From brown envelopes to community benefits: the co-option of planning gain agreements under deepening neoliberalism

The provision of physical and social infrastructure in the form of roads, green spaces and community facilities has traditionally been provided for by the state through the general taxation system. However, as the state has been transformed along more neoliberal lines, the private sector is increasingly relied upon to deliver public goods and services. Planning gain agreements have flourished within this context by offering another vehicle through which local facilities are privately funded. Whilst these agreements reflect the broader dynamics of neoliberalism, they are commonly viewed as a tool which can be employed to challenge these very dynamics by empowering local communities to secure more just planning outcomes. This paper counters such claims. Based on evidence gathered from 80 interviews with planners, councillors, developers and community groups in Ireland, the paper demonstrates how planning gain agreements have been strategically redeployed by the holders of political and economic power to serve their own ends. In seeking to understand why and how this has occurred, specific consideration is given to the changing power dynamics between the state and private capital under neoliberalism. The paper highlights how institutional arrangements have enabled developers to infiltrate the political sphere in more subtle and implicit ways than ever before. We conclude by arguing that planning gain must be understood as a mechanism which has been manipulated in ways which essentially work to preserve and enhance, rather than redress, existing power imbalances in the planning system by facilitating large scale transfers of wealth upwards in society.

Mental Health and Morbidity of Caregivers and Co-Residents of individuals with Dementia: A Quasi-Experimental Design

Objectives: To determine if providing informal care to a co-resident with dementia symptoms places an additional risk on the likelihood of poor mental health or mortality compared to co-resident non-caregivers.
Design: A quasi-experimental design of caregiving and non-caregiving co-residents of individuals with dementia symptoms, providing a natural comparator for the additive effects of caregiving on top of living with an individual with dementia symptoms. 
Methods: Census records, providing information on household structure, intensity of caregiving, presence of dementia symptoms and self-reported mental health, were linked to mortality records over the following 33 months. Multi-level regression models were constructed to determine the risk of poor mental health and death in co-resident caregivers of individuals with dementia symptoms compared to co-resident non-caregivers, adjusting for the clustering of individuals within households.
Results: The cohort consisted of 10,982 co-residents (55.1% caregivers), with 12.1% of non-caregivers reporting poor mental health compared to 8.4% of intense caregivers (>20 hours of care per week). During follow-up the cohort experienced 560 deaths (245 to caregivers). Overall, caregiving co-residents were at no greater risk of poor mental health but had lower mortality risk than non-caregiving co-residents (ORadj=0.93, 95% CI 0.79, 1.10 and ORadj=0.67, 95% CI 0.56, 0.81, respectively); this lower mortality risk was also seen amongst the most intensive caregivers (ORadj=0.65, 95% CI 0.53, 0.79).
Conclusion: Caregiving poses no additional risk to mental health over and above the risk associated with merely living with someone with dementia, and is associated with a lower mortality risk compared to non-caregiving co-residents.