This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 17 April 2015, At: 04:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Government StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgs20

Partnerships forregeneration: The singleregeneration budgetchallenge fund round oneBarbara Tilson a , John Mawson a , Mike Beazleya , Alex Burfitt a , Chris Collinge a , Stephen Halla , Patrick Loftman a , Brendan Nevin a & AlanSrbljanin aa Centre for Urban and Regional Studies ,University of Birmingham ,Published online: 02 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Barbara Tilson , John Mawson , Mike Beazley , AlexBurfitt , Chris Collinge , Stephen Hall , Patrick Loftman , Brendan Nevin &Alan Srbljanin (1997) Partnerships for regeneration: The single regenerationbudget challenge fund round one, Local Government Studies, 23:1, 1-15, DOI:10.1080/03003939708433850

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003939708433850

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of

the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

ARTICLES

Partnerships for Regeneration:The Single Regeneration Budget Challenge

Fund Round One

BARBARA TILSON, JOHN MAWSON, MIKEBEAZLEY, ALEX BURFITT, CHRIS COLLINGE,

STEPHEN HALL, PATRICK LOFTMAN,BRENDAN NEVIN and ALAN SRBLJANIN

INTRODUCTION: EVOLUTION OF THE SRB PARTNERSHIPAPPROACH

Partnerships for regeneration between the public, private and voluntary/community sectors constitute the ideological and operational heart of theSingle Regeneration Budget (SRB). Extending the model of competitivebidding established by City Challenge, the SRB requires bid projects toreflect local interests through the representation and participation of a rangeof agencies spanning sectoral divisions. Whilst this approach has led to thecreation of many new partnerships and new working methods, there is alsoconcern that it has merely created a series of marriages of conveniencebetween disparate factions.

Partnership working is not a new concept but a well-established vehiclefor public policy formulation and implementation with a long and variedhistory.1 The last 16 years, however, have seen a dramatic change in both thenature and number of partnerships as the enterprise culture has gainedascendancy over the welfare state.2 The model of partnership epitomised byCity Challenge and incorporated into the SRB has been presented as a breakfrom the doctrine of privatism and the marginalisation of local authorities,and a return to some form of local consensus. Stewart has characterised thisas a 'forced truce' between central and local government.' Local authoritieshave now been restored to the process and an emphasis is placed oncommunity needs and aspirations.4 However, whereas this approach hasenabled the emergence of collaborative partnerships, concern exists that thenewly formalised element of competitive bidding will set local partnershipsagainst each other,5 while the 'winners and losers' scenario could severely

Barbara Tilson et al., Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham

Local Government Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring 1997), pp. 1-15PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

damage unsuccessful partnerships.6 It is also argued that mass-production ofthe partnership ideal may create 'organisational proliferation, duplication ofeffort and a culture of grant-chasing'.7

The SRB can be seen as an attempt to reproduce the central tenets ofCity Challenge - competitive bidding, partnership and localism - on a widerscale. Environment Minister, John Gummer, argued that the SRB will alter'the balance from the centre to the localities. This will give newopportunities for partnerships to create prosperity and build on localstrengths'.* Critics question, however, whether the SRB can fully achievethese goals. Parkinson asserts that the Conservative government'sregeneration policy has given the legacy of a confusion of local agencieswhich can only complicate the partnership process.9 It has, as Peck andTickell indicate,10 given a prominent role to the private sector but, as Stewarthas argued," has over-centralised the role of the state. Robson concludesthat this has severely weakened local government, now robbed of its vitalrole of civic leadership.12

Given this background, it is illuminating to examine how partnershipworking was envisaged to operate, and how it has actually done so inpractice, under the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund RoundOne. This review of sectoral and regional experience originates from astudy of the introduction of the SRB carried out by the Centre for Urban andRegional Studies, University of Birmingham, in January to April 1995,published as The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake." The analysisemployed evidence from the the local authority survey conducted by theUniversity of Birmingham/Local Authority Associations and from the firstbidding round, including DoE statistics on successful SRB bids.14 Thisreview assesses the character and effectiveness of partnership workingunder SRB round one and evaluates its future prospects and policyimplications. This brief introduction to the evolution of the partnershipapproach preludes the ensuing discussion of partnerships and the SRBwhich examines sectoral participation before focussing more closely onpartnership formation and operational issues.

PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SRB BIDDING PROCESS

The SRB round one budget of some £1.4bn represents 20 previouslyindividual programmes from five different government departments. Itimproves upon existing urban policy through providing a financial regimesensitive to the needs of both urban and rural areas, and allowing localpartners flexibility to conduct strategies appropriate to the nature of localproblems.15 But the SRB operates in a climate where both itself and otherurban regeneration programmes are being substantially reduced. Introduced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION 3

with limited new monies available - £125m of uncommitted funds in1995/96 and an even smaller pot (£40m) for round two - the SRB will besubject to a real reduction of 25.5 per cent (1993/94-1997/98), with theproportion of SRB reserved by local partnerships declining by 27.2 per cent.That these resources are distributed wider geographically amongst a greaternumber of agencies represents a further dilution.16

Management of the SRB is undertaken on a regional basis by ten newlyestablished integrated regional offices (now Government Offices)representing four government departments co-ordinated by a single regionaldirector reporting to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The focusof bid projects was either thematic or spatial: contributing to strategyimplementation, or comprising a small area regeneration scheme which metone or more of the seven policy objectives set out in the DoE's 1994Bidding Guidance. Building upon the experience of City Challenge,partnership working was an inherent requirement of SRB bid projects, amajor objective being 'to encourage joint approaches to regenerationthrough local partnerships'.17 Partnership composition was expected toreflect the content of the bid and the characteristics of the area. Given theirrole in local regeneration and development, local authorities and TECs wereexpected to adopt a central role in bid preparation, but there was noprescribed model. Instead, in a radical move to encourage innovation, amore flexible approach was allowed, and partnerships could exclude localauthorities or TECs where appropriate to the bid project.

Sectoral Participation

In an unprecedented response to the challenge to build regenerationpartnerships, SRB round one saw the majority of those 469 final bidssubmitted in September 1994 supported by local partnerships and, outsideLondon, 2,300 organisations were listed as main partners. Local authoritieswere leaders in 45.1 per cent of all final bids and achieved the strongestshowing of 53.2 per cent in the 201 successful SRB bids. They wereawarded the greater proportion (60 per cent) of the total SRB funds, whilejoint local authority/TEC-led bids received another 15 per cent. Twenty-three per cent of bids (the so-called 'mega-bids') received 50 per cent of thetotal allocation and over three-quarters of these (77 per cent) were either ledsolely by local authorities or jointly with TECs.

The SRB involved TECs in taking the partnership lead in regenerationschemes (further to their economic and training role) for the first time.There were 44 successful TEC-led bids in round one, while TECs wereinvolved in 76 per cent of winning partnerships overall. Their impact wasgreatest in London, where 45 per cent of successful TEC-led bids werelocated, and lowest in the East Midlands - where there were none — and in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

the South-East and South-West. Although their participation was less thanboth the private sector and local authorities, TECs' involvement wasconsiderably more extensive than that of the voluntary/community sector(Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

PARTICIPATION IN BIDS BY SECTOR

Private

Voluntary -

TEC-

Local authority -

20 40 60% OF BIDS

60 100

Source: DoE, DoE Database (London, 1994).

The private sector adopted a crucial role in SRB round one through acommitment to provide £2.896m in match funding, which amounted to 50per cent of the total seven-year programme. In terms of its representation inbidding partnerships, its prominence was also high, as indicated by itspresence in 83 per cent of winning partnerships, contrasting with only 15bids which were private sector-led (see Table 1).

There were only nine successful voluntary and community sector-ledbids, accounting for 3.1 per cent of total SRB by value, while the BradfordRoyds bid alone comprised 2.7 per cent (£31m). This sector's limitedinvolvement is illustrated through its low participation overall: less than tenper cent of bids were made by voluntary and community groups, and only4.3 per cent were successful, while their participation was lowest (46 percent) among all sectors.

The composition of partnerships related to factors such as programmecontent, policy objectives, spatial representation and willingness toparticipate. The local authority survey indicated that an extensive range of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION

TABLE 1

ANALYSIS OF SRB BIDS AND ALLOCATIONS BY LEAD BODY

Lead body

Local authorityTECJoint LA/TECVoluntaryPrivateOther

Per cent offinal bids

45.124.4

9.84.34.9

11.6

Per cent ofsuccessful bids

53.222.9

5.54.97.96.4

Per cent ofallocation of bids

60.011.115.33.18.12.4

TOTAL 100 100 100

Source: J. Mawson et al. The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake (Birmingham:University of Birmingham/Local Authority Associations, 1995), Tables 7.1, 7.3, usingdata from DoE Database (1994).

other partners was involved, and highly likely to include TECs, Chambersof Commerce and further/higher education institutions and an array of otherbusiness and voluntary/community sector partners. A high number andrange of agencies was particularly involved in 'mega-bid' partnerships. ThePeckham Partnership, for example, noted 21 key partners and mentioned 62others, although the local authority survey revealed that a much morelimited range of partners was the norm. The voluntary/community sectorhad a very low participation rate compared with other sectors: the privatesector were represented as partners in 87 per cent; black and ethnic minoritygroups in 17 per cent (Sheffield's bid to the SRB, Sandwell RegenerationPartnership, Hull's First SRB Bid, and Regenerating Wolverhampton), thevoluntary sector in 52 per cent and further/higher education institutions in30 per cent. Although the general picture was one of public sectordominance, there were a number of bids (for example, GreenwichRegeneration, Woolwich Revival and Initiative Burnley) which had adopteda policy of equal representation by all sectors."1

The seven policy objectives for SRB set out in the Bidding Guidance™related to employment and education, economic growth and wealthcreation, housing, ethnic minorities, crime, environment and infrastructure,and quality of life. There was some variation between the sectors as to thepolicy issues they prioritised. The local authority survey showed that thissector ranked economic growth and wealth creation most highly, withemployment and education objectives in second place, well above the otherpolicy headings. The main focus of TEC bids was on education and training,and on stimulating the competitiveness of the local economy, encouraging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

enterprise, and supporting small firms. The voluntary/community sector'sfocus was eclectic with multiple priorities including environmental issues,crime and housing. None of these areas received major attention in localauthority bids. Private sector bids concerned physical development(industrial sites or housing), business and human resource development.20

Issues Relating to Partnership Formation

The extent to which the experience of SRB has stimulated new partnershipformation is an interesting question which the local authority surveyaddressed. Responses showed that over two thirds (69 per cent) were basedon existing partnerships, but it was much more likely for partnerships tohave been based partly, rather than wholly on existing frameworks,suggesting that a degree of local opportunism occurred in response to theSRB initiative. Metropolitan and South-West authorities were most likely,and London boroughs least likely, to have continued existing partnershiparrangements. A perhaps surprising finding from the local authority survey- which appears to contradict the received view - concerned the relationshipbetween successful bids and existing partnerships. It was anticipated thatpartnerships based entirely on existing frameworks would achieve mostsuccess in accessing SRB funds due to their pre-knowledge of competitivebidding and the existing capacity of pooled resources, but this was notentirely the case. Although there was some correlation between bid successand pre-existence of partnerships, newly constituted partnerships had ahigher chance of success than established ones (Table 2). This demonstratesthat newly formed partnerships were not more disadvantaged than pre-existing ones, and has to be seen as an encouraging indication forpartnership working under the SRB. It may be that a new partnership mixcreated a more dynamic momentum than more static mature partnershipswere able to summon. The local authority survey indicated some basis forthis theory as, in forming partnerships, it was considered more importantthat partners' programmes exhibited synergy with local authorities' existingpolicy objectives than it was to achieve a balanced partnership representingall sectors (Table 3), the inference being that radical restructuring andinnovative thinking about regeneration were less prominent. Conjecturally,too, government offices may have been more positively disposed towardsnew partnerships due to the increased capacity they brought and becausewider sectoral representation accorded with government ethos.

The positive aspects of the SRB are offset by major flaws, problems and,to some degree, barriers to effective and equal participation by all involved.Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the local authority survey reporteddifficulties in forming partnerships to deliver their bid programmes. Morethan one in eight complained that partners' initial interest waned and was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION

TABLE 2

SUCCESS RATE FOR BIDS BY EXTENT OF EXISTING PARTNERSHIPARRANGEMENTS

Based onexistingpartnership

EntirelyPartlyNot at allAll bids

Successful(per cent)

48605456

Not successful(per cent)

48374642

Partiallysuccessful

530

'2

TOTALpartnership(per cent)

100100100100

ALL AS PERCENT OF

TOTAL BIDS

204831100

base = 217. columns/rows may not sum due to rounding.

Source: J. Mawson et at. The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake (Birmingham:University of Birmingham/Local Authority Associations, 1995), Table A. 14, derivedfrom local authority survey responses.

TABLE 3

FACTORS WHICH DETERMINED PARTNERSHIP COMPOSITION

Factors

Existing partnership frameworkOpportunity taken to bring in new partnersPartnership headed by economic development leadersNeed for balanced partnership representing all sectorsRepresentative of community interestsRepresentative of private sector/landowner interestsConsortium needed to include Housing Associations

(and developers)Ability to deliver programmes/delivery track recordRelationship of partnership programmes to existing policy

objectivesCommitment/involvement demonstrated/projects devisedSRB bidding guidanceAvailability of match fundingOther

base = 218. columns not additive: multiple responses were possible.

No. ofresponses

862848292123

6

20

6721

820

13

Per cent ofresponses

391322131011

3

9

3110496

Source: J. Mawson et al.. The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake (Birmingham:University of Birmingham/Local Authority Associations, I995),Table A.10 derivedfrom the local authority survey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

not translated into tangible commitment. Competition in itself heightenedrivalries based on sectoral and area objectives and presented problems inagreeing priorities. The tight timescale for project development andproblems concerning funding and resources were also highlighted. Liaisonbetween partners was difficult, and achieving voluntary and communitysector participation was particularly problematic. Why sectoral participationproved a problem is crucial enough to warrant closer inspection.

Operational Issues

There is strong evidence that the SRB has been a catalyst towardspartnership working. Greater inter-departmental, as well as inter-authority,inter-agency and inter-area collaboration were reported by one-fifth of localauthority survey respondents for whom the SRB had influenced a morecollaborative approach to regeneration. Although this opportunity is widelyapplauded by agencies irrespective of sectoral divides, it is balanced byreservations about the interaction between the different sectors. Given theirdifferent agendas, cultures and experience, needs and responsibilities, it isto be expected that partners would not speak in unison on regenerationissues, but that divisions should occur in their motivation and commitment.The SRB has highlighted the divisions of principle and ambition betweenthe public, private and voluntary/community sectors and poses the questionof whether these divisions are too great to enable effective partnershipworking to occur except where thematic goals are shared. 'Potentialpartners', asserted Presho, 'need to have an understanding of the differentcultures within which they operate.'21 But whose responsibility isregeneration? To what extent is it a task for the private and voluntary/community sectors? Is it more properly the role of the public sector, largelyunder the remit of local authorities? And what of TECs? As TECsthemselves pointed out, they were 'asked to be a partner, and often make afinancial contribution, to bids which furthered the objectives of others' ,22

This is a crucial issue, too, in respect of the private sector. Why shouldthe private sector provide substantial financial backing to take forward theagendas of central and local government without demonstrable benefits tothemselves? Whereas some private sector agencies, such as Chambers, getinvolved in regeneration projects - even patchily - individual companiesare customarily more reluctant." Is this, as one South-East authorityreported, due to the 'difficulty of demonstrating [the] profit incentive toinduce private sector involvement'?24 Lord Dubs noted in a House of Lordsdebate on the SRB: 'it is unrealistic to expect private sector cash for manysocial projects. Projects for ethnic minorities and refugees typify the typesof schemes where it is jolly difficult to persuade the private sector to put upcash.'25 The CBI has expressed concern about the applicability of the SRB

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION 9

to the private sector: 'Companies are confused as to whom to consult' in thenew "prefectoral" system established by the Integrated Regional Officesand what criteria they take into account.' There was a real fear that theprivate sector, due to its accountability to shareholders and its unfamiliaritywith the consultative process of local government and collaboration withthe voluntary sector, could bow out from the process.26 This seems lesslikely where the private sector already collaborates actively with publicsector partners on economic development.

Certain issues were highlighted as particularly problematic, and thesemerit closer attention. They include questions of 'real' partnership,resources, the 'winners and losers' scenario, and timescale problems.

'Real' Partnership

'Real' partnership involves all members participatively. Getting thecomposition balance of regeneration partnerships right plays a strategic rolein the effectiveness of the projects concerned for, as Robson et al. asserted,failing to involve all the relevant partners will undermine the success ofthose initiatives.27 Safeguards to ensure that race and equal opportunityconsiderations were respected were not expressly stated in SRB round one.The Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) maintain that truepartnership ensures that involvement occurs at every level, not only atregional board level, but also at secretariat level below it, where decisionsare made.28 Marginalisation and discontent would arise if this was notfollowed.29 This view was reciprocated by evidence from voluntary andcommunity sector groups to the House of Commons inquiry on the SRB inJune/July 1995. Project Fullemploy warned that omitting the voluntarysector would result in physical regeneration at the expense of people-basedregeneration.50 Low voluntary/community sector participation in developingsome public sector-led bids arose through the lead partners' anxiety toreplace lost or vulnerable funding, or because voluntary and communityorganisations caught on late to the SRB. In some cases they were notproperly informed; in others they were excluded until a bid plan had beenworked up by the public sector partners.31 The NCVO asked: 'Does thevoluntary sector need a technical assistance unit: who is responsible forinforming the sector about SRB?''2 Certainly, there is a case for theappointment of fieldworkers to perform an advisory and liaison role.

The temptation for lead partners in economic development to 'talk up'partnership involvement and commitment to safeguard their eligibility andenhance their chances of gaining SRB funding was all too real. One localauthority officer from the South-East, for example, stated candidly: 'wemishandled the consultation with the voluntary sector and had no way ofensuring genuine representation ... for voluntary agencies.' A West

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

Midlands local authority emphasised that it was difficult to identify whichvoluntary sector partners truly represented the. wider community: 'TheGovernment Office did not feel elected representatives were enough.'"Ensuring the involvement of black and ethnic minority communities isparticularly problematic. BTEG recommends that these community groupsand the black and ethnic minority business sector should act strategically toform alliances to develop and expand their input to the SRB process, andthat bidding projects should also contain sufficient flexibility to adjustpartnerships and bring in excluded groups after the announcement ofsuccessful bids.34 Similarly, the Community Development Foundationrecommends the formation of civic forums involving representatives fromeach sector.35 The NCVO sees the key to the effective future involvement ofvoluntary sector partners as necessitating support by local authority andTEC officers, the existence of demonstrable benefits, and advice andfeedback (Table 4). The involvement of black and ethnic minorities wasmore likely to occur in areas where they lived and worked, and wherebusiness development opportunities existed for them.36

TABLE 4

FACTORS SUPPORTING THE SUCCESS OF SRB BIDS HAVING VOLUNTARYSECTOR PARTICIPATION

Good partnerships already existed.The projects were well constructed and offered real benefits.LAs and TECs collaborated and their officers supported voluntary sector participation.The leverage was good, offering up to 1:4 SRB to other funds.The bids combined need and opportunity.Bids were often the result of extended lead in periods.The feedback from Regional Offices was positive and informed at all stages.The advice of Regional Offices was adhered to.

Source: NCVO, A Missed Opportunity: An Initial Assessment of the 1995 Single RegenerationBudget Approvals and their Impact on Voluntary and Community Organisations(London: NCVO, 1995), p3.

Resources Issues

Resources issues were particularly problematic. Where are the resources,the expertise, time and staff to be found to enable partners to participate inproject preparation and delivery? Although it was particularly problematicfor voluntary/community sector partners, the difficulty was experienced byall sectors, including TECs, who thought they had come off badly, found theSRB process onerous and berated the 'huge additional workload'." For thevoluntary/community sector, a crucial problem was that 'No resources were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION 11

available for capacity building or technical assistance ... despite the factthat there were no posts dedicated to such work, unlike in the TECs andlocal authorities'." As one Chesterfield-based Council for VoluntaryService organisation asserted: 'the more time we spent in partnershipmeetings and compiling bidding information, the less we could spend in thecommunity.'" The absence of these resources for capacity building andimplementation therefore has wider repercussions, as well as posing a majorbarrier to effective participation.40 Mawson et al. recommend introducing aneeds element, while at the same time retaining the robustness andflexibility of the existing programme.41

The 'Winners and Losers' Scenario

The 'winners and losers' scenario, engendered by the competitive nature ofthe SRB process, produced tensions arising from unrealised expectationsand undermined local partnerships. The possibility arises that some losingpartnerships may become demotivated and disillusioned from furtherparticipation, as a study of City Challenge illustrates.42 Despite thedifficulties, some losing SRB partnerships, such as Walsall, merely grittedtheir teeth and went ahead with their projects. For others this provedunfeasible. As one local authority (Barrow in Furness) pointed out: 'if thereis no money there is little for a partnership to do.'4' The Conservativegovernment might argue that there are no actual losers, only non-winners,and that the bid preparation process stimulates action, thus providing afoundation for sustainable future activity, even in the event of a failed bid.44

But research for The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktakesubstantially refutes this view. One Hereford and Worcestershire authoritywas among a number indicating that losing can severely dishearten partnersfrom future bidding. Partnerships investing scarce resources can bediscouraged by lack of success and failure may breed enmity between thoseonce concordant.

The Short Timescale

The short timescale posed further problems, which unfamiliarity with theprocess exacerbated. As Lord Tope noted of voluntary/community sectorinvolvement in his House of Lords address on the SRB: the timescale made'real and meaningful partnership...virtually impossible'.45 For the creationof sustainable partnerships able to carry on the momentum from bidpreparation to delivery, achieving a properly balanced and stableoperational capability required time: it was not something which was a pre-condition and it could not be hurried. The short timescale prevented somepartnerships from establishing links with potential partners - especiallythose from the voluntary/community sector - which meant that they were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

effectively excluded, or included in name only. Partnerships constructed inthis way may lack both local accountability and the robustness to implementtheir delivery plans.

Timescale difficulties had other repercussions, notably with regard topartnerships' ability to align budgetary timescales, but particularly to obtainmatch funding from Europe, due to the non-syncronisation of bidsubmission dates between Europe and the SRB. Lack of experience inaccessing European funding was clearly a factor for partnerships whichwere not public sector-led, but some local authorities, too, had littleexperience of this kind. Pressure to successfully attract EU funds wasclearly vital and lack of knowledge of how to access this source was forsome a barrier to achieving leverage.

Despite calls from a wide spectrum of agencies, including the TECNational Council, that the SRB should include measures to involve thevoluntary and community sector more substantially,46 and the TCPA'scriticism that low community involvement 'disempowers localcommunities',47 this was only partly addressed by the DoE in changes toround two through the 1995 Bidding Guidance, which merely stressed theimportance of involving this group.4" Greater stringency applied to theapplication of the selection criteria is evident, nevertheless, which 'placeseven more pressure on the partners to firm up the strategic context, thepartners' commitments and the management arrangements at the outset'.4"For those who manage this feat, the prize introduced by EnvironmentMinister, David Curry, for the best SRB partnership could be viewed as anaward for achievement, but could also be considered as little compensationfor the perhaps largely unsupported efforts underlying the process ofbuilding those successful partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR PARTNERSHIP WORKING

What conclusions can be drawn about the experience to date and theprospects for partnership working? Clearly, empowerment - throughproviding the equal opportunity for effective participation by all members -is inherent to real partnership. Good partnership relations and achievementsin areas where effective voluntary/community/sector involvement hasoccurred - such as the East and West Midlands - is thought to have emergedfrom long-term work by local authorities to promote this actively, asSandwell BC has done.50 Analysis of good practice would help to promotepartnership and sectoral participation; it would also reveal flaws. Bringingin community ideas, for example, constitutes an innovatory and creativeinput to regeneration, but it creates a vacuum in the community when theenergies of its officers are diverted - a problem which is also apparent for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION 13

industrial and commercial partners. Voluntary/comunity sector involvement,nevertheless, provides a bottom-up approach to tackling deprivation,disadvantage and achieving renewal, but the 1995 Bidding Guidance hasnot made this involvement mandatory even for 'niche' projects on a smallerscale where this sector is most likely to participate.

Giving scope for the private sector or voluntary/community groups toadopt a lead bidding role was a radical innovation which has highlighted thepolicy differences between sectors, and the operational shortcomings ofboth project fronting and partnership participation. Achieving private sectorleverage does not necessarily indicate a willingness to collaborateproactively with other sectoral partners. Different objectives and agendasmay obviate against the private sector's wholesale commitment to intensivecollaboration, except where those objectives do not conflict with its ownbest interests. The possibility has also been raised that obtaining privatesector leverage could undermine local authority targeting of areas ofdeprivation if these should lie outside the former's sphere of interest.51 Theabsence of a system for seconding business management in a routine wayonto partnerships - as distinguished from the participation of key businessleaders in regeneration think-tanks - may further inhibit its involvement.Providing compensatory finance, perhaps through non-aligned funding orthe creation of a new 'pot', may overcome this shortcoming.

The active participation in SRB initiatives of private sectorrepresentative bodies is also coloured by their constitution and functions.Where organisations have a lobbying role, it may be that economicregeneration through the SRB is seen as more properly the public sector'sremit, with the private sector's collaboration towards regenerationobjectives more greatly focused on the PFI. Furthermore, achieving theclose relationship with the public sector and the highly proactive role inregeneration which European private sector bodies adopt would require amassive shift of ideology, policy, strategy and the possession of far greaterfinancial and staffing resources by their UK counterparts. But little stimulusor rewards are on offer to attain a comparable role of social responsibility.

The experience of competitive bidding highlights the problems of howwell the SRB framework allows settlement of the different agendas of eachsector and how effective partnership can be encouraged and assured. Theprospects for achieving effective and equal partnership are not assured bythe level and nature of guidance and the mechanisms currently in place.Although the requirement to show partnership participation does exist, themeans to attain this end receive insufficient assistance by way of capacitybuilding, secondments, fieldworkers, training or other initiatives. This callsfor a further demonstration by government of its commitment to achievingthe inter-sectoral collaboration for regeneration through addressing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

inadequacies in the present system and setting in motion an innovatoryprogramme of initiatives which will provide guarantees that fair,representative and effective partnership will be attained. It also requiresmore awareness that the outcome of competition may be counter-productivein fostering an unnecessarily competitive attitude between agencies whichwere previously used to working harmoniously and co-operatively togetherfor different axes of a common purpose. Lastly, it demands that measuresare taken to redress the loss of resources which the SRB represents for someauthorities so that this does not exacerbate deprivation nodes while targetingother priorities.

NOTES

1. V. Roberts, H. Rossell, A. Harding and M. Parkinson, Public/Private/Voluntary Partnershipsin Local Government (Luton: Local Government Management Board, 1995).

2. I. Christie, M. Carley and M. Fogarty, Profitable Partnerships: Report on CompanyInvestment in the Community (London: Policy Studies Institute, 1991).

3. M. Stewart, 'Between Whitehall and Town Hall: The Realignment of Urban RegenerationPolicy in England', Policy and Politics, Vol.22, No.2 (1994), pp.133-45.

4. B. Robson et al., Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy (London: HMSO, 1994).5. L. De Groot, 'City Challenge: Competing in the Urban Regeneration Game', Local

Economy, Vol.7, No.3 (1992), pp.196-209.6. N. Oatley, 'Competitive Urban Policy and the Regeneration Game', Town Planning Review,

Vol.66, No. 1 (1995).7. J. Peck and A. Tickell, 'Too Many Partners: The Future for Regeneration Partnerships',

Local Economy, Vol.9, No.3 (1994), p.254.8. Department of the Environment, John Gummer Announces Measures to Bring a New

Localism to Improved Government Services, news release 731, 4 Nov. 1993, p.3.9. M. Parkinson, 'City Challenge: A New Strategy for Britain's Cities?', Policy Studies, Vol.14,

No.2 (1993), pp.5-13.10. Peck and Tickell, 'Too Many Partners', pp.251-65.11. Stewart, 'Between Whitehall and Town Hall', pp.133-45.12. Robson et al., Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy.13. J. Mawson et al., The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake (Birmingham: University

of Birmingham/Local Authority Associations, 1995). The questionnaire was sent to all 413English local authorities, obtaining a 38 per cent response rate overall from 155 respondents,representing 218 SRB bids.

14. Department of the Environment, DoE Database (London: DoE, 1994).15. B. Nevin et al., 'Partnerships Bridge Divide but Volunteers Need Boost', Planning, 1116, 28

April 1995, pp.26-7.16. Mawson et al., The Single Regeneration Budget.17. Department of the Environment, Bidding Guidance: A Guide to Funding Under the Single

Regeneration Budget (London: DoE, 1994), p.8.18. Mawson et el., The Single Regeneration Budget.19. Department of the Environment, Bidding Guidance.20. Mawson et al., The Single Regeneration Budget.21. B. Presho, 'Take Your Partners', International Cities Management (May/June 1995),

pp. 19-20.22. TEC National Council, Evidence for Environment Committee Inquiry into the Single

Regeneration Budget, Evidence to the House of Commons Environment Committee on theSingle Regeneration Budget, co-ordinated by O. Grant, Tyneside TEC, 9 June 1995),Gateshead.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15

PARTNERSHIPS FOR REGENERATION 15

23. M. Torquati, Progressing the Partnerships, unpublished paper presented to the SingleRegeneration Budget conference entitled Involving Business and Commerce, Association ofBritish Chambers of Commerce, 15-16 May 1995), London.

24. Mawson et al., The Single Regeneration Budget.25. House of Lords, 'The Single Regeneration Budget: Inner Cities', Weekly Hansard, 1622, 6

Feb.-9 Feb. 1995, p.225.26. Presho, 'Take Your Partners', p.20.27. Robson et al., Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy.28. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, A Missed Opportunity: An Initial Assessment

of the 1995 Single Regeneration Budget Approvals and their Impact on Voluntary andCommunity Organisations in England (London: NCVO, 1995).

29. B. Clark, unpublished paper to Centre for Local Economic Strategies workshop on TheSingle Regeneration Budget, 20 July 1995, Manchester.

30. J. O'Loughlin, unpublished paper on the introduction of SRB, conference on The SingleRegeneration Budget: the Stocktake, Local Authority Associations, Stationers Hall, 28 Feb.1995, London.

31. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, A Missed Opportunity.32. Presho, 'Take Your Partners', p.20.33. Mawson et al., The Single Regeneration Budget, p.96.34. Black Training and Enterprise Group, Invisible Partners: The Impact of the SRB on Black

Communities (London: BTEG, 1995).35. J. Martin, Regeneration and Local Communities, unpublished paper to Centre for Local

Economic Strategies workshop on The Single Regeneration Budget, Manchester, 20 July1995.

36. Black Training and Enterprise Group, Invisible Partners.37. TEC National Council, Evidence.38. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, A Missed Opportunity, p.6.39. LINKS, Single Regeneration Budget, Evidence to the House of Commons Environment

Committee Inquiry on the Single Regeneration Budget, Chesterfield, 9 June 1995.40. O'Loughlin, unpublished paper on the introduction of SRB; National Council for Voluntary

Organisations, A Missed Opportunity.41. Mawson et al., Evidence submitted to the House of Commons Environment Committee on the

Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, Round One, University of Birmingham, 1995,p.13.

42. Oatley, 'Competitive Urban Policy'.43. K. Vaz, It Probably Won't be You: SRB - The Other National Lottery (London: The Labour

Party, 1995), p.9.44. T. Oc and S. Tiesdell, 'Facing the Challenge', Surveyor, 1 June 1995, p.17.45. House of Lords, 'The Single Regeneration Budget', p.230.46. C. Humphries, unpublished paper on the introduction of SRB (untitled), conference on 'The

Single Regeneration Budget: The Stocktake', Local Authority Associations, Stationers Hall,London, 28 Feb. 1995.

47. Town and Country Planning Association, Evidence on the SRB round one, presented to theHouse of Commons Environment Committee on the Single Regeneration Budget, London, 9June 1995.

48. Department of the Environment, Partnerships in Regeneration: Bidding Guidance (London:DoE, April 1995).

49. C. Griffin, 'SRB: The Challenge Fund', International Cities Management (May/June 1995),p.19.

50. National Council for Voluntary Organisations, A Missed Opportunity, p.6.51. Leicestershire County Council, Evidence to the Environment Committee Inquiry: Single

Regeneration Budget, Evidence to the House of Commons Environment Committee Inquiryon the Single Regeneration Budget, Leicester, 9 June 1995.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

4:58

17

Apr

il 20

15