Download Document

Place-based Policy:
The Big Picture
(Taking Stock, Moving Forward)
Neil Bradford, University of Western Ontario
April 2012
Presentation Themes
1.
Place-based Policy: What, Why, Who,
Where, When
2.
Place-based Policy in Action (1): Sectors
3.
Place-based Policy in Action (2): Settings
4.
Investing in Better Places: Six Principles
5.
Key Lessons: Research Theory and Policy
Practice
Place-based Policy: What?
Long term strategy that tackles inequality and inefficiency
(EU Barca Report 2009: underutilization of full economic and
social potential of a territory/jurisdiction)
Involves an “Optimal Policy Mix”
1.
2.
3.
Targeting: integrated, special assistance transforming
local/regional challenges into opportunities
Tailoring: general/aspatial policies matched to conditions
“on the ground” (align “people” policies)
Leveraging: synergies between targeted and tailored
interventions (learning from the local; bending the
mainstream; hard and soft civic infrastructures)
Place-based Policy: What?
Not about:



Substituting for general/foundational macro-policy
Delivering traditional federal/state/provincial programs locally
Handing over federal/state/provincial resources to local actors
All about:





Horizontal and vertical collaboration for joined-up approaches
Harnessing local knowledge/networks/assets
Preventive ‘up stream’ investments to address root causes
Working through local governance bodies on local priorities that meet
national goals
Mediating between the structure of opportunity and people’s ability to
take-up
Place-based Policy: Why?
Four drivers
1.
2.
3.
4.
“Wicked Problems”: deep-seated, interwoven, territorially specific
and beyond any single actor to solve
“Geography of poverty and prosperity”: spatial clusters of
economic innovation and social exclusion through market
spillovers/contextual effects
“Democratic Deficit”: National governments seeking political
legitimacy/policy relevance through citizen and community dialogue
“Interscalar Policy Interdependence”: “We need locally
appropriate solutions to issues of national consequence playing out
at the local level.” (Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Cities
and Communities, 2006)
Place-based Policy: Who?
Three Key Stakeholders
1.Governments: Multiple levels, each contributing specific resources
(“comparative policy advantage/jurisdictional division of labour”)



Federal government: spending/steering
State/Provincial government: regulating/integrating
Local government: planning/convening
2. Civil Society: ‘case-by-case join ups’ variously involving community
organizations, front line service providers, business networks,
foundations, universities/colleges
3. Knowledge-holders: expertise in collaborative process, substantive
policy, and evaluating/benchmarking progress
Place-based Policy: Where?
“Place” operationalized for policy at different geographic scales

Neighbourhood: spatial concentrations of exclusion

Metropolitan: economic clustering and transit planning

City-region: inter-municipal community/rural economic development

Bioregional: ecological networks and environmental sustainablility
Community-based Regionalism (Pastor et al., 2001): connecting
these different scales to integrate not trade-off equity,
economic, environmental dimensions of development
(address ‘spatial mismatches’)
Place-based Policy: When?
Tackling gaps/limitations in major policy paradigms …
Keynesian Welfare State (Sabel, 2001):
centralized, top-down, one-size-fits all services/outcomes
Neo-liberalism (Jenson, 2011):
decentralized, off-loading, patchwork quilt of services/outcomes
And post-2008 Global Financial Crisis? Place matters more …

National recovery plans: not just throwing money at the problem
(Canada Economic Action Plan and American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act embedded in local priorities)

Rebuilding from Within: community economic development,
small scale innovations that link economic and social goals

The Great Reset: Redisccover ‘place as community’ in age of peak
oil/global warming (Richard Florida, Jeffrey Rubin, Joel Kotkin)
Place-based Policy: What’s Difficult?
Several salient challenges/obstacles …
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Siloed institutions/behaviours: working independently often at
cross-purposes
Federalism: competitive rather than collaborative relations
Local capacities: fragmented municipal and community resources
Public Perceptions: stigmatizing or favouring particular localities
Analytical complexity: individual factors or neighbourhood
effects?
Evidence base: evaluation of impact (just displacing problems?)
Last 15 years two trends …

Growing body of analytical work studying these challenges
(Universities, Think Tanks, Consultants -- OECD Territorial
Development Program a focal point)

Expanding inventory of place-based experimentation across policy
sectors and national settings ( UK and US leaders)
Place-based Policy in Action (1):
Sectors
Policy knowledge: localized territorial contexts shape high level sector outcomes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Economic Innovation: Technology Clustering (tacit knowledge exchange, supply chain
relations, venture capital networks) eg. Cooke and Morgan 1998
Social Inclusion: Neighborhood Revitalization (comprehensive community initiatives,
social capital, asset mapping) eg. Halpern 1995
Cultural Diversity: Inter-culturalism (beyond formal state-level multiculturalism to daily
lived experience of dialogue, recognition, learning) eg. Landry 2007
Environmental Sustainability: Ecological Footprint (urban centres as pressure points
of waste/emissions and need for sustainable land use, compact cities) eg. Portney 2003
Public Health: Urban Design and Healthy Behaviours (mobility options,
service/retail/recreation access, social networks) eg. Hancock 2006

Each of these policy sectors feature debate about the evidence base for placebased approaches and causal pathways

Given the complexity, many countries pursuing experimental, time-limited
pilot projects that involve action-research to find the optimal policy mix
Place-based Policy in Action (2)
Settings
United Kingdom: Area-based Initiatives

1.
2.
3.
Flagships: New Deal for Communities, National Strategy for
Neighbourhood Renewal, Action Zones
Targeting: multiple deprivation index identifying areas for
additional investment/services (88 most deprived create
Local Strategic Partnerships for planning/action)
Tailoring: “Bending the Mainstream” area-based pilots
improve overall policy mix/program design (eg. fine-tune
education, health, income support, employment)
Leveraging: Investment in evaluation – Joseph Rowntree
Foundation on capturing/scaling what works where
‘The UK Way’
Several distinguishing features …
1.
2.
3.
Political Commitment: “Within 10 to 20 years no one
should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live” (Prime
Minister Blair, 2001)
Administrative Focus: Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister/Social Exclusion Unit/ Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
Top-down: more governmental direction than community
driven (strong conditionality through centralized performance
agreements)
4.
Multiple Fronts: 2005 count – 71 ABIs ‘in place’
5.
‘The Big Society’: continuity and change …
Place-based Policy in Action (2):
Settings
United States: Neighborhood Initiatives/Community
Development

Flagships: Model Cities (1960s), Empowerment Zones
(1990s) Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (2012)
1.
Targeting: Federal grants for neighbourhood-based,
community-driven service integration, public housing ,
economic development
2.
Tailoring: Local intermediaries (CDCs) devise plans, federal
categorical waivers, incentives for innovation in public-private
partnerships
3.
Leveraging: Foundations (funding/learning/scaling);
historically limited policy synergies but Obama Adminstration:
Neighbourhood Revitaliztion Initiative/Social Innovation Fund
(“leverage distinctive capabilities, drive broader change”)
‘The US Way’
Several distinguishing features …
1.
2.
3.
4.
Historic Engagement: from Progressive era ‘settlement houses’ to
War on Poverty and present day “laboratories for a plethora of
experiments, demonstrations, policies” (Katz, 2004)
“Swimming against the Tide”: Federal macro policies
(‘incentives for flight’) counteract place-policies (O’Connor, 2002)
Dual Focus (1): Dispersal Strategies (Gatreaux/Moving to
Opportunity) v. Revitalization Strategies (Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative/Harlem Children’s Zone)
Dual Focus (2): “Inside Game” (neighbourhood) v. “Outside Game”
(inner city-suburban coalition) (Rusk 1999; Dreier et al. 2004).
Bringing Canada In …
Unlike UK and US there is no place-policy ‘Canadian Way’.
A comparative latecomer to place-based approaches:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Later urbanization (than UK)/less polarization (than US)
Strong spatial dimension in Canadian policy but interprovincial regional equalization
Competitive/two level federalism with no municipal ‘seat at
the table’
National unity politics favours one-size-fits all policy (outside
Quebec) rather than targeting and tailoring
Bringing Canada In …
Emerging interest and action …

Prime Minister’s Committee on Cities and Communities (2006)
‘Governments in Canada have lost their sense of place in
policy-making … and need to catch up with other countries on
the issue of place’.



High profile Parliamentary Reports on poverty reduction/population
health/youth violence call for place strategies
Federal New Deal for Cities and Communities (2004) a potential
national policy framework
Last decade, various place-based initiatives launched with different
drivers, mechanisms, and foci
Tri-level Collaboration
Urban Development Agreements (1980-2010)

Successive 5 Year Plans targetting crisis neighbourhoods
(Vancouver/Winnipeg)



Federal/Provincial/Municipal co-leads, secretariat for
governance, community partners
Flagship Initiative: Insite Safe Injection Center (policy division
of labour: federal criminal code waiver, provincial health
services, municipal community policing)
UDAs gain international recognition, awards for place-based
collaborative goveranance
Federal-Community Intermediary
Action for Neighbourhood Change (2004-2007)

Federal 3 year action-research, 5 neighbourhoods across country

Partnership with United Way/Tamarack/Caledon community organizations

Build resident capacity, produce place-based policy ‘tool-kit, launch pilots for
provincial/municipal ‘pick up’
Vibrant Communities (2000-2008)

Foundation funded 8 year, 16 city poverty-reduction initiative

Multi-sectoral local partnerships, federal-local policy dialogue

Identified program/service gaps for federal/provincial/municipal policy reform
Provincial-Community/Municipal
1. Poverty Reduction Strategies (2006- present)
6 Canadian provinces addressing policy mix of income supports
(Manitoba), community development (New Brunswick), and
legislated targets (Quebec)
2. Priority Neighbourhoods Strategy (2006-2011)
Toronto municipality-United Way initiative in 13 at risk
neighbourhoods, focus on service gaps in inner suburbs with
concentrations of recent immigrants
3. Social Economy (2000-present)
Quebec tradition, holistic investment framework for government
ministries, coordinatiion through robust intermediary (Social
Economy Network), investments in community development
corporations, social enterprise, community social service capacity
Canada’s Latecomer Advantage?
A variety of initiatives now underway, be intentional about
learning for strategic incrementalism (Bradford, 2012) not
disjointed incrementalism (Lindblom, 1959)
UK? Strong government lead but ‘Top-down/overly prescriptive’
US? Strong community lead but ‘Bottom-up/ too fragmented’
Canada? Work the institutional-policy space ‘in the middle’
Use the experiments to find the ‘optimal policy mix’ (targeting,
tailoring, leveraging)
Investing in Better Places: Six
Principles
1. Place is a perspective in policy not a panacea
(spatial lens connecting physical and social
infrastructures of development)
2. Place perspective advances national economic,
social, cultural, environmental goals, working
at and across different geographic scales
3. Place perspective blends different types of
evidence (eg. formal knowledge using Geographic
Information Systems and experiential knowledge
using narrative voice)
Six Principles …
4. Place perspective requires learning orientation
not fixed blueprints
5. Place perspective requires multi-level
governance that balances conditionality and
autonomy in resource transfers
6.
Place perspective requires a new political
narrative (community-driven approach to big
national goals that is more effieicent, equitable,
and democratic)
Key Lessons: Research Theory
and Policy Practice

Research Theory
Why does place matter? Quantitative research on
neighbourhood effects and Qualitative research on
opportunity structures

Policy Practice
How does place policy work? Collaborative governance
mechanisms that link sectors and levels, and
evaluating ‘what works where’
A robust cross-national place-based policy dialogue now
underway (OECD, EU, US Foundations, Universities)