Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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)