Regeneration and the voluntary sector: challenges, opportunities - co-operation or co-option?

Citation

Diamond, J. and Liddle, J. (2010), "Regeneration and the voluntary sector: challenges, opportunities - co-operation or co-option?", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 30 No. 1/2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp.2010.03130aaa.001

Regeneration and the voluntary sector: challenges, opportunities - co-operation or co-option?

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Volume 30, Issue 1/2.

About the Guest Editors

John DiamondCentre for Local Policy Studies at Edge Hill University (Lancashire, UK). He has written about collaboration and partnership working involving Third Sector organisations and regeneration initiatives. He is (with Joyce Liddle) one of the co-editors of a new book on International Perspectives on Regeneration Management published this year by Routledge. He is on the management committee of the Association for Research into the Voluntary and Community Sector.

Joyce LiddleHead of the International Centre for Public Services Management. She and Professor Diamond have co-authored three books and numerous articles. Professor Liddle is working with colleagues and the office of the Third Sector on programmes for Third Sector commissioning.

We are aware of how fragile claims and interpretations can be and, in particular, given the current national and international context how easy it is to be cautious and circumspect. But, in this special themed edition of the journal we want to try and avoid the tendency to hedge our bets. We do take the view that the papers selected for this edition provide an informed context within which we can reflect upon the relationship(s) between the voluntary and community sectors and regeneration initiatives across the UK. We want to make broad conclusions (or generalisations) about the policy and practice drift of the present Labour Government and the sector. First, we argue that there is a basic theoretical and conceptual flaw in the Government's policy and practice for the sector – which we discuss below; second, the voluntary and community sector remains fragile and over dependent upon the state for funding and access to decision makers, and we suggest, this is likely to accentuate over the next five years or so as the economy worsens; third, while the scope (and potential) for independent action by the sector remains, this needs to be balanced by a careful assessment of the nature of the political relationship at the level of the locality or city hall; and finally, there is the need (still) to reassert the “lessons” of practice and experience and to value the autonomy and legitimacy of the sector.

In the essays selected for this edition of International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, we believe that these themes are explored, assessed and reflected upon. We want to examine the context within which the sector is operating. It seems to us that there are, at least, four contradictory elements in play. As we explore them below, we think they illustrate a conceptual flaw in the Government's strategy for the sector and why it matters. It seems to us that the Government's explicit promotion, including the re-badging as the Third Sector, reveal a narrow and poorly developed understanding of the sector. In particular, we can see in the 2007 Treasury and Office of the Third Sector review of the social and economic contribution of the sector this weak understanding being played out. There are, it seems to us, at least two weaknesses in the analysis provided by the New Labour Government. First, they fail (deliberately perhaps) to distinguish between those para-state agencies which might be described as “voluntary” but actually function as large bureaucratic organisations at a national level and community or locality based organisations which may see themselves (or be seen) as separate from city hall or in direct conflict with it. Arguably much of what follows in the Treasury Review is based upon the para-state model of the “Third Sector”. While, the review notes some differences in scale and function within the “family” of VCS organisations there is an implied assumption that the review is addressing the capacity needs of agencies which are (or will become) dependent upon the state.

Second, the Review is almost devoid of critical reflection. The Review describes the “achievements” of the Labour Government since 1997 and points to the investment in particular capacity building and infrastructure development programmes but lacks a reflection upon what has been learnt, what did (or did not) work and what the policy as well as practice implications might be. The absence of a critical reflection might not be surprising to some. Our point is not that we assumed it would be there but rather it is the model of development and policy implementation which is sketched out which we have concerns over.

In some respects, we could argue that the Review and the announcement of the funding of an ESRC research centre in the higher education sector all mirror the component parts of the relationship between the state (its political institutions) and the sector. In other words, the needs of the sector are defined for them by the state and resources allocated to meet not the explicit needs of the sector but rather the needs of the state. The research programme, while organisationally located in the university sector, will need to meet the needs of the funder not the sector.

At the most basic of levels the report lacks a critical perspective. The policy and practice initiatives of the last decade have included the sector as part of the claim to be pluralistic and open. In particular, the policy reviews which resulted in the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, the setting up of the Community Empowerment Networks, the extensive review of community development and the articulation of the notion of community empowerment now appear to sit uneasily in a context defined by the global economic crisis. Moreover, there is a growing disconnection between formal (and state funded) initiatives for the sector and the growth in local or neighbourhood based projects which challenge the status quo.

In the papers for this edition, we have drawn upon those researchers/practitioners who are able to reflect upon practice and sustain lines of communication across and between the sector and the academy. It is here that we can see some aspects of the fragility of the relationships which exists. Diamond in his paper (which is drawn from a JRF study completed in 2008) looks at the extent to which community based networks can occupy a space between the local state and their communities. It appears that at particular times (sometimes of political or economic crisis) such groups can occupy a strategic place and be influential on the policy choices at a local level. However, we want to suggest that these relationships are fragile, they are usually over-dependent upon the goodwill (or political necessity) of more powerful gatekeepers and as the economy worsens so the pressure on these local/street based networks will increase to meet the needs of the local state.

The other point of conflict is the extent to which local community based/voluntary sector agencies are able to take independent action. In this context, we are referring to action which is independent of the local state. In the papers by Jackson, O'Hare, and Smith, we are able to reflect upon different experiences in different locations where the nature of the relationships, policy choices and context all resulted in particular “stories” but where we can observe a common narrative or theme. The common theme is the site of conflict between the language/rhetoric of empowerment or participation and how individuals or organisations experience the practice as understood by the state. In many ways these papers also illustrate an additional broader policy theme the way in which the issues up for discussion become sites of conflict and contest. These notions of contest and conflict (which are absent in the Treasury Review) are, of course, understood and expected within the sector. It also serves to underscore the ways in which participants from the different policy environments misunderstand each other and the resultant conflict this leads to.

In seeking to explore some of these ideas and their translation into practice we draw upon Mawson's paper on social enterprise. The value of this paper is both the policy and historical context it provides to the discussion on social enterprises and their relationship to some concept of the “Third Sector”. Mawson provides an interesting account of how practice and policy lessons become “lost” or “forgotten”. At the same time, he locates both the discussion and the detail of experiences in the West Midlands in a context which is informed by practitioners, activists and policy makers. This approach is also reflected in the paper by Coatham and Martinali, who offer an informed and reflective account of the relationships between a regeneration initiative (Castle Vale) and a university. They then go on to explore the ways in which partnerships and approaches to collaboration were understood and facilitated.

In selecting these papers our choices were informed, in part, by a desire to present papers congruent with the aims and intellectual/conceptual home of the journal. We try to reflect the depth and diversity of the debate both within the sector and between the sector and the state. It remains an important and contested site of enquiry, practice and intervention. We expect over the next five to ten years that it will become increasingly contested. The apparent consensus that New Labour has across the major political parties and with some of the large infrastructure agencies in the sector is likely to be tested both as the economy affects the capacity and reach of the sector but also as the state seeks to increase expectations and demands. We expect the gap between the neighbourhood/locality based sector and the “professionalised leadership” of the sectors to widen. We can already observe places and issues where this is taking place. It raises important areas for research and reflection and this illustrates itself in the tension between the academy and practitioners and the ways in which we construct, exchange and co-produce knowledge and ideas.

John Diamond and Joyce LiddleGuest Editors