CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN EAST MANCHESTER: FROM PRACTICE TO THEORY

Abstract

Utilising the major urban regeneration project launched by government in east Manchester in 1998, our aim is to evaluate the nature and extent of the involvement of local residents in the project and to use our findings to review democratic theory. We invert the normal theory and practice relationship to argue that it is sometimes valuable to build on existing practice in assessing democratic involvement rather than to proceed simply on the basis of normative theoretical ideals.

A major urban regeneration project was launched by government in east Manchester in 1998 in an area which by all the standard measures suffered from multiple and increasing deprivation (NEM 2002–03: 2–4). The scale of this particular urban project makes it a suitable case study of citizen participation. It covers an area of 2000 hectares and a population of 60,000. Our aim is to evaluate the nature and extent of involvement by local residents and to use this practice to reflect on democratic theory. This approach to theory and practice contrasts with the use of democratic theory as a normative ideal against which democratic practice is then evaluated and often found wanting. We evaluate participation as ‘fun’, neighbourhood planning, community workshops, consultation and protest. Drawing from this practice in east Manchester, we reflect on Arnstein’s (1969) theoretical approach to citizen participation which is based on a ladder depiction of citizen involvement but find that practice shows that Saward’s (2003) reflexive approach is more useful when evaluating citizen involvement because it allows a greater attention to issues of temporality, spatiality and complexity. It can be argued that Saward’s (2003) approach, by being open‐ended and contingent, permits too limited a type of democratic involvement to be acceptable and effectively endorses processes which Arnstein would consider to be deficient. We argue, however, that it is valuable to build on what exists in practice rather than to proceed on the basis of theoretical ideals.

Urban Regeneration, New Labour and East Manchester

Successive Government White Papers and other publications on citizen involvement have described the arguments for ‘democratic renewal’ and recognise that the ballot box is a blunt and incomplete mechanism for local councils to keep in touch with their locality (DETR 1998, 2001a, 2001b; De Montfort University and the University of Strathclyde 1998; Rao 2000). It is important, however, not to exaggerate the readiness of New Labour to unleash ‘people power’. Democratic renewal tended to be the least mandatory part of the White Papers: the main thrust of Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People (1998), for example, concerned service delivery (Leach and Wingfield 1999) while there was a stronger focus on leadership and choice in Strong Local Leadership: Quality Public Services (DETR 2001a). A national government official in the north‐west Regional Office commented that central government lacks a holistic approach to involvement and that the political rhetoric in its favour fails to marry with what actually comes out of government departments. ¹

The geographically‐concentrated deprivation in east Manchester required urgent action and the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council (MCC) asserted that ‘time was not on his side’ (The Guardian 2003). Economic decline in the wake of de‐industrialisation and the collapse of the local housing market in such deprived areas as east Manchester appeared to justify MCC in using its Cabinet‐led methods to dominate the response to the challenge (Peck and Ward 2002). For the agencies of central and local government it is hard economic and physical outputs within a short‐time frame which are the test of the success of such area‐based initiatives of urban regeneration rather than the promotion of democratic involvement. The ability to deliver on strategic outcomes is also circumscribed by the national political and global economic context within which MCC must operate.

MCC was joined in the task by two new regeneration structures: the New East Manchester Urban Regeneration Company (NEM) and the New Deal for Communities (NDC). NEM was given demanding regeneration targets over its ten‐year life span when it was established in 2000. East Manchester was the largest of the three Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs) to be set up nationally. It had a tripartite structure including representation from MCC, the North West Development Agency (NWDA) and English Partnerships (EP). URCs were recommended to involve residents, but in NEM’s case involvement was essential given that it was predominantly a residential project (Urban Task Force 1999). The NDC was established in 1998 to improve urban regeneration by inter‐agency partnership and community involvement (NEM 2008). NDC focused on community involvement whereas NEM prioritised strategic regeneration. In 2010 NDC merged with NEM. While NDC empowered local residents to become involved and to challenge MCC, both NDC and NEM staff were seconded from MCC. The independence of regeneration structures like NDC and NEM from MCC was limited.

Research Methods

The research was undertaken over six years and draws from documentary analysis, in‐depth interviews with 20 public officials and 25 local residents, attendance at community meetings and events and a survey of local residents. Websites are also used as is the East Manchester Advertiser, a local newspaper initially established by NEM, which for much of the period covered has sought to report neutrally between the claims of local residents and the regeneration structures themselves. ² Nevertheless, we have paid attention to bias in these sources and they have been carefully triangulated with information from interviews and other documentation.

The elite interviews include the Chief Executives of the organisations involved, leading Councillors and senior civil servants. In addition to lengthy, semi‐structured interviews with residents and a focus group with key activists, we organised a survey of 276 residents, which was conducted by residents themselves under close supervision by the authors. This information was used for confirmatory purposes. We maintained contact with people in the locality and returned frequently to the research site to obtain a sense of the changes which were occurring. The most striking change was the emergence of a new protest group among the residents themselves. Our focus on the area over an extended period of time enables us to present a dynamic picture of citizen involvement. We have discussed elsewhere both the structural inhibitions preventing residents from becoming heavily involved and the motivations for those who elect to become more active (Blakeley and Evans 2008, 2009). It is also apparent from our previous research that while it is necessary to refer to the diverse structures involved, in practice, it is overwhelmingly Manchester City Council (MCC) which is driving the regeneration project and arranging residential involvement, if sometimes by proxy (Evans 2007).

From Practice to Theory

Our research moves from practice to theory rather than establishing an ideal of democratic participation against which actual practice can be measured. Citizen involvement must be considered in its temporal and spatial context. A temporal analysis is necessary as a single snapshot of involvement is deficient in a project which covers a 20‐year time‐span. The temporal element is achieved by our researching local engagement over the period from 2004 to 2010 and the picture which emerges is dynamic because public involvement is an interactive process in which agents behave reflexively over time. The spatial context is the product of the particular characteristics of a specific area which include socio‐economic, political and environmental factors. The range of devices employed by MCC and the regeneration structures to involve local residents in east Manchester, which we examine below, and the issues of temporality and spatiality, point to a complex picture of involvement. This practice suggests that a theoretical approach which is reflexive is more useful in evaluating the quality of citizen participation than a hierarchical approach. Many of the models developed to evaluate participation make use of ladder metaphors which derive from Arnstein’s (1969) classification of participation. ³ The ladder ascends through manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control. One of the problems with these approaches is that although they usefully classify different types of participation, their normative purpose is to present a hierarchy of types of involvement in which those placed higher up the ladder are to be particularly valued. There is little point in imposing an ideal type of participation, however, if it does not address the situational realities faced in east Manchester: that of a deprived community undergoing an MCC‐led regeneration programme demanded by central government and required to make a substantial and early impact. Hierarchical approaches judge a priori types of participation without regard for spatial and temporal factors which help determine what works best in each particular circumstance.

Saward’s (2003) reflexive procedural approach to thinking about democracy is more useful in capturing the complexity and variety of citizen involvement on the ground. He argues that democratic principles (such as participation) gain their meaning through the devices, mechanisms and institutions which enact them. These devices, mechanisms and institutions may be more or less appropriate depending on where, how and why the principle of participation is being enacted. Saward (2003: 166) argues that ‘Democratic principles come alive (are "lived") through the medium of formal decisional mechanisms or devices which are designed to activate them and which come to be justified in terms of them. Their perceived utility as principles will largely rest on the performance of those devices.’ This reflexive approach is ‘sensitive to context, open‐ended, productive and adaptable’ (Saward 2003: 161) and therefore enables types of participation to be evaluated against the real circumstances in which people act. This means that there is no a priori judgement about which types of participation are more ‘genuine’ than others but rather it allows the principle of participation to be enacted through ‘distinctive combinations of devices, sequenced differently—in different times and places’ (Saward 2003: 169). This approach is therefore attentive to temporal and spatial factors. Practice can inform theory, therefore, because we are not forced to decide a priori that certain forms of participation are merely cosmetic because of their location on a theoretical hierarchy such as Arnstein’s ladder. It allows us to consider each device according to its utility in any given time or place and the extent to which it allows the principle of participation to come alive.

Participation as ‘Fun’

We found many examples of creative devices which provide participatory opportunities to local residents. These include ‘parties in the park’ and ‘fun days’. Such events are used for the dual purposes of building good social relations and providing opportunities for residents to make their preferences known. These NDC organised events follow Goss’s (1999: 4) principle that public participation should be ‘fun’ and they are justified because ‘by making consultations fun we hope more people than ever will participate, giving us a true picture of people’s views’. Our survey revealed high percentages involved in ‘parties in the park’ (55.1%), fun days (51.1%), clean up days (26.1%) and helping with community gardens and alleygating (closing of alleys by installing gates) (20.3%). In deprived neighbourhoods, afflicted with drug abuse, crime and anti‐social behaviour, NDC and later NEM’s concentration on supporting these ‘fun’ activities acknowledges that a variety of interactions with residents are required which include both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ devices of participation. Such ‘fun’ activities acknowledge the constraints within which local residents are asked to participate. Family and caring responsibilities, a lack of time and poverty can all impact upon an individual’s real and perceived ability to participate (Blakeley and Evans 2008). As the Community Development Foundation argues, ‘a strategy for strengthening communities should … address first and foremost people’s ability to relate to each other’(quoted by Chanan 2003: 27). The regeneration partners, through activities like ‘parties in the park’ seek to expand and exploit existing networks of neighbourliness. Yet these activities are not easily located on ladder approaches to citizen involvement. Moreover, the very fact of labelling devices ‘formal’ or ‘informal’ itself imposes a hierarchy of values.

Periodically residents have been involved in a mini referendum on a fun day in which they hang on a washing line those regeneration projects they regard as ‘tops’ and those they regard as ‘pants’. They produce a strong response and test opinion in a format and setting in which marginalised local residents are encouraged to join in. The issues that locals could specify are not pre‐determined. As a local activist expressed it this exemplified the ‘quirky nature of some of the consultations’. ⁴ NDC also sent out thousands of tea bags with a copy of the then current regeneration report to residents to motivate them to read about the activities which affected their community. East Manchester also has become a pilot area for NDC to train teenagers from disadvantaged communities to become advisers on local decision‐making. The Young Advisors who emerged organise one‐day events to ‘throw up lots of ideas on how services can be improved to make them more appropriate for the young people of east Manchester’.

Neighbourhood Planning

Devices like neighbourhood planning can offer local residents an involvement in non‐hierarchical collective decision‐making, but opinions differ among those taking part as to how participatory such activities are. Moreover, these judgements vary according to the diverse expectations and experiences of individual residents and individual perceptions alter over time. Locating such devices on a static hierarchy of participation is therefore difficult. The Neighbourhood Planning (NP) process advocated by MCC appears to be inclusive and participatory. The procedure begins with the delivery of leaflets to all houses in a given area inviting consultation and encouraging the formation of a residents steering group. Residents report that the steering group members praised the imaginative approach to consultation in which developers, who were selected by a group including local residents, won a national award for their approach to consultation. These developers used such methods as interactive workshops, training modules, life‐sized board games and jargon busting sessions on design issues. Some residents who engaged with this initiative assert that it was a slow process of ‘social consensus building’. According to this view, NP approximates Arnstein’s (1969) conception of partnership. One resident objected, however, that the meetings of the steering group were closed to non‐members, and that the whole process appeared to be ‘pre‐determined’ with residents only able to make minor changes. ⁵ According to this view the NP process was one which Arnstein (1969) would define as ‘placation’. This view gains endorsement three years later when another resident challenged MCC’s Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for Toxteth Street. ⁶ Different resident views, therefore, would place the same device on two different rungs of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder.

MCC leaders claim that resident involvement in NP helps residents to remain in their local area and that the ‘right to remain’ sharply differentiates its current practices from the slum clearances of earlier times. ⁷ One local councillor argues that the NP process involves local people to the extent that they move from having a narrow concern with their own house to a developing interest in their street and wider neighbourhood, becoming citizens in the process. ⁸ By 2008 MCC was persevering with the NP process as it announced a regeneration proposal for West Gorton involving ‘mega‐demolition’ (NEM 2008). The Deputy Chief Executive of NEM stated that NEM has ‘worked closely with the West Gorton Residents’ Steering Group and undertaken door to door surveys to establish residents’ views. The developers also, as in the Toxteth street case, emphasise that their intentions are ‘to work closely with the local people and build upon the strong community base that already exists’. We discovered broad agreement that a scheme to register private landlords through the entire city resulted during the course of NP negotiations. Generally, however, it is the contrasting judgements of those affected which creates the dilemma of how to evaluate these devices using a hierarchical approach to participation whereas Saward’s approach could help to understand this variability. Few among those who we interviewed dissent from the view that there was more discussion with residents than had ever occurred in the past. Practice on the ground in this case supports a reflexive theoretical framework.

Community Workshops

In some areas NEM adopted community workshops as a device to enact participation. In the New Islington development, for example, a group was brought together to discuss how members wished to see their new locality. Members were given defined issues on which to make recommendations, using small group and plenary sessions, but with a recognition that different views would emerge, all of which should be recorded. Clark (1999: 80) advocates community workshops and emphasises the need to provide residents with information on the issues being addressed before judgements are sought. Community workshops, Clark (1999) argues, can break down barriers between service‐providers and the public. The establishment of Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) which are task groups aimed at bringing together public bodies and service providers to discuss issues of concern, also facilitate interaction between residents and service‐providers. Local residents informed us that the Crime and Community Safety and the Housing LAPs are well attended and influential. ⁹ LAPs allow residents to raise issues of concern which affect their lives. They have now been replaced and strengthened by Independent Advisory Groups. ¹⁰ NEM and NDC also organise meetings in which residents can urge service delivery improvements and we attended one, for example, at which street cleaners were forced to respond to specific demands such as putting more effort into cleaning up alleyways.

Consultation: Symbolic and Real

Some of the devices adopted in east Manchester to involve local residents enact participation in a symbolic way. It is particularly notable that types of formalised representation, such as residents sitting on the NEM Board, are not highly rated by participants, and meetings are characterised as information‐receiving events. MCC was adamant that a piece of public art, the B of the Bang, be erected in the Bradford neighbourhood but not only did the residents object, the sculpture has been declared unsafe. MCC has been paid £1.7 million by the designers in an out‐of court settlement to recoup the heavy financial losses which it has incurred (BBC 2008). Also, while some activists recruited by the regeneration structures supported the proposal to locate a major casino in the neighbourhood, others were opposed, and were delighted when the government did not proceed. Yet MCC distorted the reality in its general claim that local people supported the casino proposal. This is an example of residents simply being given information and their views then not even being accurately portrayed, reminiscent of Arnstein’s (1969) concept of therapy in which community voices are manipulated.

NEM, however, undertook an extensive consultation exercise in autumn 2007 which led to the publication of the new Strategic Regeneration Framework. The exercise lasted for three months and 30,000 households were consulted by post. There were also ‘drop‐in’ sessions, widespread leafleting to invite residents to meetings, which were attended by over 800 people, and over one thousand detailed survey forms were completed. Residents were invited to comment on a draft which proposed three core objectives and eight key priorities. The Acting Chief Executive of NEM, ¹¹ Eddie Smith claimed that: ‘The level of attendance at events and the number of responses received indicate a high degree of success in achieving the key aim of sharing information with all interested parties, allowing everyone the opportunity to voice their opinions and to influence the future of their area’ (NWDA 2008). He asserts that changes ensued as a result of the process: land use was altered to allow more open spaces and allotments; the profile of tackling crime was raised; and, steps taken to increase the opportunities for inter‐generational contact (NWDA 2008).

Participation as Protest

One MP suggested that MCC is responsive but only to political pressure. ¹² Protest may therefore be a useful form of participation. It appears that major housing projects, encouraged by the Government’s Pathfinder housing market renewal strategy and involving the demolition of older terraces, are sometimes pursued forcefully. These projects have produced transient, spontaneous examples of protest rather than the sustained protest discussed in the next section. There are various examples. In 2004 NEM announced plans to construct a secondary school in Beswick which involved the demolition of a number of properties. Local residents held public demonstrations, picketed NEM Board meetings and turned up at NEM headquarters to harass Tom Russell the then Chief Executive. ¹³ The resulting publicity surrounding the protests led NEM to alter its plans giving local residents an opportunity to select from one of three approaches. This consultation process included drop‐in events and newsletters in the form of a ‘Neighbourhood Update’. Houses were still to be demolished but the number of houses varied. Agreement was then reached between NEM and the local residents about which of the options to pursue. The Executive Committee of MCC formally approved this binding result at its meeting of April 2005 where it was reported that the consultation process had led to 63 forms being returned by local residents with 47% voting for the option, which the Executive Committee approved even though it was unhappy that the chosen option sanctioned the smallest release of land (MCC 2005). NEM officials admit to having learnt a lesson from the episode about the need to consult local residents. ¹⁴ The Beswick NP was then redrafted with the agreement for the school proposal taken forward to the next stage of consultation (NEM 2005).

Another example of successful protest demonstrates the importance of agency as NEM’s apparent learning in the case of the Beswick school did not spread to all actors in MCC. A controversy arose during 2006 in Miles Platting involving housing demolition affecting 250 residents. This episode arose because an MCC housing official ignored the established procedures and neglected the hearing required by the NP process. An MCC Executive Committee member apologised for criticising local residents as ‘whingers’ and Tom Russell the Chief Executive of NEM reiterated his commitments to allow people to remain in the area to reap the benefits of regeneration and to maintain a dialogue (MCC 2006).

Institutionalising Protest?

The kind of reactive, temporary protest discussed above can be distinguished from protest which is sustained over time and which can become institutionalised. Elites and residents alike are concerned about the achievement of specific ends and the argument about democratic forms and processes is secondary. Urban regeneration pursues outcomes which are sometimes shared by officials and residents, such as reversing decline, and at other times divergent ends, such as whether particular streets should be demolished. When shared ends are apparent then the devices employed by MCC and its partners, engineered and controlled as they often are, suffice. On the other hand, where a divergence in the desired ends emerges, then a more oppositional style of participation is needed. Communities for Stability (C4S) responds to this need.

C4S expanded from a small group of dissidents whose activities subsequently fed into C4S. This dissatisfied group of residents objected to the plans for the demolition of housing. This group gathered around the Ben Street group (BESSARA), chaired by a former active trade unionist, and their early activities in resisting the destruction of houses in Clayton were acknowledged by a local MP and have been discussed previously (Wainwright 2003: 74). The protests by this group were relatively ineffective, however, and their members complained that MCC was manipulating the consultation process to marginalise legitimate dissent. They had specific grievances about the management of meetings by MCC officials, the manner in which one of their number had been selected as a lone voice on a Residents’ Steering Group, the withdrawal of the choice that had been promised to residents that properties might be refurbished or left alone and of the cynical manner in which property companies had allowed properties to decline to the point where demolition became almost a necessity. ¹⁵

C4S operates from the BESSARA community house and united members of BESSARA, who had sought to engage with the formal processes of consultation from which they had emerged dissatisfied, with new activists derived from residents unhappy about the outcomes of the NP negotiations in such areas as Toxteth Street and Miles Platting. These new supporters not only opposed the demolition of their own houses but also rejected the levels of financial compensation and the offers from MCC to purchase more expensive alternative properties in the area, whether outright, through a loan or by shared equity. These residents argue that shared equity means that their houses can not be bequeathed to their descendants and that the council tax on their properties would be unaffordable if they upgrade. C4S was emboldened by the recruitment as secretary of a charismatic local activist who had declined to participate in the opportunities offered by the regeneration structures. The passionate involvement by such individual activists is important and his actions demonstrated that among residents as well as elites, agency clearly matters. The constantly changing nature of the process is highlighted by his resignation in March 2009. He is one of many local activists that we encountered who has suffered ‘burn out’ and/or disillusionment after a period of intense activity.

The desire by C4S for a more effective strategy was assisted by advice from lawyers linked to the Empty Homes Agency. ¹⁶ C4S was presented with evidence on how to strengthen its arguments by an official from the agency and advised on improving its communications with the media. He also described the successes which the agency was achieving in other towns. ¹⁷ The Agency’s objective is refurbishment not demolition. It also encouraged C4S to engage in a rebuttal process with MCC when residents are confronted with CPOs. This was done in a case involving residents whose only language was Mandarin Chinese, and although MCC responded to them, it did so only in English. ¹⁸

The anxiety by C4S members about the demolition of old terraces and the resulting break up of neighbourhoods was intensified by an unremitting hostility towards MCC, which they claim has been dishonest. ¹⁹ C4S utilises the opposition to the demolition of houses to gain local support but it also has an animus against MCC for advocating a casino as part of the regeneration process. C4S members consider that a casino would produce undesirable outcomes. As one resident wrote to C4S:

As a family that has suffered and continue to suffer the effects of inner‐city gambling I am also against the building of a super casino in our local area is this what they see as the only means of gaining employment for our communities, i [sic] see this as another way of councillors who do not live within these communities, [sic] making the decisions. This is once again another way of councils making money from the poor, these people vote for it yet we areas supposed to sit back and let it happen, just like when there was opposition from the local tenants within Ancoats and Miles Platting the councillors voted for this against our wishes. ²⁰

C4S worked with the Faith Network 4 Manchester in opposing the establishment of a casino in the area. Together they issued a statement that ‘all the evidence shows that such a facility would bring additional problems to an already disadvantaged area’ (Manchester Faith Network 2007). The C4S secretary stressed that it was working on an alternative proposal to bring ‘real jobs’ and ‘affordable eco‐housing ‘to east Manchester. He added that:

MCC does not wish to talk with anyone who is not infected by its own limited vision of bringing jobs through sexual exploitation, addictive gambling and organised crime. Local people are asking what are the real motives behind this insane desire to flood our communities with further problems at a time when Greater Manchester Police and local people are beginning to work together to combat drug/gun/gang culture and offer our young people an alternative lifestyle. We want politicians who deliver—not glory boys who offer quick fixes that could lead to further years of misery for the electorate you seem to despise. ²¹

The delight expressed by the leaders of MCC when the super casino was awarded to east Manchester was dashed when the Government reversed its decision (MCC 2007). C4S is advocating, in conjunction with a developer, the Affordable Housing Company, new eco houses and a revival of the Belle Vue fairground as a Leisure Park. Such a park would, they assert, provide superior employment and leisure opportunities to a casino. C4S claims wide support in east Manchester from all ages and cultures. ²²

In terms of achievements, C4S contributed to a decision by MCC that ‘they are not doing any more Compulsory Purchase Orders in east Manchester, due to the opposition from residents and others as it is too much hard work for them’. ²³ C4S challenged specific CPOs including the continuing controversy around the Toxteth Street and Miles Platting developments and formal public inquiries were held in July and November 2008. Some success was achieved but since the particular plans were turned down the onus was initially placed on C4S to produce alternative plans which will still allow the developers to make a profit. ²⁴ This led to consultations between local residents in which C4S was active. MCC revised their initial ideas and subsequently decided to withdraw from issuing CPOs (NEM 2008).

C4S set up an Affordable Housing Group which established links with a company (Mbarrk) to put forward plans to refurbish properties sustainably. MCC invited C4S to a meeting to explore their ideas but, according to the C4S delegation, the event proved to be unproductive. ²⁵ C4S also continued to promote its Belle Vue vision. It claims local support for transforming this former fairground into an imaginative Leisure Complex. ²⁶ Its officials held a meeting with the former Minister for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears and the local MP Gerald Kaufman (The Big Issue 2008). The minister welcomed the readiness of C4S to offer ideas and expressed her preference for local groups acting this way to prevent her having to ‘trawl round for ideas herself’ (The Big Issue 2008). C4S continued to inform her of their disquiet with NEM and MCC. ²⁷

C4S has enjoyed other successes: their over‐50s group claims credit for the alteration in the 2008–2010 Strategic Regeneration Framework to include more inter‐generational activities. ²⁸ A victory has also been secured, through demonstrations and petitions in conjunction with local residents, to preserve a doctor’s surgery and health centre which was to have been demolished in the Miles Platting neighbourhood. ²⁹ These are micro achievements, but as McLaverty (2003: 47) asserts, ‘small scale initiatives may be all that seem possible at the moment’. The recession has led some developers ‘to walk away’ suggesting that it is the extraneous impact of external economic factors which are much more profound than the activities of local residents, whether acting with or in opposition to the regeneration structures. ³⁰ At the Annual General Meeting in May 2009, only two individuals turned up although they are now discussing a strategy to keep C4S going. ³¹ The fluctuating fortunes of C4S exemplify the deficiency of evaluating participation through snapshots of the involvement of local residents at specific times.

Saward’s (2003) argument that devices must be interpreted in context is persuasive. Circumstances are such that local politicians and officials are also compelled to be managerialist to deliver discernible advances, and to obtain ‘quick wins’ towards government targets in order to acquire further funding. ³² The political context also means, as Amin (2005: 613) argues, that local involvement is being set up in circumstances in which the ‘get‐on‐your bike philosophy’ and the ‘business‐knows‐best philosophy’ are part of the prevailing ideological hegemony. Diamond (2001) also points to the local management of regeneration necessarily leaving little space for innovative approaches towards inclusivity. Ultimately it is central government which determines the course of the regeneration project, with MCC acting as its agent. The major demolition programmes result from the national launch of the Pathfinders project in 2002 and by working with this project MCC has been able to draw down monies which can be used for the demolition of properties. This lever which central government possesses is patently more persuasive than local pressure politics. External economic circumstances, such as the economic growth in 2002 and the economic recession in 2009, shape the progress of regeneration in east Manchester and these realities will help determine what NEM can achieve even though it is formally set to continue until 2018 (MCC 2009).

In achieving the ends desired by local residents, various types of residential participation have proved valuable, including participation which is oppositional in character.

In east Manchester it is evident that both those residents who take part in the range of processes and activities resulting from the initiatives of the regeneration structures and those who became involved with C4S have wielded influence. Supporting the case for involvement in formal processes, one of the activists complained that while MCC’s approach to involvement was ‘disjointed’ it is ‘worthwhile’. ³³ This is the view that it is preferable for marginalised residents to wield limited influence. Some residents stress the marked improvement from earlier decades when Mancunians suffered CPOs, had little help with coping and were offered nil consultation.³⁴ C4S members practice some disruptive tactics but most accept a measure of interaction with the formal structures.

While in one respect the shift towards an oppositional style, and the emergence of institutionalised protest in the form of groups such as C4S is hard to understand, as the area has been arrested from the steep decline into which it had sunk, the remaining concern by many residents is whether the improvements are sustainable, particularly given the global recession of 2008–09. It is also true, however, that there are instances when MCC has not behaved reciprocally and simply obliged residents to trust it without adequately sharing decision‐making, and for many residents whose houses were going to be demolished, with the consequential financial costs and loss of neighbourhood intimacy, the regeneration process was undesirable and arbitrary. There is, therefore a case for the existence of a variety of types of activist activity: they are complementary not contradictory and serve different purposes.

Conclusion

It is evident that the task of regenerating east Manchester within a short time frame made it difficult for MCC and its surrogate organisations to focus primarily on developing innovative methods to facilitate involvement. Nevertheless, agency does matter owing to the variable commitment by the structures involved and the individuals working within them. In assessing the nature and extent of this participation it is important to appreciate the spatial and temporal context in which the actors find themselves. The spatial context is the deprivation and social problems of east Manchester which are framed by de‐industrialisation and a declining inner city area on the periphery of a regenerated urban centre. This is, in turn, located within a national and global context in which economic factors, not local pressure, are key drivers.

The temporal factors to consider when evaluating participation are the history of the area in which resident involvement has largely been absent and the ever changing character of the regeneration project itself. The behaviour of elites and residents changes as the regeneration project unfolds. Snapshots of the involvement of local residents at specific times neglect the changing patterns of behaviour by elites and local people alike and therefore do a disservice to an interactive, reflexive and dynamic process. The temporal issue therefore suggests that a reflexive approach to understanding practice on the ground is important as is Saward’s (2003) idea of sequencing so that different devices to enact participation can be used at different times and for different issues as appropriate.

It must also be recognised that local people are operating within constraints and lack the economic, social and cultural capacity to assume the full burden that active involvement requires (Blakeley and Evans 2008). Many residents are content to act as consumers, or even clients, of the regeneration process. Small victories were achieved, and some residents were satisfied with the contribution that they were able to make, but at other times distrust emerged and protest was dominant. The resentment of residents to some specific proposals was understandable. Even then, however, there was no unanimity among local residents.

Advocates of participatory democracy must accept that for many residents it is the outcomes of the regeneration process which is their concern not an active local democracy. These outcomes are frequently shaped by events rather than by political dialogue. Even the more disaffected residents concede that the area has been rescued from the deep decline into which it had subsided. MCC is persevering with a regeneration project because of the funds it attracts from government but it has discovered that however ambitious its plans, it is unable to disregard completely the preferences of local residents.

The stance of citizens who choose to participate by means of devices and institutions provided by the regeneration structures and those who sometimes resort to more oppositional means can be justified given the variety of individual agents, and the conflicting attitudes and inconsistencies over time, among the local elites. The impact of various types of activism is apparent and as circumstances change it is premature and inappropriate to argue which devices are more effective.

A recognition of the power asymmetries between the central state and the local state and between local officials and residents, suggests that local people need to deploy whatever resources they can muster. The influence of local people, however, can be exercised only after the requirements of the central and local state and of transient economic circumstances have constrained the opportunities to affect policy. The skilful wielding of a variety of devices to enact citizen participation in parallel, or as in east Manchester intermittently or sequentially, are best able to maximise the influence of local residents.

Notes

1. Interview, 7 March 2005.

2. Interview with local journalist, 13 February 2006.

3. For example, in addition to the ladder metaphor of Arnstein which has already been referred to, there is the continuum devised by Goss (1999); the matrix‐based methods proposed by both McLaverty (1999) and also Barnes (2000); and the circular diagrammatic representation contrasting limited with strong participation advanced by Smith and Beazley (2004).

4. Interview, 27 July 2006.

5. Interview, 13 October 2005.

6. Interview, 11 May 2008.

7. Interview, 4 December 2004.

8. Interview, 18 August 2006.

9. Interviews, 31 July 2008 and 12 May 2008.

10. Interview with local residents, 12 May 2008.

11. Eddie Smith became Chief Executive of NEM in March 2009.

12. Interview, 27 February 2006.

13. One of the authors witnessed an example of the persistent pursuit of Tom Russell (on 4 December 2004)

14. Interview, 27 May 2005.

15. Interviews with local residents, 23 May 2005.

16. Established in 1992, this independent charity campaigns to address the issue of empty homes in order to better meet housing needs.

17. Interview with local activist, 7 May 2009.

18. C4S meeting attended by one of the authors, 12 May 2008.

19. Interview, 2 June 2008.

20. Email message to secretary of C4S from a local resident ‘Donna’, 20 June 2007 distributed by secretary to C4S loop members by email 21 June 2007.

21. C4S email to loop members in receipt of communications from C4S officials, 20 June 2007.

22. C4S email, 27 February 2008.

23. C4S email, 7 May 2009.

24. Interview with C4S official, 5 November 2008.

25. Interviews, 10 July 2008.

26. C4S email, 4 April 2008.

27. Interview with C4S official, 5 November 2008. See Manchester City Council, available at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents-info.php?categoryID==648&documentID==1712, accessed 30 November 2008.

28. C4S meeting attended by one of the authors, 12 May 2008.

29. Interview with local residents, 29 May 2008.

30. Interviews with local activist, 7 May 2009.

31. C4S, 7 May 2009; information derived from a telephone call with an official from the Empty Homes Agency.

32. Interview, 31 April 2007.

33. Focus Group organised and attended by the authors, NCD offices, Manchester, 24 April 2006.