Community empowerment or a strategy of containment? Evaluating neighbourhood governance in the city of Westminster

The longstanding emphasis on the neighbourhood as a scale for intervention and action has given rise to a variety of forms of governance with a number of different rationales. The predominant rationales about the purpose of neighbourhood governance are encapsulated in a fourfold typology developed by Lowndes and Sullivan (2008). This article sets out to test this approach by drawing on an evaluation of neighbourhood initiatives in the City of Westminster which were delivered through a third sector organisation, the Paddington Development Trust. ‘Insider’ perspectives gathered at city and neighbourhood levels regarding the infrastructure for neighbourhood management are discussed and evaluated in the light of these rationales. The conclusions, while broadly reflecting Lowndes and Sullivan and a follow-up study of Manchester, suggest that in Westminster the civic and economic rationales tend to predominate. However, the Westminster approach is contingent on the prevailing ethos and funding regimes at central and local levels and remains relatively detached from mainstream services. While community empowerment is an important part of the policy rhetoric, it is argued that in practice a ‘strategy of containment’ operates whereby residents in the neighbourhoods have relatively little control over targets and resources and that new governance mechanisms can be relatively easily de-coupled when required. In retrospect, co-production might have been a more effective model for neighbourhood governance, not least given its fit with policy direction.

New Narratives of International Security Governance: The Shift from Global Interventionism to Global Self-Policing

This article examines the transformation in the narratives of the international governance of security over the last two decades. It suggests that there has been a major shift from governing interventions designed to address the causes of security problems to the regulation of the effects of these problems. In rearticulating the goals of international actors, the means and mechanisms of security governance have also changed, no longer focused on the universal application of Western knowledge and resources but rather on the unique local and organic processes at work in societies that bear the brunt of these problems. This transformation takes the conceptualisation of security governance out of the traditional terminological lexicon of security expertise and universal solutions and instead articulates the problematic of security and the policing of global risks in terms of local management processes, suggesting that decentralised coping strategies and self-policing are more effective and sustainable solutions.