A founding Director of DC Research, Dr Stephen Connolly has more than twenty-eight years research experience achieved through a combination of roles in both academic research and private sector research and consultancy. Stephen’s work at DC Research involves managing and delivering national and local research studies and providing support to clients across the regeneration, heritage and culture sectors throughout the UK.
Attending a conference entitled ‘Navigating Uncertainty: Community Regeneration and Resilience in Scotland’ suggests it is going to be an event that highlights some of the challenges being faced for regeneration – and it certainly did so, but the conference also managed to provide excellent case studies and examples of success from some of those within regeneration that are still making a difference and achieving a positive impact, even in such straitened and uncertain times.
The early sessions set the scene for the conference – highlighting the ‘fiscal cliff’ being faced, how ‘things look stark’ now, that the ‘time has come to be honest about the challenges we are facing’, and the concern in some areas that there is ‘little resilience’ and the ‘future is uncertain’.
Our recent portfolio of research studies at DC Research confirms and supports this presentation of the current context and, having worked in regeneration since the late 1990’s, it is interesting to note that some of the core themes that have always been part of the wider regeneration landscape continue to be emphasised.
However, whilst some of these challenges for regeneration have been around for many years, some have become endemic (and are now simply accepted as part and parcel of the landscape), whilst others have become even greater and more challenging in recent times.
Some of the key challenges highlighted at the conference included: finances and constrained public sector funding, increasing costs, ‘prioritising the urgent over the important’, a preponderance of short term rather than long term thinking, a focus on outputs rather than outcomes, a lack of developing and implementing preventative approaches (mainly because of these other challenges), ‘hollowing out’ of public services, staff burnout, and a lack of succession planning.
In addition, constraints around slow, bureaucratic (and sometimes overly cautious) decision-making processes within the public sector, alongside a lack of real devolution of power and control (and resources) to local communities – i.e., the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity – all make the delivery of regeneration more challenging.
Within this world of uncertainty, the conference was able to reassure us that there continues to be stimulating and inspiring individuals and communities able to achieve success and positive impact even within the challenging context in which we find ourselves. These examples typically have driven, determined, evangelical, individuals at their heart – who have made, and continue to make, things happen. However, this is very often in spite of, not because of, the wider circumstances.
Reflecting on this, and whilst not wishing to be overly pessimistic, it is important not to use examples of successes to gloss over the more fundamental challenges. Success in one area, or for one community, does not mean that anyone, anywhere can achieve the same. Greater and greater competition, for fewer and fewer resources, is not providing the right context for the delivery of successful regeneration or for the fundamental inequalities in society to be addressed.
Looking forward, we do not need to find the next example of success that has been achieved in spite of the circumstances – we need to try and provide all communities in need of regeneration with the right tools and resources to develop their own approach to their regeneration.
I am reminded of the maxim that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. In the case of community regeneration, it seems that whilst the responsibility is being given to (or even foisted upon) local communities, it comes without the power (i.e., the tools, resources, finances, decision-making and autonomy) to be able to get things done.
If we are to expect local communities to take the responsibility for regenerating their own places, we need to make sure they are provided with the requisite powers to be able to achieve this.
The conference also featured calls for greater public discourse, and the need for a wider discussion about how we seek to address the increasing inequalities that underpin the challenges for regeneration. A societal version of cognitive dissonance seems to exist, where it is claimed that we collectively want a more equal society whilst at the same time no one – in terms of policy and action – appears willing to take some of the steps necessary to achieve it. In fact, it is often easier to point to various policies and actions that seem to contradict this expressed desire to address inequality.
In summary, my key take-aways from the conference are: let’s agree what we as a society are willing to do about inequality; let’s be realistic and honest about what can be achieved with current resources; let’s positively reflect on the successes that are there but seek to make these the norm, not the exception; and let’s work and campaign for those with the power and resources (limited as they may be) to share these out and devolve these along with the responsibility in order to enable communities to better achieve their potential.
This blog is the final in a series of follow on blogs from the SURF Annual Conference.
