Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:50:37.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being a Programme Authority: Is it Worthwhile?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Meryl Aldridge  and
Christopher J. Brotherton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nottingham is one of 23 local authorities designated as ‘programme authorities’ under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. Between 1983 and 1985 the authors carried out research into the formulation of inner city policy, its application to the Radford area in particular and the opinions of residents there about its impact. Interviews with a wide range of those involved with policy including local authority officers and members and representatives of the police, the health authority and regional Department of the Environment (DoE) revealed considerable institutional and political barriers to a joint inner city strategy in a shire district, even where the same party holds political control. Structures set up to liaise are cordial but clumsy, slow and very much removed from daily service delivery. As elsewhere, the local authorities are critical of lack of central government commitment to this part of the Urban Programme, but nevertheless work well with regional DoE. Paradoxically, however, despite their criticisms of a lack of central funds and of inappropriate spatial and other parameters, the local authority and health authority respondents are anxious for the Programme to continue as it provides both the resources and the justification for innovatory and redistributive projects which would otherwise have been financially and politically impossible.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 349 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aldridge, M. (1979), The British New Towns: a programme without a policy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Urban Priority Areas (1985), Faith in the City, Church House Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Boddy, M., Lovering, J. and Bassett, K. (1986), Sunbelt City?, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. (ed.) (1985), ‘Leveraging and Urban Development’, Policy and Politics, 13:2, pp.175–210.Google Scholar
Buck, N., Gordon, I. and Young, K. et al. (1986), The London Employment Problem, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment (1977), Liverpool, Birmingham and Lambeth Inner Area Studies: summaries of consultants' reports, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment (1985a), The Urban Programme: ministerial guidelines, DoE, London.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment (1985b), The Urban Programme: management guidance and revision notes, (start of a series), DoE, London.Google Scholar
Donnison, D. (1974), ‘Policies for priority areas’. Journal of Social Policy, 3:2, pp.127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. and Batley, R. (1978), The Politics of Positive Discrimination, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Environment Committee (1983), The Problems of Management of Urban Renewal (Inner cities, policies—partnerships, programmes etc.), session 1982–1983, 103, Vols, i–x, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1981), The Inner City in Context, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. (1981). ‘Implementing Inner City Policy …’. Policy and Politics, 9:1, pp. 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. (ed.) (1983), Government and Urban Poverty, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Inner City Working Group (1977), Inner Area Studies: a contribution to the Debute, Joint Centre for Regional. Urban and Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Lawless, P. (1981), Britain's Inner Cities, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
Leach, S. (1982). ‘The Politics of Inner City Partnerships and Programmes’. Local Government Policy Making, 8:3. pp. 21–39.Google Scholar
Nabarro, R. (1980). ‘Inner City Partnerships …’, Town Planning Review, 51:1. pp.25–38.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (1985), Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, ‘Department of Environment: the Urban Programme’ Session 1984–85, HC 513, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Nottingham City Council (1984), Inner Area Programme Submission Document 1985–88, Nottingham City Council.Google Scholar
Nottingham City Council (1985), Inner Area Programme Submission Document 1986–87, Nottingham City Council.Google Scholar
Nottinghamshire County Council (1983), Disadvantage in Nottinghamshire, Part 1, (Structure plan: deprived area study), Nottingham County Council.Google Scholar
Policy for the Inner Cities. Cmnd 6845. HMSO, London. 1977.Google Scholar
Public Accounts Committee (1986), The Urban Programme, session 1985–1986, HC 81. HMSO.Google Scholar
Schon, D.A. (1971), Beyond the Stable State, Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. (1983a). ‘The Inner Area Planning System’, Policy and Politics, 11:2. pp. 203–214.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. (1983b), see Environment Committee 1983, ‘Minutes of evidence 02 22nd 1983’, HC 103. vii. pp. 342–359.Google Scholar
Thomis, M. (1969), Politics & Society in Nottingham 1785–1835, Augustus M. Kenney, London.Google Scholar
Whitting, G. (1985), ‘Implementing an Inner City Policy’ University of Bristol School for Advanced Urban Studies: Occasional Paper 22, SAUS.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (1983). ‘Inner City Policy’, NCVO Occasional Paper Three, Bedford Square Press/NCVO, London.Google Scholar
Wyncoll, P. (1985), The Nottingham Labour Movement 1880–1939, Lawrence and Wishart. London.Google Scholar