Mainstreaming Regeneration: ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20

Research output: Working paper

Abstract

Regeneration policy has been a central feature of public policy in the UK since it was first recognised, during the 1960s, that the welfare state had not fully eliminated poverty. Essentially there are two broad institutional approaches to regeneration. The first involves the regeneration attempted through main government programmes and universal funding streams, the second that attempted through targeted, area-based solutions to particular social problems. To the same extent, there are two broad institutional approaches to mainstreaming. Simplified, the first involves the bending (or redirecting) of main government programmes and funding streams towards the most needy and deprived areas of society. The second involves the transferring of learning and good practice from localised area based initiatives into the mainstream. ‘Mainstreaming’, so understood, is not a new idea (CDP 1977; DoE 1977). But it is popular, critics argue, because it is low cost and because it allows government to blame others when things go wrong (Deakin and Edwards 1993). New Labour, however, has gone much further than previous appeals to reform by attempting to institutionalise mainstream change across the board, and it is these developments this review is ultimately concerned with. It does not, however, aim to foster a clear cut working definition of ‘mainstreaming’. It aims more to clarify the ways in which ‘mainstreaming’ has been defined through policy and to clarify the antecedents to the new emphasis on main government programmes and funding streams since 1997. Finally it draws out the implications of research as to why mainstreaming remains so difficult and puts forward a research agenda to examine the issues raised in more detail.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherGlobal Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)
Pages1
Number of pages38
ISBN (Print)190382530X
Publication statusPublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

government program
funding
New Labour
Social Problems
welfare state
best practice
critic
appeal
public policy
poverty
reform
costs
learning

Cite this

Lever, J. (2005). Mainstreaming Regeneration: ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20. (pp. 1). Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC).
Lever, John. / Mainstreaming Regeneration : ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20. Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), 2005. pp. 1
@techreport{092f5eacbf324c9594726cdb91322120,
title = "Mainstreaming Regeneration: ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20",
abstract = "Regeneration policy has been a central feature of public policy in the UK since it was first recognised, during the 1960s, that the welfare state had not fully eliminated poverty. Essentially there are two broad institutional approaches to regeneration. The first involves the regeneration attempted through main government programmes and universal funding streams, the second that attempted through targeted, area-based solutions to particular social problems. To the same extent, there are two broad institutional approaches to mainstreaming. Simplified, the first involves the bending (or redirecting) of main government programmes and funding streams towards the most needy and deprived areas of society. The second involves the transferring of learning and good practice from localised area based initiatives into the mainstream. ‘Mainstreaming’, so understood, is not a new idea (CDP 1977; DoE 1977). But it is popular, critics argue, because it is low cost and because it allows government to blame others when things go wrong (Deakin and Edwards 1993). New Labour, however, has gone much further than previous appeals to reform by attempting to institutionalise mainstream change across the board, and it is these developments this review is ultimately concerned with. It does not, however, aim to foster a clear cut working definition of ‘mainstreaming’. It aims more to clarify the ways in which ‘mainstreaming’ has been defined through policy and to clarify the antecedents to the new emphasis on main government programmes and funding streams since 1997. Finally it draws out the implications of research as to why mainstreaming remains so difficult and puts forward a research agenda to examine the issues raised in more detail.",
author = "John Lever",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
isbn = "190382530X",
pages = "1",
publisher = "Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)",

}

Lever, J 2005 'Mainstreaming Regeneration: ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20' Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), pp. 1.

Mainstreaming Regeneration : ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20. / Lever, John.

Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), 2005. p. 1.

Research output: Working paper

TY - UNPB

T1 - Mainstreaming Regeneration

T2 - ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20

AU - Lever, John

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Regeneration policy has been a central feature of public policy in the UK since it was first recognised, during the 1960s, that the welfare state had not fully eliminated poverty. Essentially there are two broad institutional approaches to regeneration. The first involves the regeneration attempted through main government programmes and universal funding streams, the second that attempted through targeted, area-based solutions to particular social problems. To the same extent, there are two broad institutional approaches to mainstreaming. Simplified, the first involves the bending (or redirecting) of main government programmes and funding streams towards the most needy and deprived areas of society. The second involves the transferring of learning and good practice from localised area based initiatives into the mainstream. ‘Mainstreaming’, so understood, is not a new idea (CDP 1977; DoE 1977). But it is popular, critics argue, because it is low cost and because it allows government to blame others when things go wrong (Deakin and Edwards 1993). New Labour, however, has gone much further than previous appeals to reform by attempting to institutionalise mainstream change across the board, and it is these developments this review is ultimately concerned with. It does not, however, aim to foster a clear cut working definition of ‘mainstreaming’. It aims more to clarify the ways in which ‘mainstreaming’ has been defined through policy and to clarify the antecedents to the new emphasis on main government programmes and funding streams since 1997. Finally it draws out the implications of research as to why mainstreaming remains so difficult and puts forward a research agenda to examine the issues raised in more detail.

AB - Regeneration policy has been a central feature of public policy in the UK since it was first recognised, during the 1960s, that the welfare state had not fully eliminated poverty. Essentially there are two broad institutional approaches to regeneration. The first involves the regeneration attempted through main government programmes and universal funding streams, the second that attempted through targeted, area-based solutions to particular social problems. To the same extent, there are two broad institutional approaches to mainstreaming. Simplified, the first involves the bending (or redirecting) of main government programmes and funding streams towards the most needy and deprived areas of society. The second involves the transferring of learning and good practice from localised area based initiatives into the mainstream. ‘Mainstreaming’, so understood, is not a new idea (CDP 1977; DoE 1977). But it is popular, critics argue, because it is low cost and because it allows government to blame others when things go wrong (Deakin and Edwards 1993). New Labour, however, has gone much further than previous appeals to reform by attempting to institutionalise mainstream change across the board, and it is these developments this review is ultimately concerned with. It does not, however, aim to foster a clear cut working definition of ‘mainstreaming’. It aims more to clarify the ways in which ‘mainstreaming’ has been defined through policy and to clarify the antecedents to the new emphasis on main government programmes and funding streams since 1997. Finally it draws out the implications of research as to why mainstreaming remains so difficult and puts forward a research agenda to examine the issues raised in more detail.

M3 - Working paper

SN - 190382530X

SP - 1

BT - Mainstreaming Regeneration

PB - Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)

ER -

Lever J. Mainstreaming Regeneration: ESRC/ODPM Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 20. Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) / Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC). 2005, p. 1.