Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Simon pemberton coventrypresentation.


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
  • I would be grateful for a downloadable copy if possible.

    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1.
    • Rethinking urban regeneration? Insights into the future through use of the Strategic Relational Approach
    • Dr Simon Pemberton
    • Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Management
    • University of Keele
  • 2. Conclusions!
    • Sites, scales and spaces of state activity important for regeneration in the future.
    • State institutions constantly changing…….
    • Impacts on regeneration governance, policies and (local) strategies.
    • Now in a new period of strategic and spatial selectivity
    • But will this cure complexity and inequality?
  • 3. Context
    • Globalization / post-industrialism – urban impact
    • New forms of urban governance
    • New forms of urban policy – urban regeneration
  • 4. Contemporary debates
    • Roberts and Sykes (2000)
    • But changing forms of governance?
    • State influence? / politics of scale on governance??
    • **How do changing institutions and geography of the state AND local political strategy / leadership influence regeneration?**
  • 5. But first…regeneration ambiguity. Are we talking about:
    • Physical regeneration – urban
    • design? Property development?
    • Was “renewal”?
    • Economic regeneration – external investment
    • Was “redevelopment”?
    • Neighbourhood / social regeneration
    • Now “neighbourhood renewal”…?
    • i.e.See Regeneration and Renewal
    • But much different type of “renewal”….
  • 6. Policy perspectives
    • Too much emphasis economic / physical regeneration?
    • Welfare and wealth distribution?
    • More social and cultural focus?
    • Connect people and place (Griggs et al 2008)
    • Have to change approach anyway now? (Glossop, 2009)
    • Cities to differentiate approaches more?
    • More focus on who wins and loses esp. physical regeneration.
    • Link local interventions to wider areas.
    • Employment, education, housing need economies of scale?
    • Link interventions; otherwise gentrification (Granger, 2010)
    • EU – focus on wider metropolitan area and suburbs
    • Focus on areas of market failure better – SM cities and periphery? Or Centre for Cities (2010) approach?
  • 7. Socio-spatial inequality
    • A key point.
    • How address?
    • Regeneration management important
    • But the politics of this is very real (Diamond et al (2010).
    • How can changing nature
    • of regeneration mmt be
    • explained?
  • 8. The Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) 1
    • 1. Focuses on how changing institutions and geography of the state – of relevance to governance of urban regeneration – can influence the types of strategies and policies that will be promoted .
    • 2. But also focuses on how local social and political forces and nature of local leadership may influence state institutions and geographies and the strategies pursued .
    • 3. In turn, it helps us understand how new “ objects of governance ” for urban regeneration may emerge through the prioritisation of certain social and political forces operating at certain scales and through specific strategies .
    • 4. But these will also be influenced by “ spatial imaginaries ” – the types of economic and social spaces that are deemed amenable to governance practices by new institutions / political actors.
  • 9. The Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) 2
    • “ The most theoretically sophisticated discussion of the state currently available” (Kelly 1999; 2009).
    • Brenner (2004) – linchpin…
    • How political strategies and political / moral leadership influence state form and structure AND
    • How state form and structure influence changes in (local) political strategies (and leadership)
  • 10.
    • The power of the state is (simply) the power of forces acting in and through the state (Jessop, 1990, p.269).
    • Such forces can include managers, class forces, gender groups, regional interests.
    • BUT state more permeable to certain forces than others .
    • Such forces are spatially specific and time-specific .
    • So they could be altered by changes in the form and structure of the state.
    • So reorganisation of economic apparatus in England may impact on shape / power of certain forces.
    • Will pursue different strategies and policies as a result.
    1. State should be viewed in relational terms
  • 11.
    • Social in and through and political forces that can act ‘’ the state will try and develop a range of strategies (Jessop, 1990, p.18).
    • These will attempt to harness state institutions towards particular economic / social activities or hegemonic projects (Brenner, 2004).
    • But the shape and form of these will also vary according to changing nature of state structures .
    2. Coherence of state activity created through hegemonic groups / projects
  • 12.
    • Privileges access by some forces / interests over others, some strategies over others, some spaces of intervention over others etc.
    • But these strategies and interventions are also influenced by “ spatial imaginaries ” – reinforced by those dominant.
    • Leads to certain types of “ objects of governance ” being promoted over others.
    • But again will change, as structure and institutions of the state change.
    3. State is strategically and spatially selective
  • 13. In practical terms?????.............
    • Will new objects of governance be created as new structures of governance emerge?
    • Proposals now emerging.
    • RDAs to LEPs ? Regional variation (N/S).
    • LEPs to carryout fewer functions – narrower focus on business ?
    • Unitaries in Norfolk, Suffolk, Devon?
    • LDA to go – GLA and Mayor more powers?
    • Will this lead to similar emphasis on employment and skills programmes (social remit) ?
    • Alternative option – narrower focus on enterprise / business competitiveness?
    • Green technology development to suffer if SE RDA goes?
  • 14.
    • Will structural change impact on strategies and projects pursued and those politically powerful (and vice versa)?
    • National hegemonic projects changed over time – neo-liberalism to third way and now new coalition approach.
    • New strategic and spatial selectivities emerging .
    • LDAs budget ringfenced prior to calls for its abolition.
    • Spatial selectivity around maintaining London / SE competitive advantage rather than addressing spatial inequalities per se?
    • New emphasis on localism by Pickles and local government (HCA activities to be delivered under local leadership).
    • But will this lead to hegemonic projects that include expansive set of interests ?
    • Or will business rule? – LEPs – 50% at least from private sector; Mayor and subsequent discretion given to LAs in London if assumes LDA responsibilities?
  • 15.
    • New “spatial imaginaries” emerging and amenable to governance practices?
    • Not going to be easy given complexity already.
    • Pike and Tomaney (2009) – 7 spatial entities for urban regeneration activity recently.
    • If RDAs go and LEPs come in…..
    • LEPs reflect natural economic boundaries?
    • LEPs reflect existing sub-regional arrangements (MAAs)?
    • LEPs replace existing RDAs?
    • In turn, this may then impact on extent to which exogenous or endogenous regeneration activity is promoted
    • Also depend on ability of new structures to work over new territories?
  • 16. Conclusion
    • Future nature of regeneration management needs to be related to interactions between changing nature of state form and changing nature of local political strategy .
    • Can then understand why certain governance structures, strategies, scales, benefits emerge.
    • Evidence to date………………….
    • Cable and Pickles - promising ?
    • Pike and Tomaney (2009) - complexity continuing and fragmentation and incoherence in governance of regeneration continuing ?