Rebecca Tunstall

‘Mixed tenure’ policy in the UK: privatisation, pluralism or euphemism?

‘Mixed tenure’ within neighbourhoods, and policies to promote it, have been advocated in many developed countries, particularly those with tenure systems dominated by home ownership at the national level. UK governments have pursued mixed tenure policy since the 1980s, initially as a ‘privatisation’ policy directed at council estates, but latterly with more diverse aims and methods. This article aims to determine whether the UK has ever seen any genuine ‘mixed tenure’ policy in the UK, or whether non‐strategy, privatisation or other terms are more appropriate. It uses criteria including the ultimate goals and rationales, tools and targets of policy. Policy targets and tools suggest plural elements to tenure policy. However, ultimate goals are not clear, rationales are dominated by arguments for ‘privatisation’, and there is little supporting evidence for neighbourhood tenure mix effects. ‘Tenure mix’ appears to have been used as a euphemism, initially for privatisation and latterly, for social mix.

Neighbourhood regeneration through mixed communities: A 'social justice dilemma'?

Since 2005, the English government has adopted a policy of regenerating disadvantaged neighbourhoods by reconstructing them as mixed communities, in which schools appealing to higher income residents are a key feature. This creates some difficulties for those concerned with social justice, who support the notion of integrated schools and neighbourhoods, but are concerned that the re‐modelling of neighbourhoods and schools in this way could further disadvantage existing populations. Mix is supported but mixing is opposed. This article interrogates this ‘social justice dilemma’ by analysing the origins and development of the mixed communities policy. It demonstrates the distinction between the principle of mix and the policy of mixed communities, while illuminating the political and discursive processes that conflate the two. Finally the authors indicate how research can be mobilised in support of neoliberal discourses about neighbourhoods and schools and draw some broader conclusions for education research and policy.

Devolution and User Participation in Public Services: How They Work and What They Do

Devolution and user participation have had enduring popularity as initiatives in public services in many countries. The 1997 Labour government renewed interest in the UK. However, how devolution and participation work and what they do, particularly in combination, are still not well understood. Research has been handicapped by key conceptual problems over definition, measurement and the identification of effects, and challenged by gaps between rhetoric and reality. Data on combined devolution and user participation through Tenant Management Organisations in English council housing were used to specify the extent of changes, examine processes and identify the effects. Formal measures alone were insufficient. Other measures and changes in management processes showed that the combination had the potential for significant, but widely varying effects on service performance.

Does poor neighbourhood reputation create a neighbourhood effect on employment? The results of a field experiment in the UK

There are substantial variations in labour market outcomes between neighbourhoods. One potential partial explanation is that residents of some neighbourhoods face discrimination from employers. Although studies of deprived areas have recorded resident perceptions of discrimination by employers and negative employer perceptions of certain areas, until now there has been no direct evidence on whether employers treat job applicants differently by area of residence. This paper reports a unique experiment to test for a neighbourhood reputation effect involving 2001 applications to 667 real jobs by fictional candidates nominally resident in neighbourhoods with poor and bland reputations. The experiment found no statistically significant difference in employer treatment of applicants from these areas, indicating that people living in neighbourhoods with poor reputations did not face ‘postcode discrimination’ in the labour market, at the initial selection stage.

Are neighbourhoods dynamic or are they slothful? The limited prevalence and extent of change in neighbourhood socio-economic status, and its implications for regeneration policy

ABSTRACT This article describes what we know about neighbourhood change, and regeneration policy intended to encourage it, using the example of the past 15 years in England. Then it introduces new data on unemployed and middle-class residents as a proportion of all residents in all neighbourhoods in England and Wales over the periods 1985–2005 and 2001–2011. Neighbourhoods are generally slothful rather than dynamic. Thus, we should expect significant change for significant numbers of neighbourhoods only over the long term, and longer time periods than standard for regeneration policy time. This provides important new context for policymaking and evaluation. In this context, we could see the best of neighbourhood regeneration as remarkably successful in creating measureable change against the odds, and as a very valuable part of public policy. Alternatively, we could also see neighbourhood regeneration policy as generally doomed to fail to transform the relative position of neighbourhoods, and as not worth pursuing.

Neighbourhood Effects and Evidence in Neighbourhood Policy in the UK: Have They Been Connected and Should They Be?

Rebecca Tunstall investigates the links between neighbourhood effects research and neighbourhood based policies, using the UK as a case study. The chapter argues that the neighbourhood effects literature is a prime example of where research can be used for ‘evidence based policy’ and that this approach is very attractive to policymakers and researchers alike. However, there is a distinct disconnection between researchers and policy makers which suggests that the two aspects should be more connected than they actually are. Using the “Green Book”, a policy set of guidelines for developing government lead policy in the UK, the chapter explores the questions that policy makers should ask from academics. These themes are developed through three case studies based on the author’s own research linking the problems associated with living in different modes of housing tenures, growing up in social housing and seeking employment when living in stigmatised neighbourhoods. The chapter also presents results of a small scale survey, taken by participants of the seminar on which this book is based, to uncover how researchers regard the relationship between policy and evidence. In conclusion, the author explores the challenges that await researchers in the communication of their research to policy makers, the need to identify and tell an easy to digest story and the relevance of research in the current economic climate.