Introduction

Changes to governance institutions and practices in western democracies have created the conditions for multilevel governance and supported the development of new forms of political agency and organisation (Lowndes and Sullivan, 2008). These developments have enabled the emergence of the neighbourhood as an important component of this multilevel environment, and evidence from a number of European countries suggests that both the idea and the practice of neighbourhood governance are now embedded in public policy (Atkinson and Carmichael, 2007). Considerable attention has been focused on whether or not neighbourhood arrangements ‘work’, that is, whether they deliver desired outcomes more efficiently and/ or effectively (see, for example, Smith et al, 2007). The focus of this chapter is rather different. It is concerned with examining why UK neighbourhood governance initiatives purposely designed to engage more directly and productively with citizens as users of services, voters, workers and local representatives often fail to do so, instead generating frustration and antipathy expressed through attempts at subversion or, ultimately, withdrawal.

The chapter argues that the roots of this apparent disconnect between purpose and outcomes in neighbourhood governance are located in the differences between the values and practices of ‘big’ versus ‘small’ local governments and the tensions that arise when attempts are made to combine them (Dahl and Tufte, 1973; Newton, 1982). These tensions mean that, among and between politicians, the public and professionals, there may be different and competing views about the appropriateness and contribution of neighbourhood governance, views informed by the legacy of policy makers’ fluctuating fascination with ‘the neighbourhood’ in the post-war period. Importantly, these tensions permit powerful actors, for example central government, to use neighbourhood governance initiatives as instruments of ‘subversion’, unsettling institutionalised governance arrangements in pursuit of policy goals.

The chapter then considers the variety of neighbourhood governance initiatives and argues that underpinning them are specific and potentially conflicting interpretations, each of which has more or less appeal to local citizens as politicians, professionals and the public. Drawing on the work of Lowndes and Sullivan (2008), it describes the four dominant interpretations of neighbourhood governance, identifies the implications of each for citizens as politicians, professionals and the public and highlights points of complementarity and conflict between them.