Policy difference and policy ownership under UK devolution: social housing policy in Northern Ireland

This paper assesses the impact of UK devolution on social housing policy in Northern Ireland from 1999 until 2011, with a particular focus on the administration from May 2007 until April 2011, the first in which the elected elements of the process functioned for the entire period. Housing is one of the responsibilities of the Minister for Social Development. Northern Ireland has had a political commitment to the provision of good quality social housing for many years, both before and after the 1998 Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive in 1999.
The paper begins with an analysis of factors contributing to policy difference within the United Kingdom under the 1999 devolution settlement, noting that these factors may contribute either to policy convergence or divergence between the four UK jurisdictions. There follow reflections on the concept of ‘policy ownership’ in multi-level states and the benefits of this analytical approach for consideration of housing policy under UK devolution. A review of social housing policy since 1999 is followed by discussion of three key issues from the 2007-11 administration: the governance of social housing; the procurement of new social housing; and improving access to shared space and a shared future. The paper concludes that, in Northern Ireland, the 2007-11 administration marked a transition between a technocratic past and the future policy ownership of the social housing policy field by locally elected politicians. Reflections on wider implications for UK social policy, for UK devolution, and for the complex governance structures of devolved and federal states are also included.

Evaluating conditions for transboundary marine spatial planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland

Transboundary cooperation is viewed as an essential element of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). While much of the MSP literature focuses on the need for, and benefits of, transboundary MSP, this paper explores the political and institutional factors that may facilitate the effective transition to such an approach. Drawing on transboundary planning theory and practice, key contextual factors that are likely to expedite the transition to transboundary MSP are reviewed. These include: policy convergence in neighbouring jurisdictions; prior experience of transboundary planning; and good working relations amongst key actors. Based on this review, an assessment of the conditions for transboundary MSP in the adjoining waters of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is undertaken. A number of recommendations are then advanced for transboundary MSP on the island of Ireland, including, the need to address the role of formal transboundary institutions and the lack of an agreed legal maritime boundary. The paper concludes with some commentary on the political realities of implementing transboundary MSP.

Community Sanctions and Measures

This chapter explores the use of community sanctions in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. It locates this discussion within a wider international landscape, where the numbers of people subject to supervision in the community has risen markedly. It explores some of the reasons for this growth alongside the rationalities that are deployed to promote the use of community sanctions over time. The differing trajectories of the two jurisdictions in respect of the evolution and use of community sanctions are explored, as are some of the factors that explain areas of divergence and commonality. The chapter concludes by critically considering penal reductionism as a point of policy convergence in the two jurisdictions.

Powers, liabilities and expertise in community safety: Comparative lessons for ‘urban security’ from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

This paper begins by outlining and critiquing what we term the dominant anglophone model of neo-liberal community safety and crime prevention. As an alternative to this influential but flawed model, a comparative analysis is provided of the different constitutional-legal settlements in each of the five jurisdictions across the UK and the Republic of Ireland (ROI), and their uneven institutionalization of community safety. In the light of this it is argued that the nature of the anglophone community safety enterprise is actually subject to significant variation. Summarizing the contours of this variation facilitates our articulation of some core dimensions of community safety. Then, making use of Colebatch’s (2002) deconstruction of policy activity into categories of authority and expertise, and Brunsson’s (2002) distinction between policy talk, decisions and action, we put forward a way of understanding policy activity that avoids the twin dangers of ‘false particularism’ and ‘false universalism’ (Edwards and Hughes, 2005); that indicates a path for further empirical enquiry to assess the ‘reality’ of policy convergence; and that enables the engagement of researchers with normative questions about where community safety should be heading.

Where there is smoke, there is (the potential for) fire: soft indicators of research and policy impact

There is a growing literature examining the impact of research on informing policy, and of research and policy on practice. Research and policy do not have the same types of impact on practice but can be evaluated using similar approaches. Sometimes the literature provides a platform for methodological debate but mostly it is concerned with how research can link to improvements in the process and outcomes of education, how it can promote innovative policies and practice, and how it may be successfully disseminated. Whether research-informed or research-based, policy and its implementation is often assessed on such 'hard' indicators of impact as changes in the number of students gaining five or more A to C grades in national examinations or a percentage fall in the number of exclusions in inner city schools. Such measures are necessarily crude, with large samples smoothing out errors and disguising instances of significant success or failure. Even when 'measurable' in such a fashion, however, the impact of any educational change or intervention may require a period of years to become observable. This paper considers circumstances in which short-term change may be implausible or difficult to observe. It explores how impact is currently theorized and researched and promotes the concept of 'soft' indicators of impact in circumstances in which the pursuit of conventional quantitative and qualitative evidence is rendered impractical within a reasonable cost and timeframe. Such indicators are characterized by their avowedly subjective, anecdotal and impressionistic provenance and have particular importance in the context of complex community education issues where the assessment of any impact often faces considerable problems of access. These indicators include the testimonies of those on whom the research intervention or policy focuses (for example, students, adult learners), the formative effects that are often reported (for example, by head teachers, community leaders) and media coverage. The collation and convergence of a wide variety of soft indicators (Where there is smoke …) is argued to offer a credible means of identifying subtle processes that are often neglected as evidence of potential and actual impact (… there is fire).