Conceptualising Local Approaches to Tackling Worklessness: The New Deal for Communities Programme as Neoliberal ‘Flanking Strategy’?

Abstract

Policy-makers have shown considerable enthusiasm for devolving responsibility for tackling worklessness to the local level. This approach has been critiqued by scholars who conceptualise targeted spatial interventions as ‘flanking strategies’ that co-opt individuals or neighbourhood-based organisations in the service of neoliberal goals. This paper draws on the national evaluation of the New Deal for Communities Programme to argue that such accounts neglect the voice of local actors. Empirical analysis shows that the programme is, in many ways, a classic flanking strategy but one which commands significant support among staff and participants. The paper concludes that this enthusiasm cannot easily be dismissed as co-option.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank colleagues in the national evaluation team including Elaine Batty and Rose Ardron (CRESR), Geoff Fordham (GFA), Robert Turner (SQW), Crispian Fuller (University of Warwick) and Richard Meegan and Gerwyn Jones (Liverpool John Moores University). The author would also like to thank Penny Withers in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and all those in the six case study NDCs who participated in the research. Thanks are due to Paul Lawless, Del Fletcher and John Flint and the two anonymous referees for insightful comments on drafts of the article. As always, final responsibility for the content lies with the author.

Notes

For summaries of these initiatives see Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2011) on LEPs and the Regional Growth Fund, DWP (2011) on Worklessness Co-design Pilots and DCLG (2011) on Enterprise Zones.

Full details and all reports from the evaluation can be found at: http://extra. shu. ac. uk/ndc/index. Html.

All IB claimants are now in the process of being transferred onto the new Employment and Support Allowance. SDA has been closed to new claimants since April 2001.

The NDC areas are named after their parent local authorities in this report for ease of identification but are, in fact, much smaller in size.