CHELMSFORD DIOCESE

THAMES GATEWAY – OCCASIONAL PAPER: 7

TRICKLED TO DEATH

(or DOES THE ‘TRICKLE DOWN’ EFFECT WORK?)

THE BACKGROUND: One of the mantras of Regeneration and on the manifestos of most of our major political parties is that the way to eliminate poverty is through the “trickle down” effect of economic development. It is an attractive theory as it means that poverty alleviation funds itself through economic growth and there is no need for major increases in taxation. However many poverty campaigners have questioned whether this effect really works, especially for the poorest in our society. Recently there has been more willingness to face some of these issues and the Government, in September 2006, published a document “Reaching Out: An Action Plan on Social Exclusion”. Tony Blair in his Prime Minister’s Preface highlights the problem - “About 2.5% of every generation seem to be stuck in a lifetime of disadvantage. Their problems are multiple, entrenched and often passed down through the generations.”

INTRODUCTION: Economic growth has long been upheld as a panacea for the evil that is poverty. Many of our current structures are focused on economic development. Thus the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), the delivery arm of Regional Assemblies, focus on “economic” Development. For example the East of England Development Agency has 4 main programmes, one of which, Investing in Communities (IiC), focuses on deprived areas. (The other 3 areas are Business Support, Enterprise Hubs and Regional Renaissance – the first two of these obviously being totally business focused). IiC is a £25million a year programme and has 3 strands – Employment, Skills and Enterprise (with the cross cutting themes of access to services and community engagement). This programme cannot fund projects outside their brief which can be seen to have a wholly economic and employment focus.

THE REALITY: London Docklands and the renewal of Central Manchester are held up as examples of the changes that are possible with this economic led approach. However those working closely with the poorest communities have often questioned the effectiveness of these programmes for those at the bottom of society. They point to facts such as the Borough of Newham, adjacent to Canary Wharf, being one of the poorest in London. They ask whether much of the economic uplift of areas of Manchester is due to ‘gentrification’ with the poorest moved on? Recent Government pronouncements have acknowledged the problem and highlighted Social Exclusion. The latest Action Plan will be aimed at issues around known poverty factors – teenage pregnancy, children in care and adults with multiple social problems.

One question may be whether there is the political will to carry the policies through, whatever the cost. It needs to be noted that there also needs to be the social will because, at the end of the day, politicians can only deliver what the electorate will accept.

A further question - What happens when a neighbourhood goes up in the world? - leads to………

THE CONUNDRUM: Let us consider an area of deprivation where Neighbourhood Renewal Funding is effectively applied and inward investment kicks in. The area starts to become fashionable and those who would never have considered living there before start to move in. Do these more affluent incomers pull up the deprived existing residents or do they force them out? Alternatively if an area of social housing is cleaned up and people start exercising their right to buy, it will not be the poorest who end up in these houses. Then the local schools improve and outsiders move in to get their children into the schools and the schools, concerned with performance tables, start to squeeze out children from “difficult” or known “problem” families who are then forced out of the area.

Alternatively money could be spent on those most in need. This is what the Government’s new Social Exclusion Action Plan seeks to do. What happens if it is successful? Will those whose lives have been improved by the programme then seek to move out of their areas into “better” places? Those with no choice will often be stuck in the worst places to live, those with choice…….

The core of the problem is to attract, or develop, inspirational people, keep them there and also retain the poor and help them to grow. Can it be done?

The conundrum is summed up by Tim Williams in his magazine column (Regeneration & Renewal of 29^th September 2006) –

“A community on benefits simply cannot be regenerated. Discuss.”