After Housing Policy: Housing and the UK General Election 2001

This paper describes the results of a review of the housing content of UK General Election 2001 manifestos. Housing policy was of little importance during the election campaign. The main British political parties had, essentially, a shared housing agenda - to promote and facilitate home ownership, support area and community regeneration, tackle homelessness, improve the private rented sector, and prevent building on greenfield sites. Many issues of importance to housing specialists received little or no attention, most notably that of low demand. Some policy variations within the UK were evident, for example in attitudes towards greenfield development, home ownership and stock transfer. The paper concludes that differences in housing policy are emerging within the UK as part of a new politics of devolution and that the days of a single housing policy approach for the UK are over.

Devolving Housing Policy and Practice in Northern Ireland 1998 - 2002

This paper reviews the effect of devolution on housing policy and practice in Northern Ireland. It outlines the history and context of devolution and housing policy in Northern Ireland, including the legacy and persistence of intense social conflict. Current devolution arrangements are reviewed, including the implications of enforced coalition for policy governance. The paper focuses on three dimensions of housing and housing-related policy development and implementation: social housing, especially the distinctive history and changing organisation of social housing provision; policies affecting the housing market, including the changing regime for spatial planning; and, regeneration and tenant participation. The paper argues that housing policy has tended to converge with policies in England, rather than moving towards a distinctively local agenda. Local political agendas remain dominated by disagreements over constitutional status, thus policy formulation is determined more by officials than by elected politicians.

Community Relations in Northern Ireland: a shift in Attitudes?

The paper presents an analysis of Northern Ireland Social Attitudes data available at the time of writing. Its significance lay in emerging disparities in the responses, over time, of Protestants and Catholics to key social issues such as integrated education. The data, made public just one year after the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, generated intense media interest. Findings were reported in 400 outlets worldwide (UU media monitoring). Hughes was also interviewed for local and national news programmes (including BBC World Service). The data informed a decision by Government to undertake a major review of community relations policy, and Hughes was invited to advise the Head of the Northern Ireland review team. She was also invited to Chair the Community Relations Panel of the ESRC Devolution

National and Provincial Influences on Public Sector Pay: Northern Ireland after 1945

This article examines the national and regional pressures in Northern Ireland in the post-war period for parity in public sector pay with the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland had a devolved legislature and government within the UK from 192 1 and was constitutionality in all essentially federal relationship with the rest of the UK. However, the Stormont Government chose to use legislative devolution to minimize policy differences with the rest of the UK. The article highlights the national industrial relations environment as the backdrop for provincial developments in pay setting. It establishes the important role Played by the Social Services Agreement negotiated with the Labour Government at Westminster in triggering the principle of parity in public sector pay in the early post-war years. The principle of pay parity subsequently became a benchmark for regional trade union coercive comparisons in collective bargaining across the devolved public sector. The article highlights the Policy relevance of these developments both to the UK Treasury and to devolved Governments in the UK, as they address the issue of regional public sector pay.

Can Civil Society Succeed Where Elites Have Failed in the War on Sectarianism? Towards an infinitely demanding politics for the North

Caught between the well-armed imaginations of paramilitary organisations competing for the hearts and minds of a divided population, and state engineering of a liberal peace, civil society's impact on Northern Ireland's identity politics was limited during the thirty-year conflict. Specifically, the community and voluntary sector itself has tended to replicate as much as it challenged patterns of segregation in many of its own structures. With plans set out in the Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government (2008-11) to engage civil society in opening a new era of ‘good relations’ work to counter sectarianism and racism, civil society organisations will face a complex terrain, facing scepticism about their contribution to peace-making before the Good Friday Agreement, and working in a post-Agreement environment marked by continuing elite and communal antagonism demonstrated by the crisis at the turn of 2009 over devolution of justice and policing powers to the Northern Ireland Executive. A significant aspect of the resolution was a belated agreement by Sinn Fein and the DUP on a new community relation strategy, Cohesion, Sharing and Integration. This article suggests that civil society has a significant role to play in encouraging communities to confront the contradictions and tensions that continue to haunt the political architects of the Good Friday Agreement by affirming a radical and contingent vision of democracy as democratisation at a distance from the identity-saturated politics of the state-region of Northern Ireland. It draws on the work of Simon Critchley, Emmanuel Levinas and Wendy Brown, to offer an approach to identity politics in post-conflict Northern Ireland, focusing on the future orientation of civil society.

Nationalism, Ethnicity and Self-Determination: A Paradigm Shift?

An ongoing paradigm shift is giving birth to a more multidimensional understanding of the relationship between nationalism, sovereignty, self determination and democratic governance. A common element across the various versions of the new paradigm is the dispersal of democratic governance across multiple and overlapping jurisdictions. Governmental processes are no longer seen as discrete, centralised and homogenous as in the old nation-state model, but as asymmetrical, multilayered and multicultural, with devolution into multiple jurisdictions. These changes have hardly affected the two main conceptual frameworks that dominate the study of nationalism, Modernism and Ethnosymbolism. As a result, they risk becoming irrelevant to the new forms of national self determination, asymmetrical governance and shared sovereignty. Modernism and Ethnosymbolism insist that nationalism seeks to equate the nation with a sovereign state, while in reality the overwhelming majority of nations are stateless and unable to build nation states, as they often inhabit territories shared with other nations. The paradigm shift occurs precisely with the realisation that nation state sovereignty is no longer a feasible solution to the demands of stateless nations. Ethnosymbolism is in a much better position to adapt to the paradigm shift provided it abandons the claim that the nation state is the best shell for the nation.

Northern Ireland: The Politics of Constraint

The article surveys the interrupted experience of devolution in Northern Ireland since 1999 and draws a number of comparisons between the first devolved Assembly and Executive and their successors elected in 2007. It underlines the significance of the changed political, electoral and paramilitary context in the period leading up to the 2007 Assembly election which, together with a number of procedural changes effected by the 2006 St Andrews Agreement, enabled the restoration of power-sharing devolution to occur. Against the background of its legislative and policy record and the wider altered state of Northern Ireland, it concludes that the contrived consociational model of governance can work, up to a point, but perhaps as much because of the politics of constraint than consociationalism's much vaunted promise to reflect and engender the politics of accommodation.