Governing through community? A comparative study of changing management practices in mixed tenure housing development

An important feature of UK housing policy has been the promotion of consortia between local authorities, private developers and housing associations in order to develop mixed tenure estates to meet a wide range of housing needs. Central to this approach has been a focus on the management of neighbourhoods, based on the assumption that high densities and the inter-mixing of tenure exacerbates the potential for incivility and anti-social behaviour and exerts a disproportionate impact on residents' quality of life. Landlord strategies are therefore based on a need to address such issues at an early stage in the development. In some cases community-based, third sector organisations are established in order to manage community assets and to provide a community development service to residents. In others, a common response is to appoint caretakers and wardens to tackle social and environmental problems before they escalate and undermine residents’ quality of life. A number of innovative developments have promoted such neighbourhood governance approaches to housing practice by applying community development methods to address potential management problems. In the process, there is an increasing trend towards strategies that shape behaviour, govern ethical conduct, promote aesthetic standards and determine resident and landlord expectations. These processes can be related to the wider concept of governmentality whereby residents are encouraged to become actively engaged in managing their own environments, based on the assumption that this produces more cohesive, integrated communities and projects positive images. Evidence is emerging from a number of countries that increasingly integrated and mutually supportive roles and relationships between public, private and third sector agencies are transforming neighbourhood governance in similar ways. This paper will review the evidence for this trend towards community governance in mixed housing developments by drawing on a series of UK case studies prepared for two national agencies in 2007. It will review in particular the contractual arrangements with different tenures, identify codes and guidelines promoting 'good neighbour' behaviour and discuss the role of community development trusts and other neighbourhood organisations in providing facilities and services, designed to generate a well integrated community. The second part of the paper will review evidence from the USA and Australia to see how far there is a convergence in this respect in advanced economies. The paper will conclude by discussing the extent to which housing management practice is changing, particularly in areas of mixed development, whether there is a convergence in practice between different countries and how far these trends are supported by theories of governmentality.

The causal relationship between private and public investment in Zimbabwe

Aims: The study examines the relationship between private and public investment in Zimbabwe utilizing yearly time series data for the period 1967 to 2004. Study Design: Time Series Study. Place and Duration of Study: Zimbabwe, May 2011 to July 2011. Methodology: Emphasis is placed on the direction of causality and the long run and short run effect of the two types of investment on each other. The paper constructs empirical models for both private and public investment, based on the flexible accelerator theory. Private investment is found to be cointegrated with public investment. A cointergration and VEC models are employed to assess the long and short run relationship existing between public and private investment. Conclusion: The relationship between private and public investment is found to be insignificant and the direction of causality found to be unidirectional. The results support the notion that private investment precedes public investment.

Public Interests, Private Disputes: Investment Arbitration and the Public Good

This paper seeks to investigate the bases for resistance to arbitration in general -and investor arbitration in particular- focusing on the way in which arbitral tribunals deal with notions of public interest and the public good. The paper hypothesises that while courts have within their terms of reference the capacity to consider notions of public interest, arbitral tribunals do not. It is this core difference in the scope of decision making between the two bodies that could render privately organised dispute resolution unsuitable for disputes that have public aspects, like investor-state disputes. The paper discusses the meaning of public interest and the public good as found in the literature. It then proceeds to consider how tribunals in the investment field have dealt with these concepts. This leads to a conclusion urging not abandonment of arbitration as a component of dispute resolution, but caution. It is argued that unchecked growth in private dispute resolution can threaten perceptions of legitimacy and democratic accountability. The paper adopts a socio-legal methodology in considering the effect of legal mechanisms on social and political phenomena. It is also informed by a law and economics methodology in addressing impacts of dispute resolution mechanisms on economic efficiency. The contribution of the paper rests on theorising motivations for resistance to private dispute resolution, a topical issue in light of the TTIP debate.