Sport, culture and the modern state: emerging themes in stimulating urban regeneration in the UK

Abstract

Since 1997 the relationship between sport policy and urban regeneration in the UK has expanded significantly as the transformative power of sport has been recognised and increasingly evidenced. The emergence of sport as a significant policy area, although often as part of a wider cultural block, has also been paralleled by attempts to reform its delivery in line with attempts by Government to modernise the state and ensure policy making is more effective and efficient. Within this context this paper unpacks the emergence of sports’ enhanced institutional presence in the policy process through examples drawn from a public service award programme – the Beacon Council scheme. This scheme illuminates how sport and cultural policy has changed in focus over time in relation to its use as a regeneration catalyst, and how more recently it is coming under pressure from fiscal retrenchment as a result of 2012 Olympic preparations. The paper concludes by assessing the sustainability of sport and cultural polity within UK policy making.

Keywords:

• sport
• urban regeneration
• state modernisation

Notes

1. Cited from Geddes and Martin (2000, p. 380).

2. This paper is based upon finding from empirical research conducted by the author between 2001 and 2007 on the role of sport and recreation in urban and regional regeneration. This research was in part funded by contributions from North East Sport and the County Surveyors Society.

3. Pinning urban or regional regeneration prospects on major sporting events is a risky strategy as recent UK experience testifies both in terms of economic expenditure and sustainability of provision once the event closes (Coaffee and Shaw 2005). For example, the 1986 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh lost £4 million and the World Student Games in Sheffield in 1991 lost £10 million with debts in Sheffield still being repaid on capital projects costing £161 million. In both cases projected benefits centred on re‐branding the city, tourism, economic growth and community leisure and sport benefits (Roche 2001).

4. The Department for National Heritage was created in 1992 after the general election of that year. The name was changed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 1997 after the election of that year. The former Ministers for the Arts and for Sport had previously been located in other departments. In establishing the new Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 1997 there was an increased recognition of the growing social and economic importance of cultural and sporting activities and the increasing role of public policy in promoting and regulating them (DCMS 2005).

5. The DCMS has had wide‐ranging responsibility for Government policy on ‘the arts, sport, the National Lottery, tourism, libraries, museums and galleries, broadcasting, creative industries including film and the music industry, press freedom and regulation, licensing, gambling and the historic environment as well as being the lead Department for the upcoming 2012 Olympic Games’ (DCMS 2007).

6. Over time these strategies have been largely subsumed into broader community or sustainable community strategies which set out a shared vision for their area and identify priorities for action which are agreed by a wide range of people, organisations and groups.

7. Sport England is the brand name of the English Sports Council which is a distributor of Lottery funds to sport. It was established in 1996 as one of the successor agencies to the Great British Sports Council (www.sportengland.org/).

8. As previously noted, the formation of the PAT 10 team on the contribution of art and sport in regeneration was in response to the fragmented delivery of sport policy and the need for systematic research to demonstrate the impact of sport (and broader cultural policy) in contributing towards greater social inclusion.

9. The constitution of the RSBs, like RCCs, reflected the widening ‘partnership’ agenda of regeneration with representatives from health, education, sport governing bodies, local authorities, business, etc. The RSBs have also had a key role in raising the profile and awareness of sport and the value it can add to the strategies and policies of related agencies and organisations in the fields of regeneration, economic development, tourism and culture.

10. For example, in the first round of Beacon Councils in 1999–2000 the themes were: community safety; sustainable development; modern service delivery; housing maintenance; modernising planning; education and social services.

11. The motivation for local councils to bid for Beacon status was promise of recognition through a public service award and receipt of a modest financial contribution towards dissemination events (Hartley and Downe 2007).

12. Most notably, at this time, the PAT 10 report argued that ‘culture and leisure have become part of the neighbourhood renewal process [and that] if having nowhere to go and nothing constructive to do is as much a part of living in a distressed community as poor housing or high crime levels, culture and sport provide a good part of the answer to rebuilding a decent quality of life there’ (cited in Sport England 2001, p. 10).

13. For example those running the Knowsley programme of work expected the following positive outcomes to occur: improvements in key indicators in health, employment, education and community safety; more effective use of resources; higher levels of community esteem and expectations; a positive impact on overall quality of life; and a move towards a more inclusive society (Sport England 2001, p. 19).

14. The Beacon scheme followed on from a prior flagship stadium scheme that focused on physical and economic regeneration connected to the development of the Stadium of Light football ground. Opened in 1997, and built on the site of the former Wearmouth Colliery site, the Stadium of Light development has created nearly 2000 new full‐ or part‐time jobs (Coaffee and Shaw 2003). Sunderland Football club’s Community Department also pursued a variety of community‐based projects. It has been estimated that the club spent in excess of £600,000 a year in ‘promoting health, education, arts, community citizenship and in combating racism’ and was highlighted by national government in the PAT 10 report as a ‘best practice’ scheme (SEU 2001).

15. This is an indicative comment. There is little in the way of hard data to back up the success of the Beacon year, although plenty of support for a view that learning had occurred and was being directed to other parts of the city council.

16. An LPSA is an agreement between a local authority and central Government where the government is committed to reward improvements made by the Local Authority on specified targets.

17. As of 2007 these have been replaced by a new Community Sports Network as part of the restructuring of sporting infrastructure in England.

18. The violent community disorders which erupted in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham during the summer of 2001 were some of the worst in England in 20 years.

19. This focus upon community cohesion and civic renewal as a political priority was reinforced within the government new overarching regeneration plan – Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (ODPM 2003, p. 5) – where it was argued for ‘a diverse, vibrant and creative local culture, encouraging pride in the community and cohesion within it’.

20. This led to the DCMS commissioning a number of streams of research looking at the relationship between culture, sport and civil renewal (see e.g., IPPR 2005).

21. The others selected were Baberghshire, Eastbourne, Leicester, Newham Borough, Nottinghamshire County, Shrewsbury and Atcham, Borough of Telford and Wrekin Council.

22. This Beacon theme, although aimed at utilising the power of sport and culture to add value to the community cohesion agenda, was also therefore still constrained by performance management. Here the Beacon Councils were expected to be able to demonstrate robust measurement for the impact of sport and culture (I&DeA 2006, p. 7).

23. These themes are amended from Sunderland’s own Beacon Council website: (http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/beacon/).

24. Under this policy all publicly funded bodies must demonstrate how their activity contributes to achieving programme goals and how children and young people participate in the design, delivery and evaluation of the services they use in five outcome areas: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and economic well being.

25. See for example, http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/beacon/Toolkits.asp. Sunderland City Council also held an incredibly popular Beacon Open Day in March 2007 where it showcased its good practice, demonstrating how sport and physical activity has become central to engagement strategies for young people.

26. The conference was run by Nottingham City Council in conjunction with Sport England in the East Midlands as part of Nottingham’s Beacon year in 2001/2.

27. Interview with senior sport administrator in the West Midlands, 2005.

28. Interview with senior sport administrator in the West Midlands, 2005.

29. Objective 4 is ‘to achieve a sustained improvement in UK sport before, during and after the Games, in both elite performance – particularly in Olympic and Paralympic sports – and grassroots Participation’ and Sub‐objective 4.4 is ‘to maximise increase in UK participation at community and grass‐roots level in all sport and across all groups’ (http://www.c‐london.co.uk/files/pdf/Olympic%20Programme%20Objectives%20(All).pdf).

30. This system for sport was however highly connected to another Government report from Delivering Efficiency: Strengthening the Links in Public Service Delivery Chains (Audit Commission 2006), which focused upon performance management criteria such as: good data; aligned funding strategies; strong levers in place (management, regulation, local targets); effective monitoring and review supported by a learning culture; and efficiency and value for money.

31. In attempts to conceptualise the planning of megaprojects, Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) provided a detailed exposé of a number of large‐scale infrastructure projects and how the concept of ‘risk’ and its acceptance by the public and private sector (and society at large), has been central to megaproject development. Flyvbjerg et al.’s (2003, p. 3) central argument is the ‘megaproject paradox’ where ‘at the same time as many more and larger infrastructure projects are being proposed and built around the world, it is becoming clear that many such projects have strikingly poor performance records in terms of economy, environment and public support’.

32. Although a detailed breakdown of the associated cost and budget cuts as a result of the huge increase in the overall Olympic budget lies beyond the scope of this paper, it has been estimated that from 2009 the UK arts sector is set to lose over £160 million. A similar amount is set to be lost for the Heritage lottery fund.

33. Cited in Culf and Higgns (2007).

34. Cited in Culf and Higgins (2007).