Conference aim

Conference report

Programme

Workshop programme
 Including
Full papers

Information

Eura

 

See paper in pdf

Area-Based Urban Policy Initiatives – The Role of Resident Participation In England and France

Rob Atkinson and Stéphanie Lejeune

Paper presented at the European Urban Research Association conference Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy – innovations in city governance, Copenhagen, 17th - 19th May 2001.

Rob Atkinson/Stéphanie Lejeune
Cities Research Centre
Faculty of the Built Environment
University of the West of England
Frenchay Campus
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1QY
Tel: 0117 344 3359
Fax: 0117 344 3899
E-mail: Rob.Atkinson@uwe.ac.uk
E-mail: Stephanie.Lejeune@uwe.ac.uk

Introduction

Within the EU the last 20 years have seen increasing attention directed at the problems affecting urban areas and this has led to a range of policies/initiatives attempting to address these issues. During the 1990s it became increasingly apparent these problems were not simply restricted to declining cities and that in and around many urban areas `excluded spaces’ were developing. At the same time, there has been a renewed emphasis on the use of Area-Based Initiatives (ABIs) throughout the EU (see Parkinson, 1998), although accompanied by a recognition that such policies need to be integrated into wider strategies for the city-region (or Functional Urban Region) (European Commission, 1997a and 1998) and nation as a whole. These policies, whether single-issue based or cross-cutting, have targeted both places and people through investment in infrastructure and human/social capital.

In this context the paper reviews two examples of how EU Member States with `explicit’ urban policies, England and France, have recently developed ABIs that emphasise community/resident participation1. In the first two sections of the paper we discuss English and French urban initiatives and in the final section we draw out some general lessons, particularly with regard to the governance implications of resident participation for urban policy in general and ABIs in particular.

Before we proceed it would perhaps be wise to offer a few words of warning about the limits of comparing policies in two countries. It is notoriously difficult to make meaningful comparisons between similar policy areas in different nations (see Heidenheimer et al., 1990), but urban policy presents particular problems given its often ill-defined nature and peripheral relationship to mainstream welfare and economic policies. What this should caution against is making any simplistic attempts at `policy transfer’ between countries. It may well be possible, as the European Commission (EC) hopes, to identify examples of best practice in particular policy area, but to transplant these examples from one country to another is fraught with danger given the, still significant, political, institutional, economic, social and cultural differences between nations. In particular, given our focus on the role of resident participation in urban regeneration ABIs, we need to be sensitive to the very different forms of thinking about, and attitudes towards, state-civil society relations in England and France. Whilst this is not the place to enter into an extended discussion of these issues (see Dyson, 1980; Laborde, 2000) it is sensible to recognise that in France there is general recognition (i.e. a legitimate right) that the State "…has an inherent power to act…" (Laborde, 2000, p.546) as if it were the representative of the intérêt général 2("general interest"). This is combined with certain misgivings regarding groups and organisations in civil society that seek to represent particular interests that may be construed, by the State, as threatening both the solidarity of society as a whole and the State’s right to define and seek to secure that solidarity. The decentralisation of power to the local level that took place in France during the 1980s allowed local authorities, and especially mayors, to emerge as the local level equivalent of the independent central power. In the UK, while the state’s role in pursuing objectives that further `societal interests’ is by no means denied, there is a much greater unwillingness to accord the state the same level of primacy in this field. There is a longstanding tradition, that has been reinforced post-1979, that the state represents the greatest threat to freedom and that a major bulwark against this threat are the independent organisations and groups in civil society. Thus, to a certain extent, in the UK there is greater willingness to countenance activities that promote, and indeed rely upon, autonomous actions by bodies in civil society, this is seen, in some quarters, as a source of strength rather than weakness. Moreover, as regards urban policy, and social policy post-1979, there have been a range of attempts to ensure that non-state bodies (e.g. voluntary organisations, community/resident groups, religious groups, etc.) play a greater role, in partnership with the state, in the provision of services, notably through the government policy of weakening local authorities.

Reflecting the differences between France and the UK we have alluded to, for the purposes of this paper the reader should bear in mind that in France there is no equivalent to the English term `community participation’, thus while we use this term in the section on English Urban Policy we do not use it in the corresponding section on French Urban Policy, choosing to use the term `resident participation’.

English Urban Policy

This section draws extensively upon one of the authors’ previous work on English Urban Policy (Atkinson 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000; Atkinson and Moon, 1994a and 1994b) and we will restrict ourselves to providing a basic outline of English Urban Policy, its aims, development and problems in ABIs with an emphasis on community participation.

The UK has a long history of urban initiatives dating back to the late 1960s (see Atkinson & Moon, 1994a; Atkinson, 1995, 1999b & 1999c) in which ABIs have played a central role. Since at least 1977 there has been a concern to achieve coordination between different policy sectors, between levels of government and the integration of action at local level, i.e. to ensure that ABIs do not operate in isolation. To a certain extent these ambitions were `down-graded' during the 1980s when a more market orientated approach, known as `property-led urban regeneration' dominated, with the private sector allocated a leading role and local government largely marginalised, this approach was perhaps best epitomised by Urban Development Corporations (see Imrie & Thomas (eds), 1999; Atkinson and Moon, 1994a, chs.5-7).

The failure of this approach led to the gradual reintegration of local government into urban initiatives and by the early 1990s moves were also being made to find ways to ensure that the needs of those who had experienced the worst effects of urban decline (i.e. socially excluded communities) were integrated into urban initiatives and benefited from their outcomes - City Challenge was the first example of this (see Atkinson & Moon 1994b). City Challenge, although a short term `experiment', was the first of a new generation of ABIs that advocated `community involvement’ (through multi-sectoral regeneration partnerships) and laid the foundation for the setting up of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and other subsequent ABIs. SRB was launched in 1994; its objectives explicitly stated that local people should be involved in and benefit from regeneration. SRB brought together 20 programmes from five central government departments under the overall `control' of the Department of the Environment (DoE) to ensure greater organisational coordination between departments with programmes that had urban orientations. This central restructuring was complemented by the creation of Government Offices of the Regions (GORs) - composed of the regional offices of a number of central departments - in each of the ten English regions.

After Labour’s election victory in 1997 the new Government merged the DoE and Department of Transport to create the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). The Bidding Guidance for Round 5 of SRB3 (DETR, 1998a, p2) stated that:

...about 80% of new SRB resources will go to support large, comprehensive regeneration schemes in the most deprived areas...about 20% of resources will be available for other areas of need, including rural and coalfield areas.

Clearly there was an intention to focus the bulk of resources on the worst areas (i.e. determined on the basis of `need') and a strong reinforcement of the message that local communities should be closely involved in local regeneration partnerships (see DETR, 1997 and 1998b). Moreover the Guidance explicitly stated that bids should have a clear relationship with existing regeneration initiatives and national (and regional) programmes in order to achieve synergy.

The other major development was the New Deal for Communities (NDC), another ABI, which was developed as part of the strategy outlined in the Social Exclusion Unit's report Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998). In many ways this document contained a remarkably frank acknowledgement of urban policy's past failures, arguing that these include:

...the absence of effective national policies to deal with the structural causes of decline; a tendency to parachute solutions in from outside, rather than engaging local communities; and too much emphasis on physical renewal instead of better opportunities for local people. Above all, a joined up problem has never been addressed in a joined up way. Problems have fallen through the cracks between Whitehall departments, or between central and local government. And at the neighbourhood level, there has been no one in charge of pulling together all the things that need to go right at the same time. (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, p9).

The clear aim was to create a holistic and strategic national approach within which ABIs would play a key role and communities become a key stakeholder. To further this objective in 1999 Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were established for the eight English Regions with the objective of developing a regional strategy to address the problems, including those of urban areas, in each region (for more detail on RDAs and their role in relation to urban regeneration see Atkinson, 1999d).

The last three years have seen a series of reports and official publications (most notably the Urban Task Force, 1999, Urban White Paper, 2000; SEU, 2001), consultation papers (e.g. on Local Strategic Partnerships4, DETR, 2000b) and initiatives (e.g. the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU), RCU, 2000; Neighbourhood Management, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), Community Strategies5) that have sought to create a holistic and integrated approach to urban regeneration. The essential core of the problem, from a governmental perspective, has been that:

Departments have worked at cross purposes on problems that required a joined-up response. Too much reliance was put on short-term regeneration initiatives in a handful of areas and too little was done about the failure of mainstream public services in hundreds of neighbourhoods…Government failed to harness the knowledge and energy of local people, or to empower, them to develop their own solutions. There was a lack of leadership, and a failure to spread what works and encourage innovation. (SEU, 2001, p7)

Not only has community/resident participation been stressed in all these publications6, a key element in all of them has been the need to ensure that there is vertical and horizontal coordination of activities not simply by the lead urban department (i.e. the DETR) but by all other central departments who operate policies, including ABIs, which impact upon urban areas7. Another key issue raised has been that of mainstreaming (see DETR, 1999 and 2000a) in terms of projects, best practice and policy issues. The ultimate objective would appear to be to make ABIs largely redundant as the organisations responsible for them take on board the lessons of ABIs and reorientate their policies, activities and organisational structures accordingly.

This is the overall context in which English Urban Policy has developed over the last decade. There have been successive attempts to construct a policy framework and organisational structures that tackle `joined up problems in a joined up way'. More generally, since 1997 there has been a strong emphasis on countering social exclusion and facilitating social inclusion/integration and this should be borne in mind with regard to the following discussion of partnerships and community participation.

Multi-sectoral regeneration partnerships, involving the public, private, voluntary and community sectors, have been central to all of these developments. However, they have not been without problems, in particular the problem of coordination and management involved in partnership is a difficult one and the introduction of the community creates new problems.

One of the main issues raised, and objectives aimed for, by the creation of the SRB and the host of other ABIs launched since 1997 has been the desire to improve the coordination between initiatives directly aimed at urban areas and more general policies that have an impact on these areas. Over the last five years this aspect of urban policy has increased in prominence as part of the overall attempt to develop a more strategic, holistic, approach to urban problems, that integrates urban policy with mainstream programmes, and extracts more from the same (or less) resources through the achievement of greater synergy both within and between ABIs. Three recent reports (DETR, 1999 and 2000a; Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), 2000) have highlighted the issue of coordination between initiatives and the problems caused by the plethora of urban based, and urban related, ABIs launched since May 1997.

It should be recognised that this is not a problem specific to urban initiatives but applies more generally across government where the PIU (2000) notes there is a lack of coordination at central, regional and local levels as well as between levels. Moreover, the PIU (2000, chs.2) argues that at local level this plethora of initiatives is leading to `partnership fatigue’ which exhausts the local capacity of individuals and organisations to actually participate effectively and thereby undermines the general thrust of policy. Ironically many of the problems encountered in the 1970s (Atkinson and Moon, 1994, chs.4) appear to be reasserting themselves in the late 1990s/early2000s. In part this may suggest that there is no simple administrative solution to the problems of vertical and horizontal coordination.

With regard to the issue of community participation the problems here are well documented (see Atkinson and Cope, 1997; Atkinson, 1998a and 1999e; European Commission, 1997b). Many excluded communities lack the capacity to effectively participate in partnerships where other players in the `regeneration game’, who have superior resources and knowledge, frequently set the agenda. Indeed even where local communities do have the capacity to engage effectively in partnerships they often find themselves disadvantaged by the need to `learn a new language’ which frequently makes it difficult for them to effectively express their own interests in partnerships (see Atkinson, 1999a). Moreover, we should not assume that communities are coherent, identifiable bodies with a single set of interests, conflicts of interest frequently exist within communities and make it difficult to articulate a coherent series of proposals that partnerships can address. Furthermore, we need to recognise that only a small number of people8 from local communities will be actively engaged in these activities leading to the possibility that they will succumb to `participation fatigue’ as the constant launching of initiatives makes more and more demands on their limited time9.

One final issue needs to be considered, who exactly is it that community representatives represent? Community representatives on partnership boards may find themselves in a potentially contradictory situation. On the one hand they have been chosen (whether by elections or other means) to represent the community, but on the other hand they are part of a corporate body composed of other partners that has the responsibility for regenerating an area in whatever way it thinks best. The point is that community representatives may find themselves in a minority on the partnership board over particular decisions, but will be expected to act in a manner consonant with collective responsibility. This involves determining what are the `best interests of the partnership', these will not necessarily coincide with the community's interests. On the one hand if community representatives challenge the dominant notion of `best interests' within the partnership they are likely to be labelled as `trouble makers’. On the other if they are seen not to be representing the legitimate interests of the community this runs the risk of opening up a gap between represented and representers.

The introduction of the community, however constituted, into partnerships offers both opportunities and threats to governance. For instance this can lead to a better use and targeting of resources, a smoother development process for private investors and the development of significant community capacities for self-help, empowerment and democratic participation. Moreover, greater community involvement can aid the legitimation of government interventions in an area as well as playing an integrative role in terms of combating social exclusion and increasing social cohesion. However, it can also produce resistance to particular forms of development, calls for more social expenditure that cannot be met from regeneration budgets and demands for more democratic control of projects. Moreover, communities, particularly deprived ones, do not necessarily have an existing capacity to organise themselves or the resources that would allow them to participate in partnerships as equal partners10. To achieve this requires the investment of significant resources over a considerable period of time and the willingness of other partners to support this both financially and in terms of the development of community infrastructure (e.g. knowledge, confidence, self-organising abilities). Too often both local government organisations and private sector developers have, partly as a result of the timetables imposed to submit bids to the EC and national governments, conceived and developed projects with minimal levels of community input. At best community involvement has rarely risen above the level of consultation. Moreover, it has also been suggested (see Atkinson and Moon, 1994b; Atkinson, 1998b; Raco and Imrie, 2000) that while local government has been reintegrated into urban policy this has occurred on terms largely dictated by central government who have been able to define the `rules of the game’ and thereby to exercise new forms of control over local communities.

It should be clear that, at least in the English case, ABIs are by no means a `magic bullet’ that can miraculously solve the problems of declining urban areas experiencing urban economic decline and social exclusion. Whilst the British government has recognised the need to integrate urban initiatives with wider mainstream policies on the economy, employment and social protection, etc, this has not proved easy to achieve in practice. Moreover, the plethora of ABIs, set up with the best intent, has often made it more difficult to achieve coordination and cooperation at local level, thereby undermining the attempt to develop an integrated and holistic approach. Nor has the vexed question of community involvement been resolved, arguably the current government has made more serious efforts than any of its predecessors to engage with local communities, but there is still some way to go before it can be claimed that local communities are playing a central role in urban ABIs.

French Urban Policy

Over the last decade local democracy has emerged as an important focus in French policy; in particular since the 1995 local elections political practices have emphasised participation techniques. However, there is no single interpretative framework appropriate to this development as each participation exercise is different in its aims, means and results (Blondiaux, 1999). "Resident participation" refers to an imprecise process whereby people, identified by their residency (i.e. by place), take a greater role in local affairs. Participation mainly targets deprived areas in which this political focus is tested out (i.e. a process of experimentation).

It should be pointed out that, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon approach, there has never been any explicit intention to achieve resident empowerment; this is not an issue in France. This assumption underlies the remainder of this section of the paper, and this is despite the fact that the fourth of the four main forms of participation identified in the French literature (informing, consultation, concertation, co-decision11; see Blanc, 1999 ; ADELS, 1999) appears to imply empowerment. Despite an apparent similarity, "delegating responsibilities to residents", does not carry the same weight or meaning in the French political literature dealing with local participation.

In considering national urban policy, it should be pointed out that resident participation has been a rhetorical objective of the State for a considerable period of time. This form of participation operates within an underlying discourse of re-building social cohesion, especially in neighbourhoods where it is acutely challenged. Resident participation now refers to a search for a new foundation for the way in which public decisions are defined and made, as well as a managerial method of improving the delivery of day-to-day local services. This process represents a potentially significant change in political culture and management within the institutional scope of French (local) government12. It is important to be clear what is at stake here. The process of resident participation in ABIs challenges the very principle of "unity" (i.e. "One, indivisible Republic") within representative democracy, and therefore brings into question the underlying prescriptive, institutional and interest-transcendent perspective (as opposed to a utilitarian conception) that governs the operational principles of public sector management.

This section of the paper will discuss how the basic principles and operation of the traditional French republican system are challenged through resident participation within ABIs. First, the State enhancement of resident participation in its 2000-2006 ABIs will be highlighted through a brief historical context. Second, by identifying the theoretical assumptions underlying the official view, three main functions of resident participation in deprived areas will be identified. Following Chevallier (1999) these are: communication, legitimation and socialisation. Their complex combination and the difficulties in implementing participation practically will then be briefly examined.

State enhancement of resident participation : historical context and 2000-2006 ABIs

Since the first regeneration programme was established in the late 1970s local resident participation has been a recurrent key theme in French urban policy13. In the 1980s, a few innovative projects emerged within the framework of the Développement Social des Quartiers (DSQ) ("The social regeneration of neighbourhoods programme") involving people in managing their environment, notably through area-based associations (Comités de quartier or "Neighbourhood Committees"). However, during the 1990s, programmes failed to bring successful local pathfinder methods into general use as the voluntary sector was gradually weakened through white-collar workers moving out and as an increasing section of local residents were becoming social excluded and inward-looking (Donzelot and Estèbe, 1994). Yet it was a time when participation (or more accurately "consultation") was given its first legal recognition14, notably through consultative fora15.

The umbrella ABI of the XIIth Plan, Contrat de Ville 2000-2006 (CDV) as well as two specific regeneration initiatives included in it (Grands Projets de Ville (GPVs) and Opérations de Renouvellement Urbain (ORUs)) identifies resident participation as a priority16; residents should, in theory, be involved in the design of the projects from the beginning. These ABIs are strategically led by a steering committee whose members are representatives of the State at local level, local authorities and other public partners (region, district, etc). Inhabitants, or their representatives, cannot be members of the steering committee, nor are they members of the management board that coordinates professionals who are technically in charge within partner institutions.

As pointed out above, resident participation is a focus for French urban policy in its 2000-2006 programme; official publications, reports and speeches announcing or describing the programme place considerable emphasis on this theme. However, as an expert report presenting recommendations for the new 2000-2006 CDVs pointed out, this is not a new emphasis but the expression of a recurring requirement which was largely a rhetorical objective that achieved little in practice (Cavallier, 1999).

The CDVs terms of reference include a requirement for a precise framework for effective resident participation with local authorities given the responsibility for developing the method of implementation. Nevertheless, they are encouraged to use a new instrument, the Fonds de Participation des habitants (FPH), set up in 1999.

The FPH ("Resident Participation Fund") is based on a successful experiment in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region17. It is a form of organisation financed on the basis of an agreement between the State and the local authority, the aim of which is to make it easier for one-off resident projects to emerge. Only small projects are considered (advice on a maximum funding of 762 Euros per project). They mainly focus on neighbourhood activities ("vie sociale"18) through neighbourhood festivals, sport and cultural events, training in setting up an organisation, etc.. Neither representatives of the State nor members of the local authority can be part of the management board (but professionals running the local CDV programme can). The FPH is seen as empowering local residents through motivated individuals or representatives of the local organisations, and injecting dynamism into the locality.

Theorising the official view

The definition of resident participation by the State is an operational one. Three aims are identified: restoring public action credibility, enhancing resident initiatives, and modernising public services. Information, consultation, and involvement19 are highlighted as methods to achieve these objectives. According to Chevallier (1999), three main functions are actually assigned to resident participation. It can be argued that these – communication, legitimation, socialisation - all refer to the reorganisation of the traditional republican system.

The first function identified by Chevallier is communication. Indeed, it can be suggested that resident participation refers principally to a public relations exercise for the local mayor (Paoletti, 1999). In this sense it can largely be seen as a form of tokenism. However, communication is not a neutral process as local authorities get feed-back from any consultation process. Moreover, it has initiated a significant change in that mayors allow different points of view to be expressed and a few arguments to emerge. Thus, resident participation seems to weaken the strong reliance on elected representation and the separation between councillors and citizens within the traditional representative system, notably through Conseils consultatifs de quartier (CCQs).

CCQs ("Neighbourhood consultative councils"20) are the main forum for public relations as councillors and residents come together. There are several forms of consultation which exhibit different degrees of willingness to take account of residents’ views. CCQs cover genuine (but powerless) assemblies as well as identified information desks in the area where a local councillor may be on duty in order to formally record any comment or complaint. There has been a marked increase in the number of those structures since the 1995 local elections.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that these fora are privileged places for councillors to win votes, thus questioning the theoretically genuine contrat de société underpinned by the greater intérêt général which public debates are supposed to be embedded in within the French philosophy of representation. But vote-catching is an important part of the evolution from normative to pragmatic rules identified by observers (Leca, 1997).

The second function of resident participation, legitimation, underpins the role assigned to CCQs. These are places where the mayor, as a figure-head proceeding from a quasi direct election, and holding powers devolved in a strong representative system, can legitimate his action. Within this context, the trend to strengthen local democracy through communication that was mentioned above is counterbalanced by a reinforcement of legitimacy for the representative system. Indeed, as mayors and councillors come closer to residents, they can claim to be better informed on the problems that they are mandated to deal with, thus denying the need for local people to be given any new powers21.

In other respects, resident legitimacy is justified as a form of user legitimacy and not as a political one: some of the only initiatives in which it is recognised are projects connected to the gestion urbaine de proximité (GUP) ("urban local management").

Social landlords initially created GUP actions in order to ensure the durability of their investments. They took a variety of forms and operated at different levels; for instance a GUP project could be to privatise public areas within tight boundaries ("résidentialisation"), to employ night mediators, to sign a charter of quality with residents, to create a call centre recording complaints and responding quickly to any problem (lift breakdown, acts of vandalism, etc.) or to train wardens to manage situations of conflict.

If social landlords are prime stakeholders at the "stairwell-scale" ("cage d’escalier"), public services and the local authority are now more and more involved in heeding resident voices in improving the delivery of services at the area-scale (quartier). In this view, residents are urged to participate in managing their environment by legitimating and taking over institutional changes. It can be noted that this territorial step represents a significant challenge to the republican tradition of unity and equal treatment.

The last function given to participation is socialisation. There are two main aspects: supporting resident initiatives through financing micro projects and giving better access to public debates. FPH, early supporting funds, capacity-building22 and a few innovative initiatives all focus on social cohesion, at least in the institutional perspective. It can be observed that they focus on neighbourhood activities as a key-target. However, they are never presented as the first step in an empowerment process aiming to build co-decision making that involves local residents.

Given the tendency to utilise resident participation for specific purposes that supports the functions assigned to resident participation, and considering that the commitment to involve local people at the different stages of the implementation of ABIs does not refer to "political" empowerment, the official view on resident participation, at both national and local level, is a relatively restricted one. In illustrating this assumption, it can be pointed out that one of the most significant empowerment initiatives in resident participation, the FPH, only explicitly refers to an operational level and not to a strategic one. If public authorities do relinquish a part of their power to a committee including inhabitants or the voluntary sector within this experiment, the co-decision process only concerns operating budgets and neighbourhood activities. This illustrates the current role assigned to resident participation in France. However, it may be that this represents a transitional step to a wider process of resident involvement in local affairs through an incremental process. Indeed a few examples of these experiments show that where a committee including residents and organisations is given an operating budget, it often gets a capital budget after a while in order to respond to local demands. For instance, in Moissy-Cramayel, the former was created in 1994 and the latter in 1998. The mayor of La Roche-sur-Yon, inspired by a Swedish initiative, was particularly innovative in directly creating a capital budget in each neighbourhood in 1985 (ADELS, 1999).

These experiments, as well as a few local attempts to involve residents at the very beginning of the town planning process (planning workshops in the Saint-Jacques area in Perpignan or in La Cassine area in Chambéry), stand out as a real and interesting change in a few places.

A specific experiment initiated in the 1990s is particularly original in terms of its aims, results and leadership. This experiment genuinely addresses citizen empowerment, is independent of the State, and protects its independence by managing the dissemination of its principles. The Université du Citoyen ("Citizen University") was set up by a former social worker in 1992 in Marseilles. The idea is to train local people to genuinely embrace and take part in the decision-making process by building local people’s capacity. In group sessions, volunteers learn how to speak in front of other people, are informed about institutions and are briefed on specific themes23. The Citizen University (which is mobile) is also the framework for dealing with very local issues at the request of residents24. A Université du Jeune Citoyen (Young Citizen University) was set up in 1994. It first targeted young people involved in the criminal justice system but then extended its action to school pupils. These initiatives bridge the gap between institutions, public service providers and residents. This represents recognition by the former that residents do not understand their policies. At the same time residents are challenged to go beyond their traditional role as passive consumers of services and/or their usual behaviour of merely protesting to local government about problems. Not only is the Université du Citoyen experiment innovative, in that it exceeds the official view on resident participation and achieves positive results, but it also implements and disseminates a bottom-up approach outside of State regulation. In effect, this organisation has created an independent network in which each new initiative has to conform to the network’s basic requirements (e.g. political will, active voluntary sector) in order to participate in the scheme. As a result the Université du Citoyen has developed a genuine expertise and achieved significant results in field of citizen participation.

Practical and conceptual difficulties

It is important to acknowledge that there are significant practical and conceptual difficulties to the development of greater levels of resident participation in urban policy. Since they are not entirely specific to France, they will be briefly discussed focusing on a few features of the French system. In practical terms involving people who have no experience (because of background, language, understand the "game", time-scale, funding, etc.) in tackling technical, complex issues is not easy. Moreover, as noted above, it is harder to achieve in a country that has a strong reliance on the traditional representative system and on the Welfare State. In addition it requires considerable investment in terms of resources and time to overcome these obstacles: a genuine participation process has a high cost; it takes time to be organised and explained25 and a lack of means is often pointed out26. Furthermore, professionals involved in the process face a challenging framework underpinned by latent resentment and a questionable sense of belonging on the part of local residents. As the Project Director in Le Blanc-Mesnil explains, you have to "convert anger into positive energy"27.

A new awareness on practical difficulties has emerged. A study completed in Argenteuil about urban management methods concluded that even with favourable conditions (active Neighbourhood Councils, determined local authority, a local audit made by a consultancy) resident involvement in the former GPV pathfinder (Grand Projet Urbain 1994-1999) did not succeed (GIE Villes et Quartiers, 2000). Even in areas where consultative structures seem to consider resident opinions in quite an effective way the move to full resident involvement in urban management is difficult to achieve.

Professionals point to a lack of a clear methodology in the step from the operational to the strategic level, arguing that they have to deal with imprecise guidelines. Even at the State level where both experts and politicians advocate resident participation, operational methods are seldom described in any detail. One of the reasons for this may be a cultural reluctance to recognise the use of arguments linked to efficiency in urban and public service management. Yet, the notion of "urban quality" seems to offer the basis for a shared system of reference everybody can adopt, unlike the system of reference of "production urbaine"28 that was created by technicians (Bourdin, 1998). But the necessary change in attitude, if occurring at all, is very slow within public service providers and public authorities, even in GUP projects29. In particular, mayors feel threatened. Traditionally they have sought to try and limit or contain debates rather than engage in a sustained process of dialogue and co-decision making (see Paoletti, 1999; Mabileau et al., 1989).

Moreover, as understood in the context of French political culture, resident participation has to be institutionalised to be properly implemented. However, the process which has to be gone through to institutionalise participation is complex and regarded with suspicion, even when there are no real power issues at stake (a good example are the Neighbourhoods Councils in Paris XXth District)30. One of the problems lies in the long-lasting categorisation of residents as a homogeneous entity (opposed to the "bogeyman" of taking communities into account, see Lapeyronnie, 1999). Politicians have even failed to define what they mean by "residents" in terms of who they wish to engage with.

It has to be underlined that this lack of clarity particularly affects professionals since the obvious complexity and vagueness of definition, aims and methods is confusing. For instance, have they been mandated to be social peacekeepers, to create countervailing powers, to act on institutions (Foret, 2000)?

The State representatives on the ground (Sub-Prefects for urban affairs) have the duty to explain resident participation principles and method. However, not only do they face a lack of clarity regarding what should be done, they lack the necessary motivation to act as efficient and effective intermediaries since many are not really convinced that resident participation is useful (DIV, 1999). Moreover, it can be argued that there is a lack of networking between Sub-Prefects and as a result no dissemination of good-practice on resident participation among them. It seems that it is difficult to overcome these obstacles to the implementation of resident participation since there is no intention to develop a conceptual framework for "participative democracy".

Drawing together the threads of the previous discussion one can argue that if, at the neighbourhood level, public authorities display a new interest in exercising a form of "enlightened power" (i.e. securing better information on resident needs through direct contact with residents), there is little evidence of these developments evolving into to a co-management process at a strategic level. But giving local people the power to express themselves represents a significant challenge within the French political context where people are usually "briefed" rather than engaged in a process of dialogue. However, if resident participation is underpinned by the idea of "sharing the power", it can then be argued following Donzelot (1999) that participation is moving away from its original intention of involving people in dealing with the deficiencies of the institutions they engaged with. Despite this, it should be acknowledged that the very act of legitimating the taking into account of local points of view in tackling the issue of modernising public services, for example, is still a philosophically significant change in State political culture. Even if it is not easily implemented, it can, indirectly and incrementally, lead to these developments initiating a process of real change. Thus a successful experiment such as the Université du Citoyen may be a part of this incremental process of change.

It can be argued that thanks to a more pragmatic basis (through initiatives such as GUP actions) resident involvement could evolve from rhetorical statements to more effective forms of participation, whereas in previous ABIs participation was inversely proportional to its enhancement in CDVs requirements (Marcou and al., 1997).

Conclusion

To turn first of all to the inferences that can be drawn from our discussion of resident participation in urban ABIs in France and England. We should begin by pointing out that what is meant by involving local people (i.e. the notions of community participation in the UK, and resident participation in France) differs significantly between the two countries. In France ABIs, and associated resident participation, pose a significant threat to the Republican ethos underlying the country’s political and administrative system. More specifically, resident participation in ABIs poses a direct challenge to the working methods of local State officials, professionals and elected representatives. Nor is there clear evidence that the aforementioned are, other than in a few isolated examples, particularly enthusiastic to see resident participation go beyond consultation. At best participation would appear to be a method of helping public service agencies to deliver services that better reflect the needs of their clientele, although even here there is tension with regard to the provision of `special’ services to particular areas (i.e. why should one area be treated differently to another). Resident participation in most cases seems to have progressed no further than the right to be informed or at best consulted and only rarely to participate in decision making. National, regional and local politicians appear to largely view resident participation as a legitimising and socialising process designed to give their policies greater credibility among the residents of run-down areas. Although whether residents are prepared to accept such a limited role is open to question. In other respects, despite the significant obstacles that prevent local people from taking an active role in ABIs, resident participation (in the sense of politicians engaging in a dialogue with residents) does seem to have emerged on to the policy agenda. Thus a process of incremental change may have been initiated that could have far reaching implications for the French system of local government.

In the English case the pressure for greater resident participation in urban ABIs has been growing throughout the 1990s. And there is no doubt that compared to the early days of City Challenge the latter rounds of SRB and several other initiatives (e.g. NDC, NRF) exhibited a much greater awareness of the need to actively engage local residents in the design, decision-making and implementation of projects, even explicitly aiming to achieve community-leadership. However, it would be wrong to imply that politicians and officials in England have felt any less challenged than their French counterparts. As one English councillor commented on the role of Community Action Forums:

I believe in the power of councillors. We are elected to run the city and make strategic decisions. That power can't be given away. In the end tough decisions will have to be made by councillors...in my view ... forums do not have the right to say `no' to things. But they do have the right to say "hear our case". (Chelliah, 1996, p14)

Ironically in England the lack of a clearly enunciated philosophy underlying state action, a more pragmatic/empirical approach to problems and a greater willingness to acknowledge a legitimate role for organisations in civil society has actually enhanced the possibilities for resident participation in comparison to France, notably through local partnerships. Yet we should also acknowledge that, despite these cultural, philosophical and political differences, resident participation fulfils similar purposes to France, serving to legitimate locally based state interventions in society and, particularly in the context of the struggle against social exclusion, to play a role in the socialisation and management of marginalised communities (see Atkinson, 1998b; Raco and Imrie, 2000).

In other respects, in England as in France, while politicians and officials express a desire to engage local people more closely in ABIs reality differs significantly from rhetoric; for different reasons both countries have experienced difficulties in implementing the process of community/resident participation. In addition to technical problems relating to time-scale, representativeness, inclusivity and professionalisation of resident participants, government had, and still has, to find ways to put into practice a top-down conception which aims to stimulate bottom-up initiatives.

However, if England and France seem to address similar issues and face comparable difficulties, we have to bear in mind our initial warning about international comparisons, particularly with regard to the development of resident participation through partnerships and capacity-building. In effect, they cover very different situations. While English partnerships are supposed to be community-led, French partnerships do not involve local people or local organisations, nor is there public attendance at partnership board meetings where decisions are taken. With regard to capacity-building, in both France and England the primary focus is on managing locally based organisations. However, in England the issue of training local people to participate in partnerships and to play a central role in the decision-making process is of considerable importance, while in France the secondary focus is on local officials.

More generally both the French and English experience of tackling urban problems by involving residents through ABIs suggests that there are no easy solutions to the processes creating urban decline in general and urban social exclusion in particular. However, developing an integrated and co-ordinated approach to tackling these problems, whilst attempting to involve local people, is particularly difficult to achieve and creates new problems. We should acknowledge that the need for expertise, methodology and capacity-building implies an ambitious and well-funded policy.

We would also suggest that the development of community/resident participation, understood as aiming to empower people, demands a fundamental rethink of attitudes by politicians and officials (including professionals) in central, regional and local government. They need to recognise that local people should be given the opportunity to participate in setting and implementing the regeneration agenda – they need to have a sense of `ownership’ (see Atkinson, 2001, pp395-396). To achieve this it is essential to engage in forms of open dialogue that permit the development of a robust consensus from which inclusive regeneration strategies can be developed (see Healey, 1997, esp. Part III). These developments will need to be accompanied by, often radical, organisational restructuring to facilitate community/resident access to and control of services (see Burns et al, 1994).

The very act of community/resident participation therefore raises serious problems for all those involved and the record across Europe is by no means good (see Chanan, 1996; Atkinson, 1999e). Perhaps here the European Commission can take a lead by identifying and disseminating examples of best practice and providing resources, through programmes such as URBAN and URBAN II, to support the development of best practice. While the Commission can play a facilitating role in this process, by learning from the experiences of urban regeneration in countries such as France and England, it must also be sensitive to political, institutional and cultural differences between nations which mean that terms such as community/resident participation have very different theoretical and practical meanings in each country. As a result it seems that we may see, if it does not already exist, something of a `patchwork quilt’ across the EU that, when combined with the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality, will prevent the emergence of anything resembling a coherent EU urban policy for many years to come.

Bibliography

ADELS (2000), La participation des habitants, in Territoires, Sept-Oct 1999.

Assemblée nationale (2000) Commission des Finances, de l’Économie Générale et du Plan (Rapporteur : Bourguignon P.), Rapport nº2624 sur le projet de Loi de Finances pour 2001, Annexe 24, Emploi, Solidarité et Ville.

Atkinson, R. (1995) 'Post-War Urban Policy in Britain: Changing Perceptions and Problems', Policy Studies, Vol. 16(4), pp6-17.

Atkinson, R. (1998a)`Countering urban social exclusion: the role of community participation and partnership’, in Griffiths, R. (ed) Social Exclusion in Cities: the Urban Policy Challenge, University of the West of England Faculty of the Built Environment, Occasional Paper No.3, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Atkinson, R. (1998b) The New Urban Governance and Urban Regeneration: Managing Community Participation, Paper presented at a conference on `Cities in the XXIst Century. Cities and metropolis: breaking or bridging?', La Rochelle October 19-21, organised by the French Ministry of Public Works.

Atkinson, R. (1999a) `Discourses of Partnership and Empowerment in Contemporary British Urban Regeneration' Urban Studies, 36 (1), pp59-72.

Atkinson, R. (1999b) `Urban Crisis; New Policies for the Next Century’, in M. Chapman, and P. Allmendinger. (eds) Planning in the Millennium, J Wiley, Chichester.

Atkinson, R. (1999c) `Contemporary English Urban Policy and the European Union’ in Ilmonen, M., Johansson, M., and Stenius,H. (eds) Helsinki – Berlin – Stockholm. 3 European Capitals Facing the Future, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.

Atkinson, R. (1999d) `Developing a Regional and Local Institutional Capacity for Urban Regeneration Partnerships: The case of Regional Development Agencies and the Single Regeneration Budget in England’, paper presented at Regional Studies Association International Conference, Regional Potentials in an Integrating Europe, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, September 18th-21st.

Atkinson, R. (1999e) `Countering Urban Social Exclusion: the Role of Community Participation in Urban Regeneration’, in Haughton, G. (ed) Community Economic Development, Regional Studies Association/The Stationery Office, London.

Atkinson, R. (1999f) `Urban Social Exclusion in the European Union: Concepts, causes and prospects’, Futura (Special Issue on Urban Futures), Vol.18(3).

Atkinson, R. (2000) `Combating Social Exclusion in Europe: The New Urban Policy Challenge’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37(5/6), pp1037-1055.

Atkinson, R. (2001) `The Emerging `Urban Agenda’ and the European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards an EU Urban Policy?’, European Planning Studies, Vol. 9(3), pp385-406.

Atkinson, R. and Cope, S. (1997) `Community participation and urban regeneration in Britain', in Hoggett, P. (ed) Contested Communities, Policy Press, Bristol.

Atkinson, R. and Moon, G. (1994a) Urban Policy in Britain: The City, the State and the Market, Macmillan, London.

Atkinson, R. and Moon, G. (1994b) 'The City Challenge Initiative: An Overview and Preliminary Assessment, Regional Studies, 28: 94-97.

Blanc M. (1999), `Participation des habitants et politique de la ville’, in La Démocratie locale, représentation, participation et espace public ; CRAPS / CURAPP, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Blondiaux L. (1999) `Représenter, délibérer ou gouverner? Les assises politiques fragiles de la démocratie participative de quartier’, in La Démocratie locale, représentation, participation et espace public ; CRAPS / CURAPP, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Bourdin A. (1998) `Gouvernance, appartenances sociales et gestion des services urbains’, in Les annales de la Recherche Urbaine, nos.80-81.

Burns, D. Hambleton, R. & Hoggett, P. (1994) The Politics of Decentralisation: Revitalising Local Democracy, Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Cavallier G. (1999) Nouvelles recommandations pour la négociation des contrats de ville 2000-2006, Rapport final du Groupe de travail interministériel et interpartenaires sur la définition des contrats de ville du XIIème Plan, Paris.

Chanan, G. (1996) `Community involvement in regeneration: the European context', Local Government Policy Making, vol.22(4), pp38-41.

Chanan, G. (1997) Active Citizenship and Community Involvement: Getting to the Roots, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.

Chelliah, R (1996) Community Involvement. Southampton Case Study, London, Local Government Information Unit.

Chevallier J. (1999) `Synthèse des travaux’, in La Démocratie locale, représentation, participation et espace public ; CRAPS / CURAPP, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Conseil National des Villes (1999), Contribution sur la place des habitants dans la politique de la ville, May.

Conseil National des Villes (2000), Avis sur la place des habitants dans la politique de la ville, Feb.

DETR (1997) Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund Round 4: Supplementary Guidance, DETR, London.

DETR (1998a) Housing and Regeneration Policy. A statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, DETR, London.

DETR (1998b) Single Regeneration Budget Bidding Guidance. A Guide for Partnerships, DETR, London.

DETR (1999) Co-ordination of Area-Based Initiatives, Research Working Paper, DETR, London.

DETR (2000a) Collaboration and co-ordination in area-based initiatives. Second research working paper, DETR, London.

DETR (2000b) Local Strategic Partnerships, DETR, London.

DETR (2000c) Preparing Community Strategies. Government Guidance to Local Authorities, DETR, London.

DIV (Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville) (1999), Compte-rendu du séminaire de formation destiné aux Sou-Préfets chargés de mission pour la politique de la ville (5 et 6 octobre 1999).

DIV, 2000-2006, (2000a) The French urban regeneration programme : a new objective for towns and cities, Paris, DIV Publication, Sept.

DIV, 2000-2006, (2000b) Une nouvelle ambition pour la politique de la ville, Paris, DIV Publication, Jan.

Donzelot J. and Estèbe P. (1994) L’État animateur, Paris, Ed. Esprit.

Donzelot J. (1999), Participation : de la consultation à l’implication, Informations sociales no. 43.

Dyson, K. (1980) The State Tradition in Western Europe. A Study of an Idea and Institution, Martin Robertson, Oxford.

European Commission (1997a) Towards an urban agenda in the European Union, Communication from the Commission, COM(97) 197, final, 06.05.97, European Commission: Brussels.

European Commission (1997b) Community Involvement in urban regeneration: added vale and changing values, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

European Commission (1998) Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action, Communication from the Commission COM(1998) 605 final, 28.10.98, European Commission: Brussels.

Foret C. (2000) De la "participation des habitants" au débat public. Refonder la démocratie, Les Cahiers du CRDSU, nº26, March.

GIE Villes et Quartiers (2000), La Gestion urbaine territorialisée en relation avec les opérations de renouvellement urbain : méthodes et repères, Sept. 2000.

Gontcharoff G. (1999) `Le renouveau des Comités de quartier’, in La Démocratie locale, représentation, participation et espace public ; CRAPS / CURAPP, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, London, Macmillan.

Heidenheimer, A., Heclo, H. and Adams, C. (1990) Comparative Public Policy. The Politics of Social Choice in America, Europe, and Japan, Macmillan, London.

Imrie, R. and Thomas, H. (eds) (1999) British Urban Policy. An evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations, Sage, London.

Kavanagh, D. and Richards, D. (2001) `Departmentalism and Joined-Up Government: Back to the Future?’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol.54, pp1-18.

Laborde, C. (2000) `The Concept of the State in British and French Political Thought’, Political Studies, Vol. 48, pp540-557.

Lapeyronnie D. (1999) Il faut une démocratie locale dans les quartiers, Interview to Habitat et Société.

Leca J., (1997) Preface to Le gouvernement des villes : territoire et pouvoir, coordinated by Godard F., Descartes & Cie, Paris.

Mabileau A., Moyser G., Parry G., Quantin P. (1989) Local politics and participation in Britain and France, Cambridge University Press.

Marcou G., Rangeaon F., Thiébault J.-L. (1997) `Le gouvernement des villes et les realtions contractuelles entre collectivités publiques’, in Le gouvernement des villes : territoire et pouvoir, coordinated by Godard F., Descartes & Cie, Paris.

Paoletti M. (1999) `La démocratie locale française, spécifités et alignement’, in La Démocratie locale, représentation, participation et espace public ; CRAPS / CURAPP, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Parkinson, M. (1998) Combating social exclusion. Lessons from area-based programmes in Europe, Policy Press, Bristol.

Performance and Innovation Unit (2000) Reaching Out: The Role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level, Performance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet Office, London.

Raco M. (2000) Assessing community participation in local economic development – lessons for the new urban policy, Political Geography 19.

Raco, M. and Imrie, R. (2000) `Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban policy’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 32, pp2187-2204.

Regional Coordination Unit (2000) Reaching Out: Action Plan, Regional Coordination Unit, London.

Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Cm 4045, HMSO, London.

Social Exclusion Unit (2001) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal. National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, London.

Souami T. (1998) `Participer à la gouvernance’, in Les annales de la Recherche Urbaine, nos. 80-81.

Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, DETR, London.

Urban White Paper (2000) Our towns and cities: the future. Delivering an urban renaissance, Cm 4911, HMSO, London.

Endnotes

1) In 1997, the Regeneration Minister Richard Caborn stated that :
The government places great importance on the real involvement of local communities in the whole range of regeneration activities. It is important to the success of regeneration programmes to involve as many people as possible. This can lead to better decision-making, enhanced programmes delivery and improved sustainability. (Raco, 2000, p574)
In 1999, his French counterpart Claude Bartolone set down that "The government has made local people participation both a means and a target to succeed regeneration." (Decree in date of February 15th 1999 specifying to prefects how to apply Prime Minister decisions presented in Urban Inter-ministerial Committees of June 30th and December 2nd 1998.)

2) As opposed to the Anglo-Saxon "public interest" that empirically aggregates particular interests in an utilitarian way, the "intérêt général" refers to a greater, rational principle which everybody is supposed to agree with in building society.

3) SRB was transferred to RDAs when they were set up in April 1999, there was a Round 6 but since the publication of the Urban White Paper in November 2000 SRB has been discontinued. RDAs are now in the process of drawing up their own replacement `urban strategies’ which presumably will be introduced in April 2002.

4) According to the Guidance on LSPs:
The aspiration behind local strategic partnerships is that all local service providers should work with each other, the private sector and the broader local community to agree a holistic approach to solving problems with a common vision, agreed objectives, pooled expertise and agreed priorities for the allocation of resources. (DETR, 2000b, p3, emphasis in original).
The Guidance goes on to state that LSPs will "…provide a single overarching co-ordination framework within which other, more specific local partnerships can operate. " (ibid, p6)

5) Under Part I of the Local Government Act, 2000 Local authorities have a duty to prepare Community Strategies, LSPs will play a key role in drawing up these documents. The DETR’s Guidance (DETR, 2000c, para.39) states "The aim of community strategies is to allow local communities to articulate their needs and priorities. However, action at the local level will inevitably take place against a backdrop of priorities established at national and regional level." The Guidance goes on state:
It is important is seeking the views of communities, councils and their partners do not inadvertently raise expectations that they cannot meet. Clear parameters need to be established and communities must be given to understand the context and constraints within which public service providers operate (such as central government expectations and targets, resource levels and statutory limitations). (ibid, para. 56)

6) In the foreword to Urban White Paper the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State at the DETR, John Prescott, states:
Our guiding principle is that people must come first. Our policies, programmes and structures of governance are based on engaging local people in partnerships for change with strong local leadership. (Urban White Paper, 2000, p5)
The White paper later states "It is not enough to consult people about decisions that will impact on their lives; they must be fully engaged in the process from the start…"(ibid, p32)

7) As part of this coordinated (i.e. joined-up) approach a new Cabinet Committee on Urban Affairs has been set up, ironically this echoes developments under Conservative Governments. (For a wider, historically informed, analysis of joined-up government see Kavanagh and Richards, 2001)

8) Research by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions found that as few as 5% of the local population are regularly active in community groups and only a minority of this group will actively participate in partnerships or other representative activities (see Chanan, 1997).

9) In response to these problems, and as part of a more general attempt to develop, support and sustain community participation, a Community Empowerment Fund, worth £35m over three years, will be available to the 88 most deprived areas that qualify for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and a further £50m will provide small grants to support social entrepreneurs and community organisations over a three-year period in disadvantaged areas (SEU, 2001, p28).

10) We are not suggesting that deprived communities are inherently incapable of developing their own forms of organisation. However, many communities experiencing social (and spatial) exclusion are frequently fragmented and lack the basic coherence, organising skills and resources necessary to participate in partnerships in an effective manner. Few regeneration projects are prepared to acknowledge this and to put in the time and resources necessary to build such a capacity.

11) The first stage refers to legal publicity or briefing and promoting campaigns. At the second stage of the ladder, citizens’ perceptions are questioned. At the third stage, citizens’ views are supposed to be heeded in an interactive debate process. At the last stage, residents are given a part of the power in the decision-making process.

12) It is important to bear in mind that in France the notion of governance has a very different meaning compared to its usage in the Anglo-Saxon world.

13) In 1977, the Habitat et Vie Sociale (HVS) / "Housing and Social Life" programme (targeting a renovation of deprived social housing estates) set out as a criteria for a project to be accepted that local authority and managers agreed on consulting local residents on the design of the operation. (See French Official Journal 10/03/1977, p. 1356)

14) In 1991, the Loi d’Orientation sur la Ville (LOV) ("Urban Orientation Law"), set out that any important operation affecting inhabitants’ environment required a preliminary "concertation" (interactive consultation process) with local people, that the mayor should organise.

15) According to the Loi sur l’Administration Territoriale de la République (ATR) ("Republic Territorial Public Management Law", 1992), city councils can create consultative committees on any local issue. (See Code Général des Communes, Art. L.2143-2)

16) The 247 CDVs ("Urban contracts") cover more than 1,000 communes (local government units). These are a seven-year agreement between the State, local authorities and their partners in "the implementation, within a global framework, of a sustainable and coherent urban regeneration policy" (DIV, 2000a). CDVs target deprived areas (around 1500 neighbourhoods) in an integrated-scale approach aiming to include the entire urban area. They tackle crime prevention, employment and economic development, education, and urban renewal (DIV, 2000b). They finance many voluntary and municipal projects. The average State funding is 1.562 MEuros a year / CDV (Total State funding: 2.7 billions Euros for 2000-2006. See Assemblée nationale).
Within the framework of CDVs, two regeneration initiatives were created in order to implement large urbanistic operations (mainly infrastructure) : Grands Projets de Ville (GPV) / "Urban Regeneration Projects", for areas needing a significant redevelopment, and Opérations de Renouvellement Urbain (ORU) / "Urban Renewal Initiatives" which increase the capital budget in less deprived CDV areas. The 52 GPVs and the 30 ORUs are aimed at urban restructuring, the development of public facilities and linking deprived areas to the rest of the city. They implement both long-term investments (10-15 years) and short-term operations entailing a quickly visible impact on people’s daily lives. The average State funding is 2.094 MEuros a year / GPV and 0.472 MEuros a year / ORU (State funding : 762 MEuros for GPVs and 99 MEuros for ORUs between 2000 and 2006 ; see Assemblée nationale).

17) Decree on enforcing the "voluntary sector role in Urban policy", 9/09/99, Minister for Urban Affairs. Decree specifying how the former decree should be enforced, 15/09/99, Inter-ministerial Delegate for Urban Affairs.

18) The idea of vie sociale refers to day-to-day social exchanges and tights within a considered area.

19) See the Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville / "Interministerial Delegation for Urban Affairs" website (www.ville.gouv.fr/ne/) :
information on projects investigating (media, meetings, debates…)
consultation on given projects (surveys, public meetings, working parties, neighbourhood committees…)
involvement in the decision-making process and project delivery (Fonds de Participation des habitants / "Resident Participation Fund", organisations, workshops, commissions…)

20) Historically and politically, the word "Conseil de quartier" ("Neighbourhood council") refers to a top-down reality, while "Comité de quartier" ("Neighbourhood Committee") refers to a bottom-up one (Gontcharoff G., 1999). The latter were inherited from a dynamic local associative life period.

21) The significant change in the decision making process ("co-production of the decision" between public authorities, technicians/professionals and residents) with regard to the new CDVs and the GPVs, that was advertised by the Conseil National des Villes (CNV) / "National Council for urban affairs" in its opinions (CNV 1999 and 2000), can be questioned. Indeed, at the same time, it laid a great stress on the elected authority to be the guarantors of the general interest, reinforcing the idea that an institutional change is occurring, and not a move to participative democracy.

22) In the French perspective, capacity-building refers to training courses on how to set up an organisation or on how to manage an existing one. The meaning has been extended to training for professionals on the ground (voluntary sector, public services agents) on how to deal with situations of conflicts or adapt their language and behaviours to the persons they are speaking to.

23) Examples of issues dealt with in 2000 : housing, the parental function, deprived areas image, inter-generation relationship, the ballot process, day-to-day unfair treatment. Between 45 and 120 residents attended those sessions.

24) Examples of local issues dealt with in 2000: setting up of a resident organisation in Bassens II, a women’s workshop on the rehabilitation of their area, resident involvement in the implementation of a Plan aiming to help their joint ownership, a discussion group on the status of refugees.

25) For example an original initiative led by the Sénart SAN in order to prepare a local analysis of the causes of crime was set up in 1999. More than 500 people where consulted. Municipal agents went to see residents at home to ask them to organise meetings in their lunching rooms with their neighbours. A videotape made locally, featuring anonymous people expressing their views about local violence, allowed people to go beyond their own narrow-minded views. A report was made on these meetings and on the ideas that emerged. The outcome of this process was fed back to both councillors and residents. As interesting and useful as this experiment was, its costs were very high.

26) La Gazette des communes (27/11/2000, n.1575) proposed professionals points of view.

27) Patrick Norynberg, in La Gazette des communes.

28) This system refers to a time when professionals were mainly preoccupied by the result of the operation they were delivering to achieve an ideal, autonomous view. Current methods are more focused on dealing with constraints, thus relinquishing a part of their control. How to achieve the desired result is more important than strictly adhering to a prescribed model. (Souami, 1998)

29) See the report on a training seminar held for Sub-Prefects for urban affairs in October 1999 (DIV, 1999) : "Social landlords, education professionals are not convinced! It is very hard!"

30) In 1995, the district mayor of Paris XXth District (a quasi powerless entity within the City Council) created Neighbourhood Councils joining up 13 councillors, 13 members considered as representative by the local Council, and 13 residents chosen by drawing lots on resident lists. The legitimacy of these Neighbourhood Councillors was strongly challenged, since each meeting was an opportunity for elected councillors to speak directly to residents in the crowd, overtaking the official intermediary. (Blondiaux, 1999)

 

Workshop 1