402
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REVIEW
targeted approaches. This re-orientation toward the local reflects the kind of
spatial turn that Brenner and others have identified within Western
European governance structures. Indeed, Jessop has suggested that the drive
toward localisation of initiatives to combat poverty and counter social
exclusion is a direct result of the “hollowing out” of the nation state, (Jessop,
1993). State policies are differentiated across territorial space in order to
target particular geographical zones and scales, (Brenner, 2004, p. 89). The
mobilisation of states spatial strategies is articulated through a range of policy
initiatives such as, for example, urban neighbourhood regeneration schemes.
According to Geddes and Benington (2001), local partnership approaches,
particularly those aimed at tackling social exclusion, are attractive to policy
makers because they are seen as highly adaptable and flexible, and applicable
in multi-scalar contexts. Partnership has assumed centre stage because of a
fundamental shift in the way the economy and society are conceptualised by
policy makers. In tandem with such policy shifts, the scope of “local
community” has been significantly redefined, enlarged and differentiated,
(Wollman, 2004, p.1). The neo-liberal winds of change that have crossed
Europe have brought in their wake a greater emphasis on slimmed down
government, in some cases a diminution of the role and function of municipal
authorities, a new concern with the third sector or civil society domain
between state and market, and an emphasis on the idea of social capital as a
crucial resource for local and regional growth. In particular, “... the focus on
the public sector dimension has been de-emphasised whereas the ‘societal’ and
‘voluntary’ side and the ‘market’ dimension of the local arena of the
‘community space’ has been re-accentuated and expanded” (Wollman, 2004,
pp. 3-4).
These forces manifest themselves at neighbourhood level in the new
language of urban partnership. In the cities under investigation there was an
explicit commitment to partnership-driven, local area development. This is not
particularly surprising, since as has been pointed out above “... partnership is
being introduced not only into the language, but also into the structures,
practices and processes of EU policy making as a key part of attempt to
counterbalance fears of fragmentation with notions of integration, and as a
means of mobilising agencies and actors behind economic and social policy
goals” (Geddes, 2000, p. 784). What partnership actually means, and how it
works in practice, however, varied both across cities and within cities.
Partnership is in other words a contested and contestable concept. This is
particularly the case when partnership - as a policy approach and as a
practice - is deployed by urban regimes seeking to regenerate through area-
based economic development.