Deliberative Democracy and Urban Regeneration: Justification and Evaluation
| DOI | 10.1177/095207670401900403 |
| Author | Stephen Muers |
| Published date | 01 October 2004 |
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Deliberative
Democracy
and
Urban
Regeneration:
Justification
and
Evaluation
Stephen
Muers
Queen
Mary,
University
of
London
Abstract
The
current
orthodoxy
of
urban
regeneration
is
that
it
is
essential
to
involve
the
community
in
decisions
about
regeneration
programmes.
This
article
argues
that
the
justification
for
this
position
is
often
unclear
and
explores
three
different
theoretical
arguments
for
deliberative
democracy
in
an
urban
regeneration
context.
It
concludes
that
there
are
fundamental
theoretical
flaws
with
arguing
for
deliberation
on
the
grounds
of
legitimacy,
and
that
arguments
based
on
the
nature
of
knowledge
or
the
nature
of
society
are
more
promising.
However
both
of
those
types
of
arguments
will
only
justify
deliberation
in
certain
circumstances,
and
it
is
an
empirical
question
as
to
whether
or
not
a
specific
regeneration
project
meets
the
necessary
criteria.
The
article
concludes
by
using
this
purely
theoretical
discussion
to
construct
nine
questions
to
guide
empirical
evaluation
of
attempts
to
employ
deliberative
democracy
in
urban
regeneration.
Community
Involvement
in
Regeneration
Current
scholarship
shows
a
clear
received
wisdom
about
the
historical
development
of
approaches
to
regeneration.
It
is
argued
(Carter
and
Patel,
1998;
Foley
and
Martin,
2000;
Hughes
and
Carmichel,
1998;
Parkinson,
1996)
that
regeneration
arose
as
a
major
concern
in
the
early
1970s,
when
governments
responded
to
urban
decline
by
introducing
centrally-managed
spending
programmes.
A
wider
ideological
shift
in
public
policy
towards
market-led
solutions
led
to
regeneration
in
the
1980s
focusing
on
support
for
private
sector
investment.
Then
the
1990s
saw
a
"turn
to
community"
(Duffy
and
Hutchinson,
1997)
as
policy
began
to
focus
on
a
desire
to
engage
communities
in
regeneration
and
on
changing
policy
delivery
vehicles
to
give
them
more
involvement.
The
engagement
of
communities
is
now
seen,
including
by
government
(DETR,
2000),
as
requiring
direct
citizen
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
19
No.
4
Winter
2004
34
involvement
in
decision-making
and
control
rather
than
just
government
bureaucracies
surveying
their
opinions.
The
move
towards
advocating
direct
citizen
involvement
in
decision-
making
echoes
a
wider
movement
in
public policy
towards
interest
in
deliberative
democracy
as
a
way
of
making
policy
choices
(Dryzek,
1987,
2000,
2001;
Fischer
and
Forrester,
1993;
Habermas,
1984).
Many
studies
of
regeneration
place
themselves
within
a
deliberative
democratic
framework.
However,
this
work
is
often
unclear
about
why
deliberation
is
desirable.
If
there
is
to
be
any
evaluation
of
community
deliberation
it
is
essential
to
understand
its
original
theoretical
rationale,
so
as
to
be
able
to
construct
appropriate
evaluation
criteria.
Sometimes
(for
example,
Banks
and
Shenton,
2001;
Bolland
and
McCallum,
2002;
Carley
et
al.,
2000;
and
Lawless,
2001)
community
involvement
is
proposed
without
any
attempt
to
offer
a
normative
justification
for
it.
Other
scholars
(for
example,
Edwards,
2001;
Fitzpatrick
et
al.,
2000;
Foley
and
Martin,
2000;
Lepofsky
and
Fraser,
2003)
employ
elements
of
several
different
arguments,
sometimes
without
separating
them
out
or
assessing
their
relative
strengths
and
weaknesses.
It
is
therefore
not
surprising
that
in
commentaries
on
some
of
this
body
of
literature
Townshead
(1998)
says
there
is
a
notable
lack
of
clarity
and
agreement
about
the
classification
schemes
to
employ
and
Dobbs
and
Moore
(2002)
argue
that
the
purpose
of
community
involvement
tends
to
be
badly
articulated.
A
wider
theoretical
move
towards
deliberative
approaches
is
not
the
only
piece
of
context
important
to
understanding
their
increased
relevance
to
urban
regeneration
in
the
UK.
With
declining
turnouts
in
both
local
and
national
elections,
means
for
reinvigorating
democracy
have
become
a
live
topic
for
debate.
Deprived
urban
areas
have
often
seen
the
lowest
levels
of
political
participation,
and
so
new
approaches
such
as
deliberation
are
particularly
salient
for
regeneration
programmes.
Such
a
move
towards
deliberation
is
most
marked
in
the
New
Deal
for
Communities
(NDC)
programme,
which
sees
the
development
of
new
methods
of
democratic
participation
as
part
of
its
remit
(DETR,
2000).
Scope
of
the
Analysis
The
discussion
below
attempts
to
clear
up
some
of
the
confusion
about
why
community
engagement
through
deliberation
is
needed
in
regeneration
programmes,
through
consideration
of
the
basic
theoretical
arguments
for
deliberative
democracy.
Approaches
to
regeneration
ultimately
have
to
rest
on
deeper
beliefs
about
public policy
in
general.
How
these
general
arguments
about
deliberation
affect
the
evaluation
of
regeneration
projects
is
addressed
in
the
final
section
of
this
article.
It
should
be
stressed
that
this
discussion
is
intended
purely
as
an
exploration
of
underlying
theory,
and
does
not
attempt
to
review
the
extensive
empirical
evidence
on
the
effectiveness
of
different
regeneration
approaches.
It
is
legitimate
to
take
a
theoretical
approach
as
clarity
about
the
underlying
assumptions
is
important
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
19
No.
4
Winter
2004
35
To continue reading
Request your trial