Author:  Anthony  Russell    

A   Critical   Review   of   Van   Bortel,   G.   and   Mullins,   D.   (2009)   Critical   Perspectives   on  

Network   Governance   in   Urban   Regeneration,   Community   Involvement   and   Integration.  

Housing  and  the  Built  Environment  24  203-­‐219.  

 

 

In  their  paper,  van  Bortel  and  Mullins  (2009)  set  out  to  describe  the  shift  in  power  structures  

of   urban   regeneration   initiatives,   and   to   assess   how   the   move   from   traditional   vertical  

approaches   towards  horizontal  networks  and  partnerships   is  generating  positive  outcomes.  

The   authors   present   this   analysis   through   case   study   examples,   showing   how   increases   in  

community   consultation   are   able   to   encourage   regeneration   that   is   fit   for   end-­‐users.   As   a  

result   of   this   trend,   stakeholders   involved   have   moved   from   predominantly   central  

government  to   including   local  councils,   the  private  sector,  and  community  members.  This   is  

viewed   as   a   progressive   phenomena,   as   wider   issues   including   environmental   degradation  

and   climate   change   are   increasingly   encouraging   the   power   of   the   individual   as   a   force   for  

change  in  their  community.  This  critical  review  will  make  comparisons  across  the  literature  to  

provide   an   assessment   of   the   gains   and   losses   of   the   network   approach   upon   urban  

regeneration   projects,   assess   change   in   regeneration   governance,   highlight   examples   of  

positive  results,  and  provide  recommendations  for  best  practice  in  future  urban  regeneration  

initiatives.  

 

 

In  previous  decades,  urban  regeneration  initiatives  were  governed  vertically,  which  is  a  top-­‐

down   approach   where   decisions   are   made   at   higher   levels   of   central   government   and  

implementation   is   delivered   through   markets   and   actors   lower   in   the   hierarchy,   being  

regional   and   local   councils   (Jones   and   Evans,   2013).   This   practice   began   to   change   as   the  

needs   of   societies   were   taken   under   more   prominent   consideration,   going   further   than  

infrastructure   alone   and   working   towards   social   improvements.   This   shift   increased   the  

prevalence   of   horizontal   governance,  where   decisions   are  made   on   a   local   level,   by   people  

who  will  also  be  involved  in  implementation,  and  is  more  collaborative  with  the  community  

involved.   Van   Bortel   and   Mullins   (2009)   raise   the   point   that   both   vertical   and   horizontal  

coordination  methods  have   their  positive  and  negative   traits,   and   that  one  may  be  more   fit  

than  another  depending  on  the  issues  on  the  table,  the  actors  working  to  solve  these  issues,  

and  to  what  degree  decisions  are  being  made  collaboratively.  

This   is   consistent   with   Clift   (2008)   who   found   that   voluntary   and   community  

organisations   (VCOs)   in   London  were   playing   a   key   role   as   partners   in   urban   regeneration  

policy,   showcasing   that   the   participatory   approach   was   very   much   at   the   core   of   modern  

initiatives.  Interestingly  the  author  found  that  VCOs  exercise  their  powers  selectively,  in  line  

with   their   capacities  and  strengths,  whilst   choosing  not   to  actively  engage   in  aspects  which  

they  are  less  capable.  This  was  preceded  with  investigation  by  Davies  (2002a)  who  found  that  

although  communities  would  participate  and  commit   to   the  Hunts  Partnership  across   three  

years,  these  communities  struggle  to  turn  their  ambitions  into  action.  Individuals  would  act  to  

encourage  others   in   the  community   to   take  part   in   the   sustainability  agenda,  however  over  

time   these   efforts   erode,   due   in   part   to   a   lack   of   professional   sustainability   knowledge,  

training,   and   capabilities   of   these   individuals;   this   is   supported   by   Couch   and   Dennemann  

(2000)  who  acknowledge  that  decision-­‐making  needs  actively  to  take  the  views  of  citizens  on  

board.  These  studies  suggest  this  is  not  currently  the  case,  as  the  status  quo  prefers  to  neglect  

community   input   and   instead   to   utilise   expert   knowledge   from   private   companies,   and  

leadership  from  developers.  

Alternative   viewpoints   are   proposed   by   Davies   (2002b)   and   Rhodes   (2007).   The  

former   proposes   that   central   government   is   becoming   increasingly   influential   in   urban  

regeneration,  and  that  networks  are  less  powerful  than  hierarchy;  the  latter  goes  on  to  state  

that  local  councils  are  still  working  under  a  hierarchy,  and  as  such  may  not  be  able  to  leverage  

the   equivalent   power   that   another   actor,   such   as   a   development   corporation,   brings   to   a  

negotiation.   Local   councils   have   however   been   afforded   greater   autonomy   through   the  

‘hollowing   out   of   the   state’;   this   is   where   responsibility   has   shifted   above,   from   central  

government   to   supranational   actors   such   as   the   European   Union,   as  well   as   shifted   below,  

with   responsibilities   delegated   to   regional   and   local   government   (Jones   and   Evans,   2013).  

Despite   an   increase   in   power,   disparity   can   still   exist   between   a   local   council   and   a  

development  corporation,  as  the  developer  can  provide  capital,  whereas  the  council  is  reliant  

upon   funding   streams,  which   are   at   risk   of   budget   cuts   coupled  with   an   increased   level   of  

responsibility.   This   argument   portrays   one   of   the   negative   side   effects   of   the   increasing  

prevalence  of  network  governance,  which  will  now  be  discussed  in  detail.  

 

 

The  state,  although  commonly  referred  to  as  a  single  entity,  is  more  correctly  described  as  a  

network  of  actors  working  across  a  breadth  of  policy  aims.  Departments  within  a  government  

collaborate  along  a   scale,   from  working  entirely   independently   from  each  other,   to  building  

and  maintaining  partnerships  to  pursue  a  common  goal  (Jones  and  Evans,  2013).  By  drawing  

upon   examples   discussed   in   case   studies,   it   is   possible   to   guide   the   optimum   level   of  

community  participation  in  the  planning  stages  of  urban  regeneration.  Van  Bortel  and  Mullins  

(2009)   describe   the   examples   of   Sweden   and   England,  whereby  marginalised   groups  were  

able   to   enjoy  an   increase   in   their   representation   in  governance  networks.  These  are   strong  

examples   of   how   essential   community   engagement   is   to   the   success   of   a   regeneration  

initiative.   Conversely,   an   urban   renewal   project   in   Arnhem,   the   Netherlands,   describes   an  

example  of  a   lack  of  community  engagement.   In  developing  a  plan  for  the  area,  the  network  

purposely  waited  until  they  had  an  idea  to  deliver  to  the  public.  With  the  emergence  of  strong  

opposition  by  residents,  the  planning  was  forced  to  begin  again  from  scratch.  This  would  have  

been   a   considerable   cost   in   both   time   and  money,   and   acts   to   highlight   the   importance   of  

anchoring   regeneration   initiatives   in   democratic   inclusion   with   local   stakeholders.   The  

authors   argue   that   network   governance   must   be   anchored   in   this   way,   both   in   order   to  

achieve  a  desired  philosophy  of  inclusivity,  as  well  as  to  achieve  the  aims  of  the  process.    

  Couch   and   Dennemann   (2000)   worked   previously   to   develop   this   notion   of  

democratic,   inclusive   urban   regeneration.   Their   case   study   of   the   Liverpool   Rope   Walks  

identifies  the  unequal  balance  between  sustainability   in  the  built  and  natural  environments.  

This   initiative   made   little   effort   to   enhance   green   spaces   or   habitats   for   wildlife   and  

vegetation,  indicating  that  the  agenda  was  skewed  to  the  interests  of  development  companies  

and   not   achieving   the   democratic   balance   van   Bortel   and   Mullins   (2009)   later   go   on   to  

champion.  

Earlier   still,   Atkinson   (1999)   disagreed   with   the   notion   of   community   engagement  

being  actively  encouraged  on  the  ground,  insisting  that  official  policy  remains  top-­‐down  with  

only   selective   community   inclusion   in   urban   regeneration.   The   author   specifies   that   these  

policies  may   only   exist   to   pay   lip   service   to   the   need   to   involve   communities,   and   that   no  

enforcement  mechanism  exists  to  ensure  local  stakeholders  are  involved.  This  aligns  with  the  

1980’s   witnessing   a   significantly   negative   impact   upon   the   power   of   local   and   regional  

governments,  reducing  the  ability  for  networks  to  function  as  Margaret  Thatcher  worked  on  

“tearing  up”  the  welfare  state  (Rhodes,  2007).  

 

 

In   conclusion,   it   is   interesting   to   imagine  a   timeline  constructed  by  Atkinson   (1999),  Couch  

and  Dennemann  (2000),  and  van  Bortel  and  Mullins  (2009),  whereby  community  engagement  

in   urban   regeneration   appears   to   have   improved   and   strengthened   over   time.   The   former  

found   that   in   practice,   communities  were   not   engaged   in   the   process   as  well   as   they   could  

have  been,  and  it  is  positive  to  see  that  with  time,  in  the  latter’s  example  in  Arnhem,  that  an  

enforcement  mechanism   had   developed   by  means   of   the   denial   of   planning   permission   by  

local   council.   In   light   of   these   findings   and   in   the   context   of   increasing   pressure   to   act   on  

issues   including   atmospheric   carbon   and   biodiversity   loss,   it   is   hopeful   that   future  

regeneration  will  seize  and  champion  opportunities  for  environmental  benefits.  These  include  

the   expansion   and   protection   of   nature   areas,   monitoring   the   health   of   vegetation   and  

habitats   for   wildlife,   and   ensuring   that   developers   do   not   cause   harm   to   the   immediate  

environment.   To   achieve   these   goals,   it   is   essential   to   include   community   members   and  

ecology  professionals  early  in  planning  and  decision-­‐making,  so  they  are  encouraged  to  play  

an  active  role  through  each  stage   in  a  project   lifecycle.  This   is  highly  recommended  so  as  to  

work   towards   a   future   where   urban   regeneration   is   an   engine   for   strong   environmental  

improvements.  

   References  

Atkinson,   R.   (1999)   Discourses   of   Partnership   and   Empowerment   in   Contemporary   British  

Urban  Regeneration.  Urban  Studies  36:1  59-­‐72.  

Clift,   S.  M.   (2008)  Governance,  Community  Participation  and  Urban  Regeneration:  A  New  Role  

for  Third  Sector  Partners?  PhD  Thesis,  Middlesex  University.  

Couch,   C.   and   Dennemann,   A.   (2000)   Urban   Regeneration   and   Sustainable   Development   in  

Britain.  Cities  17:2  137-­‐147.  

Davies,   A.   R.   (2002a)   Power,   Politics   and   Networks:   Shaping   Partnerships   for   Sustainable  

Communities.  Area  34:2  190-­‐203.  

Davies,   J.   S.   (2002b)   The   Governance   of   Urban   Regeneration:   A   Critique   of   the   ‘Governing  

without  Government’  Thesis.  The  University  of  Warwick.  

Jones,  P.  and  Evans,  J.  (2013)  Urban  Regeneration  in  the  UK.  2nd  Edition.  SAGE,  Los  Angeles.  

Rhodes,   R.A.W.   (2007)  Understanding   Governance:   Ten   Years   On.   Organisation   Studies   28:8  

1243-­‐1264.  

Van   Bortel,   G.   and   Mullins,   D   (2009)   Critical   Perspectives   on  Network   Governance   in   Urban  

Regeneration,  Community  Involvement  and  Integration.  Housing  and  the  Built  Environment  24  

203-­‐219.