Partnership Overload in North West Birmingham
| Published date | 01 July 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207670502000308 |
| Author | Andrew Coulson |
| Date | 01 July 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Partnership
Overload
in
North
West
Birmingham
Andrew
Coulson
INLOGOV,
University
of
Birmingham
Abstract
The
possible
adverse
consequences
of
many
regeneration
partnerships
in
a
single
area
was
raised
by
Peck
and
Tickell
in
1994
and
the
Audit
Commission
in
1998
and
again
in
2005.
This
paper
illustrates
some
of
the
issues
through
a
study
of
four
regeneration
partnerships
active
in
North
West
Birmingham.
They
operate
in
an
area
which
has
some
of
the
highest
unemployment
in
Britain,
and
has
participated
in
almost
every
government-funded
regeneration
initiative
since
the
1980s.
They
work
in
the
context
also
of
the
Birmingham
Strategic
Partnership
charged
with
co-ordinating
activity
across
the
whole
city,
and
the
City
Council's
decentralisation
to
Districts,
Wards
and
Neighbourhood
Forums,
with
its
own
political
and
partnership
structures.
This
article
compares
and
contrasts
the
four
partnerships,
showing
how
each
is
the
result
of
a
separate
central
government
initiative.
In
theory
the
resources
available
to
the
different
partnerships
could
be
pooled,
and
then
reallocated
so
that
there
was
only
one
regeneration
partnership
in
each
area,
on
a
scale
much
smaller
than
those
of
the
Regeneration
Zones,
Housing
Market
Renewal
Pathfinder,
or
SRB6
project
considered
in
this
paper
The
outcome
would
be
more
on
the
scale
of
the
Aston
Pride
New
Deal
for
Communities.
For
this
to
happen,
the
Treasury
would
have
to
force
central
government
departments
to
let
go
far
more
than
hitherto.
It
is
more
likely
that
the
present
overlaps
will
continue.
Introduction
The
phrase
'partnership
overload'
was
used
by
the
Audit
Commission
in
1998
(Audit
Commission
1998,
p.7),
though
the
issue
had
already
been
raised
in
relation
to
regeneration
partnerships
by
Peck
and
Tickell
(1994).
The
Audit
Commission
was
sanguine
about
partnerships
generally:
'Although
partnership
working
is
increasingly
common,
it
does
not
necessarily
follow
that
a
partnership
is
the
answer
to
any
problem'
(ibid.
p.9).
It
recognised
that
wicked
issues,
or
'complex
problems,
such
as
community
safety
or
economic
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
20
No.
3
Autumn
2005
90
development,
which
cross
traditional
organisational
boundaries'
would
not
be
dealt
with
unless
agencies
work
together,
but
noted
with
concern
that
many
partnerships
were
set
up
to
'enable
agencies
to
bid
for
resources,
such
as
SRB,
which
are
not
available
to
single
organisations'
(p.11).
However,
'Partnership
working
is
often
expensive,
as
well
as
difficult.
Many
of
the
costs
involved,
particularly
senior
and
middle
managers'
time,
are
not
routinely
recorded
and
few
partnerships
have
precise
information
about
the
costs
of
their
activities.
Nevertheless,
it
is
clear
that
the
time
and
effort
required
to
run
the
growing
number
of
partnerships
is
considerable:
larger
authorities
might
now
participate
in
as
many
as
50
separate
arrangements
with
other
public
agencies
or
with
the
private
and
voluntary
sectors'
(p.7).
The
Audit
Commission
paper
took
the
line
that
agencies
should
treat
these
developments
positively,
while
remaining
aware
that
a
partnership
may
not
always
be
the
best
approach.
Since
then,
the
Local
Government
Act
2000
required
local
authorities
to
set
up
Local
Strategic
Partnerships
involving
the
main
economic
and
social
players
in
their
area.
Part
of
their
remit
is,
as
far
as
possible,
for
them
to
co-
ordinate
programmes
and
spending
in
their
areas.
The
Office
of
the
Deputy
Prime
Minister
is
increasingly
promoting
Local
Area
Agreements
where
the
agencies
in
an
area
plan
together
and
are
expected
to
consider
whether
there
are
gains
to
be
had
from
pooling
their
budgets.
A
recent
evaluation
found
that
'LSPs
are
progressing
from
strategy
to
implementation,
but
often
this
is
proving
a
slow
process
...
The
absence
of
clear
guidance/instructions
from
"parent"
departments,
pressure
on
resources,
lack
of
understanding
between
agencies,
all
represent
barriers
to
change,
but
the
main
issue
remains
the
absence
of
clear
incentives
for
LSPs
to
do
more
mainstreaming.
Nevertheless
there
is
evidence
of
progress
in
some
localities
...
The
main
driving
organisations
are
the
local
authority,
the
police
and
health
organisations
and
senior/middle
management
commitment
is
crucial
to
collaborative
working.'
(ODPM,
2005,
p.14).
Area-based
regeneration
partnerships
have
been
promoted
and
funded
by
various
parts
of
central
government,
mainly
(but
not
exclusively)
in
the
areas
of
greatest
poverty.
They
give
differing
emphases
to
the
many
possible
aspects
of
regeneration,
and
have
different
implicit
models
of
how
improvement
is
expected
to
take
place.
Many
have
become
acutely
aware
of
the
governance
issues:
how
best
to
involve
the
people
who
live
in
the
area
in
the
governance
of
the
partnerships,
how
to
ensure
probity,
and
how
to
feed
in
research
information
and
technical
knowledge
about
what
works
(or
not)
in
other
places.
This
article
looks
at
some
of
these
issues
through
a
study
of
four
largely
overlapping
area-based
partnerships
in
North
West
Birmingham.
These
have
different
scales
of
operation,
focus
on
different
aspects
of
regeneration,
have
different
governance
arrangements,
and
differ
in
how
they
perceive
that
regeneration
is
to
come
about.
They
are
financed
in
different
ways
by
central
government.
As
long
as
central
government
persists
with
its
separate
funding
arrangements,
co-ordination
will
be
difficult.
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
20
No.
3
Autumn
2005
91
To continue reading
Request your trial