Introduction

As the chapters of this volume show, many commentators have welcomed a new willingness to listen to and involve local people in area-based regeneration policy in the UK (Atkinson, 1999a; North, 2000; Purdue et al, 2000). To take one example: the Single Regeneration Budget Round Five (SRB5), 1999. Among the plethora of funding regimes, SRB has a particularly poor reputation as a bureaucratic, inflexible process that emphasises number crunching rather than ‘real’ results or innovation (see Chapter Eight of this volume). Many of its processes are opaque to those who have not cracked the mysteries of its specialist language and style! Its management and reporting requirements assume that participating organisations have the administrative structures to handle the voluminous paperwork involved. Funding is normally paid in arrears, which again assumes that participating organisations have extensive financial back-up. There is little support to involve small community groups in developing schemes. As a result, few voluntary organisations have been successful at winning these funds, despite encouragement from Government Offices.

Single Regeneration Budget Round Five was the first round held under rules written by New Labour. It was supposed to be different; it claimed to have learned from criticisms.