The Big Society, Localism and
Housing Policy
Seminar 3: St Andrews
Choice and voice? Social housing allocations
policy and tenant participation across the UK
Dr Jenny Muir
13th March 2014
Contents

Devolution, localism and variegated neoliberalism

Financialisation and responsibilisation/ coercion

UK devolution in 2014

Localism and the Big Society in 2014

Social housing cases:

Allocations policy

Tenant participation

Analysis

Conclusions
Devolution, localism and variegated
neoliberalism (1)
The context for devolution, localism and the Big Society is:
1.
2.
‘Roll back’ neoliberalism - financialisation

State intervention ‘rolled back’ to focus on support for capital
accumulation: commodification

Primacy of market mechanisms: including use of private finance and
privatisation in the state sector, along with quasi-market structures

International policy transfer; deregulation of economic transactions

Welfare costs transferred to the individual and to ‘communities’
‘Roll out’ neoliberalism – responsibilisation/ coercion:

‘.. active state-building and regulatory reform’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002:
384)

New forms of governance, institutions, and state structures

Regulation of services

Regulation of conduct
Devolution, localism and variegated
neoliberalism (2)

Neoliberalisation is uneven, or ‘variegated’

It involves ‘marketized forms of regulatory restructuring’ imposed on
existing structures and practices:
‘across all contexts in which they have been mobilized,
neoliberalization processes have facilitated marketization and
commodification while simultaneously intensifying the uneven
development of regulatory forms across places, territories and
scales’ (Brenner et al, 2010: 184)

Variegated neoliberalism is multi-level, contingent, and anchored by:

Financialisation: market or quasi-market processes, use of credit,
individualisation of service provision

Responsibilisation: regulation of the individual, with use of coercion if
consent cannot be obtained
Understanding devolution and localism
under variegated neoliberalism

Both devolution and localism contribute towards ideological change
and state restructuring:

Role of the state: smaller, more regulatory, less direct provision,
decline of rights-based services


Role of civil society: informal support for ‘communities’ and
responsibilised, ‘resilient ‘individuals; paid service provision under
contract with the state

Role of the market: expanded to include provision of non-market
services by the private sector as a key aspect of financialisation
But the process is uneven and takes into account context and
history - neoliberalisation as assemblage:

‘... asking how the interplay of multi-scalar actants around a specific
project in a specific locality will configure local engagements with
neoliberal ideologies or governmentalities’ (Newman, 2013: 7).
UK devolution in 2014 (1)


Scotland:

1997 referendum: 74% in favour; 63% in favour of tax-raising powers

Scotland Act 1998: established Scottish Parliament, wide range of powers including
housing, also tax-raising powers, never used. Welfare reform not devolved

Scotland Act 2012: Scottish rate of income tax to replace part of UK income tax,
plus other tax powers and new borrowing powers including for capital expenditure
(following Calman Commission)

Referendum on independence 18th September 2014
Northern Ireland:

1998 cross-border referendum: 71% in Northern Ireland and 94% in Irish Republic
in favour of devolved government

Northern Ireland Act 1998: established NI Assembly, wide range of powers including
housing; run by enforced cross-community coalition

Suspended October 2002 – May 2007

Policing and Justice devolved 2010; provision for Border Poll from 1998

Parity agreement on welfare reform: bedroom tax likely to be only for new tenants
UK devolution in 2014 (2)


Wales:

1997 referendum: 50.3% support Welsh Assembly

Government of Wales Act 1998: established National Assembly for Wales, no
legislative powers but wide rage of administrative powers including housing

Government of Wales Act 2006 provided law-making powers

2011 referendum: 63% support Assembly having law-making powers (63%): now
the Welsh Government. Welfare reform not devolved

Silk Commission Part 1 (2012): taxation and borrowing powers recommended;
2013 Bill to take forward; Silk Commission Part 2 (2014): Policing and Justice
should be devolved; but welfare measures should not
Policy convergence or divergence?

Most policy areas have remained similar, perhaps due to the retained powers,
but some significant differences university fees, care of the elderly, prescription
charges, homelessness. Scotland most divergent.

Could policy divergence increase due to Coalition government? Or is ‘policy
ownership’ more important than policy difference? (McEwan, 2005; Muir, 2013)
What devolution is, and what it’s not
It is ....
• Conditional and constrained:
-
-
Powers can be changed by legislation at
Westminster
Powers not devolved include constitutional
matters, defence, foreign affairs, welfare
benefits (except NI), most taxation
Westminster may legislate on devolved
matters
It isn’t ......
• Federalism: where powers can only
be taken away by constitutional change
• Localism: There is an important layer of
government below the devolved
administrations – devolution cannot be
equated with localism in England, it is more
like regionalism
Devolution and the changing UK



Political differences with England:

Scottish Parliament: Scottish National Party

Welsh Government: minority Labour administration

Northern Ireland Assembly: 5-party coalition, statist and clientilist

All against the Coalition’s ‘smaller state’ agenda
Breaking up or strengthening the UK?

Scottish independence referendum

Absence of a Northern Ireland border poll

The ‘West Lothian question’ hasn’t gone away
New and continuing links:

Policy networks: issue-based and professional, civil service (Keating et
al, 2012)

British – Irish Council established 1998: 8 jurisdictions

EU links: Directives, funding, UK-wide negotiations (FCO leads)
What is localism?
‘When localism is used in political discourse, its meaning is often purposefully
vague and imprecise. It brings geographical understandings about scale and
place together with sets of political understandings about decentralisation,
participation and community, and managerialist understandings about
efficiency and forms of market delivery – moving easily between each of them,
even when their fit is uncertain’ (Clarke & Cochrane, 2013:11, emphases added)

Localism is not new:

1970s: left-wing localism e.g. Community Development Projects, voluntary housing
movement

1980s: ‘individualistic localism’ including RTB and tenant participation

Late 1990s: ‘pragmatic localism’ – to achieve the rights and responsibilities agenda,
partnership working, social capital (Jacobs and Manzi, 2013)

Some continuity between New Labour’s localism and that of the Coalition –
community involvement remains, but without a national framework of standards
(Clarke and Cochrane, 2013)
Localism in England, 2014


Localism Act 2011:

Statutory Regional Development Agencies replaced by non-statutory
Local Enterprise Partnerships: ‘the legislative death of regional
governance, policy making and administration’ (Bentley and Pugalis,
2013: 262)

General power of competence for local government; Council Tax
referenda

Communities and individuals have right to challenge who delivers a
council service; to take over buildings of community value e.g. libraries

Planning reforms: abolition of regional strategies; right to draw up a
neighbourhood plan; community right to build; community infrastructure
levy – but infrastructure projects of national significance are exempt

Social housing allocation and tenancy conditions to be decided locally
Social Value Act 2012: Civil society bodies may compete for public
service contracts
Examples of ‘localism’ in the
devolved jurisdictions, 2014



Scotland:

Community Right to Buy (rural areas)

Community Land Trusts (GB wide)

Community Based Housing Associations; Public Asset Transfer

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill: possible extension of Community
Right to Buy to urban areas; community right to challenge; more say in council
budget decisions; encouragement of tenant management

People and Communities Fund: Community-led regeneration
Wales:

Community Facilities Programme (community led capital bids)

Community Asset Transfer; participatory budgeting (GB wide)
Northern Ireland:

Community Asset Transfer: DSD draft policy and NIHE involvement

Reform of Public Administration: community development, planning and
regeneration to go to councils, but not social housing
Whatever happened to the Big
Society?

Cabinet Office ‘Big Society’ web page now ‘Community and society’

As well as statutory measures, initiatives have included:


Big Society Capital (UK wide, launched July 2011) – investment in
social economy projects

National Citizen Service Pilots (volunteering for 16-year olds) –
evaluation of pilots generally positive

Community Organiser training (England): over 400 so far

Community First Fund (England) £80m over 4 years

Big Society Awards (UK)
Big Society Audit (Slocock, 2013; England only) found:

Community empowerment: increased community control of assets,
greater transparency from public services, but only a minority feel they
can influence decisions and voluntary organisations struggling with
rising demand and falling income
Big Society Audit contd.

Opening up public services: public service outsourcing has been
dominated by large private companies; voluntary sector funding has been
cut; public services are in some cases failing to deliver a high standard of
care. ‘Co-design’ of services is not working

Social action: Volunteering levels have risen and so have the number
of community organisers, but there has been a ‘dramatic fall’ in charitable
giving

In all three of the categories above, there is a big class divide – ‘affluent
and rural’ communities do best

Trust levels have fallen

Political engagement, volunteering and charitable giving are all higher
amongst older people (all Slocock, 2013)

And.... the concept never caught on in the devolved jurisdictions

So.... The intended rebalancing between state and civil society has been
uneven and has favoured the private sector where markets are involved
Social housing case: allocations
policy in the UK (1)
England
Wales
NI
Scotland
Y
Y
Y
N
Waiting list residence
restriction
Y – 2 years
advised
Y
Y
N
Exclusion from waiting list
for anti-social behaviour
Locally
determined
Y
Y
Y
Use of private rented sector
to discharge duty to
homeless applicant without
their consent
Y
N
N
N
Short-term tenancies as
option (excluding
introductory tenancies)
Y
N
N
N
Eligibility measures
Homelessness definition
includes priority need
Access measures
Social housing case: allocations
policy in the UK (2)
England
Wales
NI
Scotland
Local lettings schemes,
can prioritise working
households
Y
Y
With DSD
permission only
Y
Bedroom tax (applicant
has less control)
Y
Y
Not yet agreed,
likely to be new
tenancies only
Y
Use of choice based
lettings (applicant has
more control)
Y
Y
N – pilot under
way
Y
England and Wales after the 2011 Localism Act:
‘Previously almost anyone could apply to live in social housing, whether they
need it or not.... The previous arrangements encouraged false expectations
and large waiting lists’ (CLG, 2011:15).
Analysis: allocations policy

Eligibility: most restricted in England and least so in Scotland

Access measures are also more restricted and more conditional in England,
more finely balanced between the other 3 jurisdictions

Financialisation occurs through: use of PRS; bedroom tax (quasi market
measure); short-term tenancies – much more so in England than
elsewhere. Waiting list restrictions also likely to financialise by pushing
more applicants into the PRS

Supply has been financialised through use of RSLs/ private finance

Responsibilisation occurs through: residence and other restrictions to
waiting list, short-term tenancies (regular reviews of need), local lettings,
CBL, bedroom tax (coercion). Less so in Northern Ireland

Contributions to restructuring: smaller state due to increased gatekeeping
role especially in England and reduction of rights to services; increased role
of the market through use of PRS, again especially in England
Social housing case: tenant
participation in the UK (1)

England:

Tenant Empowerment Programme including tenant scrutiny panels and
training

Tenants involved in regulatory framework under principle of coregulation: regulator only intervenes in breaches of the Tenant
Involvement and Empowerment Standard if failure will lead to ‘serious
harm’ to tenants

TPAS Resident Involvement Quality Standard for social landlords

Several provisions in Localism Act aimed at tenants:
 Right to Manage resurrected: TMOs and JMBs
 Community Cashback: individual services managed by tenants

Tenant Cashback: Manage your own repairs

But n.b. Big Society Audit findings earlier
Social housing case: tenant
participation in the UK (2)

Scotland:

Statutory right to participate from Housing (Scotland) Act 2001

System of Registered Tenant Organisations; all social landlords must
have a tenant participation strategy

Tradition of majority tenant Board members: Community based housing
associations

Scottish Social Housing Charter from 2012, monitored by the Scottish
Social Housing Regulator

Engagement with social landlords by regulator is proportionate to
assessed risk

National Panel of Tenants and Service Users: direct feedback to
regulator but no structural involvement in regulation

Housing associations included as ‘anchor organisations’ for community
asset ownership (McKee, 2013)
Social housing case: tenant
participation in the UK (3)


Wales:

Currently no involvement in regulation

Tenant Advisory Panel Wales from 2010 – for housing association tenants

TMOs possible under legislation but there are none

Community Asset Transfer Fund (Big Lottery)
Northern Ireland:

NIHE Community Involvement Strategy and well established TP structure for
NIHE tenants; involvement of HA tenants weaker but improving; many have
tenants on Boards

NIHE involved in Community Asset Transfer; Social Housing Enterprise Strategy
in development

No involvement in regulation: Tenant Scrutiny Panels proposed for NIHE and
regulation is being discussed as part of the restructuring of social housing

Consultant’s report on restructuring included tenant majority social housing
providers, rejected by DSD and the Minister

No TMOs or smaller scale opportunities for tenant management
Analysis: tenant participation

Rights to participation and to take over service delivery:


Formal participation in regulation:


Former in Scotland, latter much stronger in England than elsewhere
Co-regulation in England; other jurisdictions advisory or absent
Formal involvement in governance:

Tenant majority tradition in Scotland; via TMOs in England; less strong elsewhere

(Minor) Financialisation occurs through: Service delivery transfer, community
asset transfer and other social enterprise measures.

Responsibilisation occurs through: Everything! Stronger in England and
Scotland; much weaker in Wales and Northern Ireland

Restructuring: state to civil society, but varies across UK:


Rights based in Scotland

Service based in England

State still stronger in Wales and Northern Ireland
Increasing use of PRS likely to decrease involvement?
Conclusions

Differences in allocations policies and TP across the UK may be analysed
via the dynamics of assemblage configurations, e.g. context; history; laws,
policies and practice; regulation; rights based or conditional access to
services; role of private sector; role of civil society including campaigning

‘Choice’ in allocations is being restricted by changes to eligibility and
access measures, particularly in England

‘Voice’ via TP is being directed towards co-production and co-regulation,
particularly (in different ways) in both England and Scotland

Allocations policies and use of tenant participation have contributed to the
restructuring of social housing provision towards:


A smaller state

Market or quasi-market measures (including the social economy)

Civil society involvement in service delivery and regulation
BUT this varies across the UK jurisdictions – and the state still has an
important part to play in social housing policy and delivery
References (1)

Bentley, G. and Pugalis, L. (2013) ‘New directions in economic development:
Localist policy discourses and the Localism Act’, Local Economy 28(3): 257-274.

Brenner, N., Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010) ‘Variegated neoliberalization:
geographies, modalities, pathways’, Global Networks 10(2): 182-222.

Clarke, N. and Cochrane, A. (2013) ‘Geographies and politics of localism: The
localism of the United Kingdom’s coalition government’, Political Geography 34: 1023.

Corbett, S. and Walker, A. (2013) ‘The big society: Rediscovery of ‘the social’ or
rhetorical fig-leaf for neo-liberalism?’, Critical Social Policy 33(3): 451-472.

Jacobs, K. and Manzi, T. (2013) ‘New Localism, Old Retrenchment: The ‘Big
Society’, Housing Policy and the Politics of Welfare Reform’, Housing, Theory and
Society 30(1): 29-45.

Keating, M., Cairney, P. and Hepburn, E. (2012) ‘Policy Convergence, Transfer and
Learning in the UK under Devolution’, Regional and Federal Studies 22(3): 289307.

Leyland, P. (2011) ‘The multifaceted constitutional dynamics of UK devolution’,
International Journal of Constitutional Law 9(1): 251-273.
References (2)

Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, V. (2012) ‘Local Governance under the Coalition
Government: Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’’, Local Government Studies
38(1): 21-40.

Maclennan, G. and O’Sullivan, T. (2013) ‘Localism, Devolution and Housing Policies’,
Housing Studies, 28(4): 599-615.

McEwan, N. (2005) ‘The Territorial Politics of Social Policy Development in Multi-Level
States’, Regional and Federal Studies 15 (4): 537-554.

McKee, K. (2013) ‘Housing Associations and the ‘New Localism’: understanding the
contested nature of neoliberal governing practices at the local scale’, presentation to
ESRC seminar series The Big Society, Localism and Housing Policy, 7th March,
Sheffield.

Muir, J. (2013) ‘The dynamics of policy-making under UK devolution: social housing in
Northern Ireland’, Housing Studies 28(7): 1081-1093.

Newman, J. (2013) ‘Landscapes of Antagonism: Local Governance, Neoliberalism and
Austerity’, Urban Studies published online 24th September 2013.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’, Antipode 34(3): 380-404.

Slocock, S. (2013) The Big Society Audit 2013, Civil Exchange.