative visions and leading to ‘an emaciated form of housing and urban governance’ within a broken state rather than a broken society.
Housing markets, housing policy and localism in England: Ed Ferrari, University of Sheffield
Ed Ferrari began by contextualising the current housing crisis in terms of reduced financial regulation and the expansion of the mortgage market to low-income borrowers, initially in the US, that, in turn, created and sustained a housing bubble and contributed to the onset of the GFC. He argued that any understanding of the ‘housing problem’ required a focus on the bigger picture and the shifting relations between housing sectors as it is the system rather than the market that is in crisis. In charting the peaks and troughs of house prices in England from 1974 he highlighted four distinct cycles and outlined the similarities and differences at both macroeconomic and regional levels pertaining to each. He identified three key characteristics underpinning the problems in the housing market: cyclicality leading to greater volatility, (un)affordability and spatial divergence and differentiation within and between regions. Providing affordable housing present different issues in high price and low price areas. High value areas inspire intense competition for land and social landlords find it hard to compete; there may also be community resistance. In low price areas the development viability is low even when there is high housing need. The consequence in each case is the same: less affordable housing.
Ed Ferrari’s key argument was that understanding and addressing the problems of the housing market requires a response to the profound spatial/scalar mismatch in the determinants of supply at national, regional and local level (macroeconomic and social cultural forces, SHMAs and local interests in planning and sentiment), and those of demand (welfare reform, economic change and housing requirements and local need). The policy rhetoric and agendas of the Big Society and localism continue to impose a retrospective spatiality ignoring the divergent forces at play, and the determinants of supply and demand continue to operate unequally which leads to clearly experienced local housing needs not being addressed. Hence ‘the outlook remains bleak’.
The social impact of changing housing policies: David Hulchanski, University of Toronto
David Hulchanski opened his presentation by placing housing policy within the context of major societal shifts. He highlighted how the growing range of societal divisions, particularly evident in urban space, places more pressures on the housing market; how economic inequality has grown at the expense of the middle, feeding into greater socio-spatial polarisation; how declining state sector resources support state sector austerity and the growing marketisation of society within a neoliberal agenda. While the impact of increasing polarisation is not limited to the housing market, it has profound implications for housing policy and ‘choices’. Echoing a number of contemporary commentators, he argued that while divisions and inequalities have always been a feature of cities, what has fundamentally changed is the strength of these divisions and the depth of inequality. Focusing on the UK, USA and Canada he illustrated the growing income gap between the very rich and the very poor and highlighted the negative impacts of increasingly unequal societies for wellbeing and social cohesion. The implications for housing policy were identified as: less state intervention; greater reliance on local responses with risks, responsibilities and blame being passed to individuals, households and communities; cuts in housing subsidies and investment in affordable housing; decreasing home ownership leading to a more unregulated private rental market.
These issues were examined in depth through showing how growing income inequalities promoted and supported greater socio-spatial divisions in Toronto from 1970 – 2010, reflecting not only income but also ethnicity and socio economic status. This has lead to the formation of three increasingly distinct ‘cities’ within Toronto, where over time the middle income neighbourhoods are disappearing in an increasingly polarised city. In conclusion, and reflecting points made by the previous speakers, he highlighted how the concept of the Big Society in the UK is being used to exacerbate socio-spatial divisions and polarisation.
The Big Society: implications for low-income neighbourhoods: Rebecca Tunstall, University of York
Rebecca Tunstall began by assessing the literature on the potential impact of the Big Society ideas and activities on low income neighbourhoods. The Big Society ideology states that power will be devolved from Westminster to local councils, communities and individual citizens. The associated concept of localism encourages local level decision-making and responsibility, both within state organisations and elsewhere. The two concepts recognise that different areas have different needs and wants, but different income and capacity levels have not been adequately addressed. Hence few commentators see the Big Society and localism as offering particular benefits for low income areas. It has been suggested that the real agenda is to reduce state activity relative to other sectors, in order to change the balance of the mixed economy of welfare (e.g. through contracting out services to the voluntary or private sectors). The paper went on to assess Big Society activities that have actually happened (mainly in England, some across the UK) and whether they are skewed towards or away from disadvantaged areas. The analysis was divided into introduction of policies (14 specific pledges made in 2010) and any changes in patterns of welfare provision: amount, sector mix of provision, impact on low income areas and whether change is compatible with the Big Society aim of reduced state activity in this area. Problems with information gathering were acknowledged.
Policy pledges were found to be very behind schedule and not overtly skewed towards disadvantaged areas, with the possible exceptions of the National Citizen Service and grants from Big Society Capital. However, the lack of detailed information available (for example on location of activities) means it is also not possible to say that activities are skewed away from these areas. Any potential benefits to low income areas must be seen in the context of other public expenditure reductions. Patterns of welfare activity showed an increase in private sector or third sector provision relative to the state contribution, with the exception of housing where the state’s role increased. In most cases provision was skewed towards low income areas, i.e. changes in the welfare mix of provision since 2010 have had a greater impact. Further research is needed in order to fill in the details, but it is suggested that the Big Society agenda has had more impact on reduction of state provision than on community benefit to low income areas.
Community resilience, welfare reform and the Big Society in Northern Ireland: Paul Hickman and Chris Dayson, Sheffield Hallam University
Paul Hickman and Chris Dayson presented the initial quantitative findings from the mixed methods three year project Recession, Resilience & Rebalancing Social Economies in Northern Ireland’s Neighbourhoods (March 2012 – 2015) funded by the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Focusing on three disadvantaged neighbourhoods and one better off comparator, the project explores the effects of and the responses to welfare reform, the economic downturn, the relationship between place and resilience, the role of formal and informal volunteering and the contribution of social economies to rebalancing local economies. Paul Hickman problematised the concept of resilience, where understandings ranged along a continuum from surviving to thriving; he questioned how or if resilience could be measured and the relevance of place and volunteering to the concept. The literature differs on the extent to which individuals have agency and on whether resilience is a positive phenomenon or a necessary survival response to changing circumstances. While the data being presented drew on emerging findings from the quantitative Baseline Survey he highlighted how the mix of qualitative and quantitative methods employed over the life of the project would contribute to more nuanced conceptualisations of resilience.
Chris Dayson then presented the quantitative findings which focused on responses to the question how well or poorly respondents were ‘getting by’, i.e. managing financially. Responses were analysed in relation to a range of demographic, household, health and wellbeing and social and community factors. The three most significant factors contributing to ‘getting by’ in all areas were: the neighbourhood (with one particular disadvantaged neighbourhood showing a higher proportion of residents getting by); age (with those over 60 doing better) and that those who had experienced a financial shock were getting by less well. In the disadvantaged areas only, the same variables were most important but in a different order, with age less important than financial shock. Next, the characteristics of those who had experienced a financial shock and who had expressed higher levels of well-being were assessed, in order to try to find qualities that might contribute to or detract from resilience. The most important (all statistically significant) were: those with a strong sense of neighbourhood belonging were more likely to be resilient, and people with a disability or long term illness, and those in socio-economic groups C2DE were less so. The presentation concluded that demographic factors and ‘place’ both matter when considering resilience. It was also found that religious background and volunteering were not significant factors to ‘getting by’ whereas ‘place’ was; welfare reform will not impact uniformly across all the case studies as some areas appear better able to cope than others. These findings and emerging themes will be explored more deeply during the rest of the project.
First day summing up: David Clapham
David Clapham thanked the speakers and other participants for a stimulating first day. He noted that the rhetoric of ‘crisis’, identified by several speakers, is not new. The narrative of response to crisis through austerity is a narrative chosen by policy-makers and many of the issues raised today were international, as had been highlighted by David Hulchanski. The papers raise questions about the role of the academy in assessing the social impact of austerity, and in the creation and analysis of spaces of resistance to this narrative.
Friday 25th October
Planning in the Celtic areas: Greg Lloyd, University of Ulster
Greg Lloyd focused on the UK’s ‘Celtic areas’ of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Noting how the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 had been the dramatic turning point in UK planning and had worked simultaneously but been implemented differently across the jurisdictions, he argued that greater divergence rather than convergence was occurring in planning across the UK, driven by neoliberalism, austerity and devolution. The UK planning context includes the structural weakness of peripheral areas and the hollowing out of the state, as well as short-termism. It is important to distinguish different understandings of the concept of ‘planning’: land use planning (statutory regulation and land management); strategic planning (territorial management of land use and development); spatial planning (going further than land use to embrace regeneration); and community planning with an emphasis on wellbeing. Generally across the UK, there has been a shift away from strategic considerations towards the creation of market spaces; the exception to this is community planning.
Regional and national variations in approaches to planning are connected to historical experience, land attachment, government arrangements and capacity, strategic agendas and approaches to political economy, and the relationship to land, communities, territory and the environment. Wales and Northern Ireland focus on the connection between economic development and planning, whereas Scotland’s planning policy is grounded in the concept of sustainable economic growth, and is more strategic. New parameters are needed for planning policy, based on a no growth or de-growth scenario. Factors that will affect planning policy in future in the Celtic areas include economic limits, political innovation and leadership, social issues especially discontent with social conditions, community divisions, institutional capacity, environmental issues, and resource limits.
Planning and the new localism in England: Andy Inch, University of Sheffield
Andy Inch echoed and extended a number of the arguments that had been made by others. The different, and often contradictory, dimensions, discourses and constructions of the Big Society and the rush to Localism are problematic for planning, which is an integral and important part of the localism agenda in England. The term ‘Big Society’ may be losing political currency, but the discourse – based on an imagined rural idyll such as the Archer’s Ambridge – remains influential, presenting a ‘fluffy front’ for the real agenda of reducing the size of the state. Planning reform in England can be seen as an attempt to reconcile competing conservative traditions of land stewardship/ conservation and neoliberal enterprise/ growth, with the reconciliation taking place through offering local financial incentives for development (which appears to be proving unsuccessful). The planning system as it used to operate was seen by Conservatives as preventing economic growth, but there is currently no debate about what ‘growth’ is or should be.