Introduction

Knowledge is a vital resource within governance. One of the justifications given for neighbourhood governance in neighbourhood renewal is its capacity to incorporate the local knowledge of residents into local regeneration schemes. This chapter concentrates on the ways in which formalised explicit knowledge about the actual and likely outcomes of policy interventions within neighbourhood renewal is produced, managed and results in change.

New Labour administrations have promoted the learning of lessons, knowledge management and ‘evidence-based’ policy making and policy delivery. However, identifying the flows of knowledge within neighbourhood governance is not a simple story because it touches on the nature of knowledge, of knowledge management and of learning. The processes that regulate the flows of knowledge and frame questions about what works in neighbourhood renewal need to be understood in relation to issues of power and politics (see also Smith and Grimshaw, 2005; and Becker and Bryman, 2004, for a wider overview). Defining the terms under which knowledge is generated about a policy intervention constitutes an important source of power within governance institutions. Control of the terms under which knowledge is defined allows those with the capacity to define useful knowledge to set key priorities and marginalise alternative ways of defining success and what works. This can limit the capacity of neighbourhood governance to do what local stakeholders think is important where agencies outside of neighbourhood governance (such as central government departments) are in control of defining what counts as ‘useful knowledge’.

This chapter discusses debates on the generation and flow of knowledge in neighbourhood renewal. It is in three parts. The first part will concentrate on the ‘academic’ debates on the use and value of evidence and in particular research-based evidence in policy processes while the second will set out the policy-centred debate. A third section concentrates on the New Deal for Communities (NDC) programme by first considering the programme as a whole and then considering how knowledge has impacted on the activities of two case study partnerships.

Exploring the processes by which knowledge is generated within the NDC programme captures some of the tensions inherent in the efficiency versus participation debate for local government more widely. Conventional wisdom suggests that participation follows empowerment but empowerment implies communities being able to define ‘what works’ on their terms. This multiplicity of definitions of success does not allow the easy comparison of different interventions across a national programme.