The government-led approach to regeneration through competitions and 'challenges' is becoming a flood-threatening piss-take. When I heard about the 'Portas pilots' - a scheme for twelve towns to bid to become 'areas with the vision and enthusiasm to breathe new life into what should be the beating heart of their communities' according to Grant Shapps - forget the dreadful rhetoric, I must have misread the amount available.
Not unreasonably, I feel. One million pounds each might have been meaningful, but not between the lot. If politicians and central government officials want to complain about the use local government officers make of their time, it's worth asking them (a) why they spend their own time coming up with incontestably crap schemes like this, and (b) do they or do they not expect a lot of officials to spend time developing bids that ultimately will not be successful?
Once upon a time we had policy and strategy on social issues, now we have 'innovation', 'challenges' and 'pilots'. Here's David Marlow's take on the government approach, from Regen & Renewal:
'the pattern of their approach to economic development has now been clear for some time. In default of a coherent strategy, they come up with an ad hoc announcement, with derisory funding, to give the appearance of leadership.'
The increasing trend toward replacing real development with "development theater" (by analog with "security theater") is visible in the US as well. Over here we tend to get this lumped together with a sort of commercialization/privatization where public authorities zero out funding for (e.g. playgrounds) and the replacement is commercial competitions like the Pepsi Refresh grants that turn the selection process into a popularity contest designed to enhance the brand's image.
Either kind is terrible, though - I'm not sure which is worse.
@alex
Posted by: Alex Dupuy | Saturday, 31 March 2012 at 14:36