Sustainable Development, Rolled-out Neoliberalism and ......tion of critical academic work on the...

______________ ___________________

Sustainable Development, Rolled-outNeoliberalism and Sustainable

Communities

Mike RacoDepartment of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, UK;

[email protected]

Recent contributions by geographers on the relationships between states and citizens have docu-

mented the rise of rolled-out neoliberalism. Development agendas are, it is argued, increasingly

dominated by the principles of market-driven reforms, social inequality, and a drive towards

enhancing the economic competitiveness of the supply side of the economy. However, at the

same time, a parallel set of discourses has emerged in the development literature which argues

that it is principles of sustainable development that have, in practice, become dominant. The

emphasis is, instead, on democratic empowerment, environmental conservation, and social justice.

This paper examines the relationships between these ostensibly very different interpretations of

contemporary development with an assessment of one of the Labour government’s most ambitious

planning agendas—the publication in February 2003 of the document Sustainable Communities:

Building for the Future. The proposals are promoted as a ‘‘step change’’ in the planning system with a

new emphasis on tackling shortages of housing in the South East and reviving the economy of the

Thames Gateway area. The paper assesses the different ways in which such programmes can be

interpreted and argues that contemporary development practices in countries such as Britain are

constituted by a hybridity of approaches and rationalities and cannot be reduced to simple

characterisations of rolled-out neoliberalism or sustainable development.

IntroductionIt seems an anomaly that in recent decades critical conceptions of theprinciples and practices of development should have taken such diverseand parallel paths. One the one hand, a range of development pro-grammes and development agencies draw explicitly upon a set of prin-ciples that are enshrined in notions of sustainable development (SD). ForMeadowcroft (1999), SD has become an all-embracing ‘‘meta-narrative’’that has spread across both developed and less developed countries inrecent decades. Normative notions of SD advocate equity, empower-ment, and environmentally sensitive economic development. On theother hand, a range of theorists, particularly those writing from regula-tionist perspectives, argue that state agendas and modes of regulationhave become increasingly neoliberalised over the same time period andhave been driven by new forms of market-based entrepreneurialism,social inequality, and resource exploitation. Development has become

� 2005 Editorial Board of Antipode.Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA

anything but sustainable as the demands of enhanced capital accumula-tion override the broader needs of social reproduction. In essence, manyof the premises and underlying rationalities of the approaches seemdiametrically opposed in both conceptual and empirical terms, yet bothare variously characterised as the dominant principles underpinningplanning and development strategies and agendas.

It is within this broader intellectual and political context that inFebruary 2003 the New Labour government triumphantly announcedits latest initiative to create a ‘‘step change’’ in the British planningsystem that would both enhance economic development and promotenew forms of sustainability. New Sustainable Communities would beestablished ‘‘to tackle the problems of a rapidly changing population,the needs of the economy, serious housing shortages in London andthe South East and the impact of housing abandonment in places inthe North and Midlands’’ (Prescott 2003:3). This series of initiativesinvolves the physical regeneration of urban infrastructure, the demo-lition of empty properties, and the creation of new towns, all of whichis designed to enhance the quality of life and employment prospectsof a broad range of social groups, whilst boosting urban economiesand property development markets (Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister (ODPM) 2003a). Such development, it is argued, will bemore holistic and self-sustaining with local people, groups and busi-nesses playing a key role in ‘‘the planning, design, and long termstewardship of their community’’ (2003a:2). In line with New Labour,Third Way thinking, this stewardship role is promoted as a mechan-ism for local communities to nurture and guide the developmentprocess in ways that are mutually beneficial both for them and forinvestors so that the development process becomes balanced betweenthe needs of the economy and civil society.

This paper examines the emergence of this significant new develop-ment initiative and assesses it in relation to broader debates over SD.It examines the extent to which it reflects and reproduces a widerneoliberalisation of policy agendas or, conversely, is indicative of thenew principles and practices of economic, social and political sustain-ability. The paper begins by outlining the critical elements of SD andregulationist explanations of policy change before assessing the rela-tionships between them in theoretical and concrete terms. It thendocuments and assesses the form and character of the government’spolicy agendas through two interrelated themes: the establishment ofthe institutional architecture of policy delivery and new forms ofsustainable citizenship. Collectively, the paper argues that theco-evolution of different development discourses raises importantquestions over the assumptions that characterise their deployment.In assessing actually existing development practices, it concludes thatthere is a greater hybridity of approaches and rationalities than is often

Sustainable Development 325

� 2005 Editorial Board of Antipode.

acknowledged, taking analysis beyond simple characterisations ofrolled-out neoliberalism or naı̈ve forms of sustainable development.

Sustainable Development, New Labour and NeoliberalGovernanceThe Rise and Rise of Sustainable DevelopmentThe discourse of sustainable development has become one the centralorthodoxies of planning, not only in Britain but also in Europe andNorth America (de Roo and Miller 2000). Planners in a variety ofcontexts now ostensibly strive to create SD programmes that can besupported by social, economic, and environmental resources in thelong term for the benefit of individuals, communities, and society as awhole. The discourse arose in the 1970s and 1980s with the publica-tion of critical academic work on the limits of growth (see McRobie1990; Schumacher 1973) and environmentally focused reports byglobal institutions such as the World Bank (1989), the United Nations(World Commission for Environment and Development 1988), andthe World Conservation Union (1991). Collectively, these called fornew forms of economic development which put greater value onenvironmental resources, extended the time horizons in which actorsthink and operate, and promoted greater equity between differentsocial groups and communities, primarily through new forms ofdemocratic economic governance (see Chatterton 2002; Gibbs 2002;Pearce, Markandya and Barbier 1991; Whitehead 2003).

Much of the early writing on SD focused on environmentalresource use and management and sought of establish new frame-works in which economic development could be linked to theconservation of resources and species diversity on the planet. How-ever, as Willers (1994) argues, the term has been defined in a varietyof ways. It was, for example, taken up with great zeal by big businessesintent on promoting agendas of ‘‘sustained’’ economic growth. Inother contexts the term has taken on meaning in relation to broaderenvironmentalism. Thus, on the one hand, there are those who callfor a shallow greening of development policy in which the environmentis visualised as a ‘‘bundle of processes, all of which have naturalfunctions that serve the interests of human survival and contentment’’(O’Riordan 1992:308). This type of approach, that dominates develop-ment agendas in developed countries, tends to produce discourses ofsustainable development that are highly utilitarian in that they advo-cate, not ‘‘limits to growth [but] the growth of limits’’ (Willers1994:1146). More radical, deep green, environmental thinking thatviews human beings as alienated from the environmental disruptionthat they create and calls for reductions in economic growth hasremained outside the mainstream (O’Riordan 1992:318).

326 Antipode


The politicisation of the concept of SD raises a series of questionsover its deployment in the technologies, strategies and philosophies ofstate action. What forms, for example, does SD take as a discourseand as an actually existing set of policy practices and programmes? Inand through what political processes are these agendas shaped andwith what outcomes? If SD has become what Meadowcroft (1999)terms a new meta-narrative, what does this tell us about emergingforms of state regulation and the (spatial) institutional fixes thatare developed to implement reforms? For at the same time as theprinciples of SD have come to ‘‘dominate’’ policy agendas, othersargue that it is neoliberalism, with its principles of market efficiencies,entrepreneurial communities, and resource exploitation which have,paradoxically, taken centre stage (Neumayer 1999). The next sectionexamines some recent perspectives on neoliberalism drawn fromregulationist writings and draws out the links and connections withSD discourses and ideals.

Neoliberalism, Development Agendas, and New Modes ofRegulationWithin the geographical literature there has been a growing body ofwork which has sought to address state–society relations throughregulationist interpretations of institutional change. For regulation-ists, the period since the mid-1970s has represented a new era ofinstitutional regulatory fixes at different spatial scales characterisedby evolving forms of neoliberal governance. Neoliberalism is under-pinned by the belief that ‘‘open, competitive, and unregulatedmarkets, liberated from all forms of state interference, represent theoptimal mechanism for economic development’’ (Brenner andTheodore 2002:2). For Jessop (2002) the Keynesian welfare structuresof the post-war period have been converted into new modes ofSchumpeterian, workfarist regulation that promote international com-petitiveness and socio-technical innovation, the subordination of socialpolicy to economic policy, the limitations of national scale policy-making, and new forms of partnerships and networks of reflexiveself-organisation (Jessop 2002:112–113; see also Peck and Theodore2002). These reforms have been underpinned by the expansion of newmodes of entrepreneurial active citizenship; the extension of marketprinciples; the implementation of ‘‘voluntary’’ codes of (de)regulationon private sector actors; a reduced role for organised labour indecision-making processes; and a new authoritarianism of social con-trol, morality, and behaviour (see Brenner and Theodore 2002; Rose2000).

For Peck and Tickell (2002), neoliberal regulation has evolved overdifferent periods. During the late 1970s and 1980s in the USA and



UK, neoliberalism took the form of a ‘‘rolling back’’ of the frontiers ofthe welfare state and savage critiques of the capacities and practicesof post-war state management. However, by the 1990s, as the negativeexternalities of such measures began to impinge upon the prospectsfor economic development, so the character of neoliberalism changedto focus ‘‘on the purposeful construction and consolidation of neo-liberal state forms, modes of governance and regulatory relations’’(Peck and Tickell 2002:37). This ‘‘rolling out’’ of neoliberalism, theauthors contend, is a less visible, more surreptitious mode of ‘‘perva-sive meta-regulation’’ which has been obfuscated by the ‘‘centre-left’’politics of the Third Way and the New Deal. Neoliberal principles, itis argued, have been woven into the fabric of a broad range of policyprogrammes at the same time as they have subordinated non-marketpolitical and cultural forces to the broader requirements of capitalaccumulation.

The actually occurring forms of neoliberal regulation do, however,differ significantly from place to place so that for Brenner and Theodorethese ‘‘contemporary neo-liberal tendencies … have been unfolding at arange of geographical scales and in a variety of institutional sites’’(2002:19–20). The specific form and character of neoliberal regulationare dependent upon existing social relations and state practices and,therefore, its effects ‘‘cannot be reduced to the internal characteristics ofcertain institutions, or politics; it also exists as an extra-local regime ofrules and routines, pressures and penalties’’ (Peck and Tickell 2002:45).As such, neoliberalism ‘‘refers to the politics and processes whereby arelative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much aspossible of social life in order to maximise their personal profit’’(McChesney 1999:7). The interests of the powerful, in particular con-texts, become the norms that guide political debate and practice to theexclusion of others.

The ascendancy of regulationist perspectives in critical geographicalwriting does not come without its difficulties. Neoliberalism, by defini-tion, invokes the re-emergence of early modern principals of liberalismwhich Jessop (2002:108) defines as the primacy of private property,‘‘free choice’’ in consumption, a night-watchman role for the state, andconceptions of state action as an intrusion into the formally freechoices of members of society. However, such a characterisation ofliberalism is relatively partial and selective as liberalism as a phil-osophy has always been underpinned by a wide variety of perspectives.Feminist writers, such as Nussbaum, for example, argue that ‘‘manycritiques of liberalism are really critiques of economic utilitarianism’’(1999:57). Rather than calling for state (de)regulation that punishesand disciplines whole sections of society, the liberal writings of authorssuch as Mill, Kant, and Rawls posit that all human beings ‘‘are of equaldignity and worth, no matter where they are situated in society and that

328 Antipode


the primary source of this worth is a power of moral choice withinthem, a power that consists of the ability to plan a life in accordancewith one’s own evaluations of ends’’ (2000:57). For Nussbaum, liberal-ism advocates strong state action where prejudice and injustice canbe challenged through intervention, it is not a blueprint for a junglelaw of individual self-gratification and market-based principals. Such aninterpretation of what liberalism’s principles consist of seem to be atodds with some of the characterisations of regulationist writers, indeed,many strands of liberalism call for the empowerment of the publicrealm at the expense of the private (see Holmes 1993).

In addition, regulationist writing primarily focuses on the supplyside of the economy and the use of regulation to engender new modesof Schumpeterian entrepreneurialism to overcome falling rates ofprofitability. Yet, this raises a series of theoretical and empir-ical questions over the demands on states made by a range of interestswhich may or may not be linked to wider neoliberal objectives. Statesare constantly faced with the autonomous claims of actors and groupsat different spatial scales shaped by wide-ranging historically mediatedstate–civil society relationships. These differences may be flagged upas significant by regulationist thinkers, but the implications of propos-ing a position in which a pervasive neoliberal meta-governancedominates state regulation, but may be altered so radically by compet-ing demands on the state that they barely constitute ‘‘neoliberal’’policies at all, are not followed through sufficiently. As While, Jonasand Gibbs’ (2004) study of growth agendas in Cambridge demon-strates, there is a ‘‘necessary relationship between the politics of eco-nomic development and that of collective consumption’’ (2004:301) sothat development agendas have to be understood in the context ofa variety of competing development rationales articulated at avariety of scales and through different institutional structures of stateregulation.

Moreover, how does the discourse of SD fit in with neoliberalconceptions of state change and what can its emergence and wide-spread deployment tell us about the form and character of neoliberal-ism and state regulation? As discussed above, SD is a chameleon-likediscourse which has been (re)interpreted and deployed by a range ofinterests to legitimate and justify a range of often contradictory anddivergent agendas. In the context of the purported shift to neoliberal-ism, we might expect that policy programmes and agendas which drawon SD discourses have themselves become neoliberal in the broadersense of the term. However, many of the philosophical and practicalelements of SD contain within them the seeds of very differentagendas—of democratic reform, economic equity, and new timeframes of less exploitative economic development. For authors suchas Meadowcroft, these elements have the potential to enable the



formation of alternative, non-materialist and progressive agendas andact as a ‘‘normative standard which requires the balancing of environ-mental economic activity and social equity in current decision-making’’(1999:37). At the very least, the widespread emergence of a discoursewhich has the potential to challenge the central tenets of neoliberalphilosophies calls into question the hegemony of a ‘‘rolled out’’ neo-liberalism.

The extent to which SD agendas and frameworks take on neoliberalforms becomes an empirical question to be interrogated in andthrough specific case studies which can then be used to informtheoretical inquiry. For instance, if neoliberalism does shape anddominate the policy activities of Western governments, we mightexpect that SD will be deployed and reinterpreted in ways that chal-lenge the legitimacy of state regulation and control, and promotemarket-driven development agendas. In many ways, SD in its broadestsense lends itself to such an interpretation. It is, after all, concernedwith the efficient use of resources, something that neoliberals argueresults from the implementation of market principles. In addition,neoliberals would have little difficulty in accepting the notion that thedegradation of environmental resources could hamper economicdevelopment and that policies which sought to increase the sustain-ability of investment could expand the growth of limits, rather thanhighlighting the limits to growth. Moreover, if markets are themost efficient mechanism for using resources, then the promotionof private sector actors and their expertise into decision-makingframeworks, it could be argued, would further the cause of SD.Given the speed with which SD has been adopted by big businessesand governments intent on supporting (and sustaining) economicgrowth, there appears to be much justification for characterising SDas another discourse which has been subsumed a wider neoliberal,regulatory logic.

Yet, at the same time the emergence of SD, at a variety of differentscales, provides policymakers and a range of communities with alter-native ways of thinking about economic development, social justice,and resource use. The enhanced focus on the impacts and external-ities generated by economic development can challenge neoliberalinspired growth agendas and modes of regulation. The greater atten-tion given to social justice and inclusion which characterisedthe original foundations of the sustainability movement sit uneasilywith neoliberal, trickle-down economics in which developmentcapacities are to be maximised with scant regard for redistri-bution or social justice. Whilst discourses of SD also call on thebreaking open of (state-dominated) economic systems, their aim isto encourage a variety of actors to engage directly in the politics of

330 Antipode


development, not just those in powerful positions from the privatesector.

Similar debates characterise the significant shift towards the relatedconcept of sustainable communities (SCs). In many countries, com-munities and citizens have been given enhanced responsibilities todevelop their own agendas in a context where the supporting struc-tures of welfare systems have been gradually eroded (Raco 2003). Forregulationists the shift towards communities could be construed as anattempt to institutionalise the decline of state support for vulnerablesections of society and to instil new entrepreneurial governmentalitiesinto dependent groups. Community empowerment represents a cen-tral element in the rolling out of neoliberal relations and subjectivitiesand acts as a mechanism for instilling the illusion of self-sufficiencyand societal detachment. At the same time, community plays a centralrole in discourses of SD. Again, there are associations with neoliberalinterpretations of community in encouraging the activation of citizensand the reduction of dependent state–citizen relations. However,there are also important differences. Within SD discourses a SC isone whose collective resources, such as employment and forms ofcollective consumption, are maintained in the longer term to enablecommunity change to proceed in less rapid, more equitable ways. ASC does not equate with growing polarisation and marginalisation butencourages enhanced social cohesion. Again, the approaches do haveoverlaps, but their contrasting interpretations of the processes andpractices of development planning necessitate further empirical ana-lysis of actually existing programmes, their rationales, and the extentto which they reflect neoliberal modes of governance or those of SDof a hybrid of the two.

The remainder of the paper examines these trends and processes byanalysing and deconstructing the New Labour government’s latestand most ambitious strategy for the formation of sustainable commu-nities, development and planning in the UK—the Sustainable Com-munities: Building for the Future framework (ODPM 2003a).According to regulationists, New Labour has been at the forefrontof rolled-out neoliberalism in Western Europe. The paper examineswhat the government is trying to achieve in its proposals, how legit-imate and useful its intentions are, what development philosophiesunderpin its actions, and what the benefits and dis-benefits of such anapproach might be. It argues that there exists a hybridity ofapproaches embedded in the Sustainable Communities: Building forthe Future document and outlines the ways in which policy agendasmight be better understood and improved. The paper focuses on theproposals in the South East and the Thames Gateway as it is here thatthe plans and proposals are the most well-developed and have been



the critical driving force behind the emergence (and in judging theoverall success) of the wider project.

Building Sustainable Communities: Planning Policy andSustainable Development in the Thames GatewayNew Labour’s New AgendaOne of New Labour’s key ambitions when it took office in 1997 was topromote the regeneration of Britain’s urban areas and deprivedregions in new ways that were informed by the key tenets of SD.The publication in February 2003 of the document Sustainable Com-munities: Building for the Future (SCBF) represents a significant mile-stone in the administration’s policies towards this end. Theprogramme seeks to tackle housing shortages in the South and Eastof England, rejuvenate land and housing markets in low-demandareas of northern industrial cities, and protect rural areas from grow-ing development pressures. It calls for the expansion of housingdevelopment in three areas of the South East: Milton Keynes,Cambridge-Stansted and Ashford, with the construction of 260,000houses; and the regeneration of the Thames Gateway in East Londonand along the Thames Estuary, where 120,000 houses are proposed.A total of £610 million has been allocated for these developments,which are to be spearheaded by development partnerships and UrbanRegeneration Companies in the former, and two newly establishedUrban Development Corporations in the latter (see ODPM 2003a,2003b). These measures are supplemented by the establishment ofnine Market Renewal Areas in northern cities in which there will be‘‘sustained action to replace obsolete housing with modern sustain-able accommodation, through demolition and new building or refur-bishment’’ (ODPM 2003a:24).

For the Blair government, SD is achieved when programmes: pro-vide new sources of urban employment for local people by creatingnew investment spaces; transform the aesthetic quality of derelict anddepressed urban environments thereby encouraging people and busi-nesses to stay in urban locations, and attract new investors; open upnew opportunities for housing and commercial development; enablehigher levels of population density to be achieved, thereby reducingthe need to use up additional land to meet growing demands; enhancethe liveability of towns and cities; and protect rural environmentsfrom urban sprawl and environmental destruction (see ODPM2003b). The government argues that this form of SD will enableland and housing markets to be re-balanced, with development pres-sures alleviated in ways that will encourage economic growth andenable the formation of sustainable, environmentally friendly formsof urban planning. In many fast-growing urban areas in the South and

332 Antipode


East of England, costs of living have risen so quickly over the last10–15 years that public and welfare organisations, which pay moder-ate and low wage rates, are increasingly struggling to attract coreworkers to maintain or enhance their services. In addition, companiesthat rely on semi-skilled manufacturing or service workers have foundtheir profit margins increasingly squeezed and many industries facechronic labour shortages and growing property costs. What makes theSCBF initiative different, it is argued, is that it will not only tackleexisting market difficulties but will do so in a way that encourages theestablishment of SCs and SD in which people will be able to live andwork and have access to social facilities.

The government, therefore, explicitly draws on normative inter-pretations of SD in advocating its new proposals. Development isportrayed as a mechanism for encouraging economic growth whilstsimultaneously supporting the broader requirements of social repro-duction and, in a shallow green way, the environmental limits ofgrowth (see Massey 1994). This is reflected in the government’sdefinition of what constitutes a SC (see Table 1).

The definition echoes broader shifts in policy thinking thatemerged during the 1990s that promoted the concept of ‘‘holistic’’,sustainable regeneration in which local economic, social, political, andenvironmental problems are tackled simultaneously. This is indicatedby the stress on investment in quantitative infrastructure, such ashousing and transport, and the simultaneous references to qualitative

Table 1: Key requirements of a sustainable community

. A flourishing local economy to provide jobs and wealth

. Strong leaderships to respond positively to change

. Effective engagement and participation by local people, groups and businesses in theplanning, design and long-term stewardship of their community

. An active voluntary and community sector

. A safe and healthy local environment with well-designed public and green space

. Sufficient size, scale and density and the right layout to support basic amenities in theneighbourhood and minimise use of resources

. Good public transport and other transport infrastructure both within the community andlinking it to urban, rural and regional centres

. Buildings—both individually and collectively—that meet different needs over time andminimise the use of resources

. A well integrated mix of decent homes of different types and tenures to support a rangeof household sizes, ages and incomes

. Good quality local public services, including education and training opportunities, healthcare and community facilities, especially for leisure

. A diverse, vibrant and creative local culture, encouraging pride in the community andcohesion within it

. A sense of ‘‘place’’

. The right links with the wider regional, national and international community

Source: Adapted from ODPM (2003a:5)



notions of sustainability, such as the creation of a sense of ‘‘place’’ andthe benefits of community diversity and vibrancy. In addition, theframework calls for ‘‘effective engagement and participation by localpeople, groups and businesses, especially in the planning, design, andlong-term stewardship of their community, and an active voluntaryand community sector’’ (ODPM 2003a:5). It argues for ‘‘strong com-munity leadership’’ and an activation of political consciousness withinlocal community groups.

The SCBF programme is also explicitly geared up to what it per-ceives to be the functional needs of the UK’s most successful eco-nomic region as its first priority is ‘‘to accommodate the economicsuccess of London and the wider South East and ensure that theinternational competitiveness of the region is sustained, for the ben-efit of the region and the whole country’’ (ODPM 2003a:46). Thefocus is on ensuring that the most successful places maintain theircompetitive advantages in a global and international context. This isexplicitly stated in the government’s progress report on the SCBF inwhich it argues that:

we cannot simply try to halt growth in the South East in order todivert it to other regions. The government’s regional policy isfocused on enabling every region of England to perform to its fulleconomic and employment opportunities. (ODPM 2003b:5).

Imposing what it terms ‘‘artificial constraints’’ (5) on developmentin more successful regions would not necessarily benefit less success-ful regions as investment ‘‘may well go abroad, or simply not happen’’.

The SCBF proposals, therefore, contain many of the core discur-sive elements of the broader SD literature. However, if rolled-outneoliberalism now dominates state policies, then we might expectthem to be imbued with the principles and disciplines examined ear-lier in the paper. In what ways is this the case? In the followingsection the paper examines the SCBF through two interrelated ele-ments—new governance arrangements, and new philosophies of citi-zenship. It argues that neoliberal elements are inherent across theproposals, but also that they cannot simply be characterised as anexpression of rolled-out neoliberalism. Instead, they can be inter-preted as something of a hybrid, containing the possibilities for theemergence of very different agendas and philosophies.

Delivering Sustainable Communities, New Forms ofGovernance and the Role of the Private SectorOne of the key elements of rolled-out neoliberalism is the discursiveprivileging of the expertise and capacities of private sector actors anda sustained critique of the state. In many ways the SCBF frameworkdoes exactly that through its clarion call for a selective ‘‘break from

334 Antipode


the past’’ (ODPM 2003a:3). There is the now familiar New Labourcritique, not only of the Conservative administrations that preceded itbut also of earlier Labour administrations for whom state planningwas seen as a vehicle for the delivery of greater equality and socialneeds. John Prescott, for example, states that:

for more than 30 years this country has lost its way. All governmentsfailed to meet housing need. We built housing in a way that failed toput the needs of communities first. We did not invest for the longterm. (Prescott 2003:3)

The government’s intention in relation to SCs is to ‘‘remove bar-riers to delivering the housing needed in our communities and ensurethe planning system was not a break on the supply of sites for housingin sustainable locations’’ (Hill 2003:1).1 Local authorities, as regula-tory agencies, are chided for their alleged failures to provide the righthomes in the right places at the right times and their failure torespond to market signals and processes.

Again and again within the SCBF document, problems are identi-fied (for example, the tendency of house builders to construct housesthat use up large areas of greenfield land, in flat contradiction of SDagendas) with little acknowledgement of the house-building industry’skey role in creating the problems in the first place. The practice of‘‘land-banking’’, for example, in which plots of land are deliberatelynot released by developers in order to raise values, is not discussed oracknowledged.2 Criticism is, instead, made of the planning system andthe inefficiencies of local planning authorities with ‘‘unsustainability’’elided with state efforts to artificially interfere with market processes.3

In this sense, the SCBF represents a clear example of Hutton’scriticism of New Labour’s Panglossian view that ‘‘only the state doesnot keep its promises; the private sector always does and it is morallybetter for individuals to act for themselves than collectively’’(2002b:296). It reflects neoliberal conceptions of SD that assumethat the market knows best and that sustainable urban and regionaldevelopment will take place if market principles are embedded indevelopment agendas. Given that private sector practices are notconstrued as a ‘‘problem’’, then regulatory or financially punitivesolutions, such as taxes on specific types of development, are notconsidered as necessary.

In governance terms, the establishment of two Urban DevelopmentCorporations (UDCs), one covering the London stretch of theThames Gateway, the other covering the area around Thurrock,east of London, to deliver the SCBF, in many ways institutionalisesthe role of private sector actors in the new development frameworks.As in the 1980s, the UDCs are justified by their ability to enable ‘‘siteassembly and the remediation of brownfield land’’ (ODPM 2003a:47)



and these will be spearheaded by ‘‘bodies with a clear remit and thenecessary powers to drive forward development … to secure compre-hensive regeneration’’ (50). The rationale for establishing UDCs isthat these areas have ‘‘a wide range of complex land-use and assemblyproblems, which currently constrain housing and economic growth’’(ODPM 2003c:2). In echoes of earlier UDC initiatives the proposalshighlight the ways in which areas of the Thames Gateway have ‘‘thepotential to become an important centre for international tradeand enterprise—building upon its rich maritime heritage, maximisingthe value of the river and empowering its diverse communities toprovide an exciting, vibrant and sustainable place to live, work andvisit’’ (7).

The UDCs will be given the normal planning powers and respon-sibilities under The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980,with the local authorities maintaining responsibility for minorplanning decisions to ensure that the UDC does not become over-burdened with planning functions.4 They will be time limited to 7years, with a major performance review after 5 years, and in Thurrocktheir boundaries have been drawn to co-incide with those of the localauthority (Thurrock Borough Council) so that ‘‘the UDC will operate,as far as possible, in co-operation with the Borough’’ (ODPM2003a:5). The selection of the Executive Board will be ‘‘in the bestspirit of partnership’’ with no one interest having ‘‘a majority of seatson the Board’’ (11). Similar structures are being put together for themore complex administrative area of the inner London ThamesGateway (ODPM 2003b).

The establishment of UDCs betrays a lack of originality, ratherthan a step change, in development thinking. The role and impactsof UDCs in Britain’s cities during the 1980s and 1990s were highlycontroversial. The government’s own evaluations criticised UDCs fortheir inability and/or unwillingness to encourage development thatbenefited local people and communities—one of the principals of SD(see Imrie and Thomas 1999). UDCs are underpinned by the logic ofmarket-driven development and the belief that markets can and willdeliver to meet social ends. They embody many of the characteristicsof ‘‘rolled-out’’ neoliberalism. They are unelected, yet possess strongplanning powers. They represent market freedoms at the same timeas they wield relatively large amounts of state power and resources.They institutionalise private sector involvement in decision-makingprocesses without taking into account the limited capacities or the(il)legitimacy of private sector actors to play such a role and theirtime-limited and target-driven frameworks may force them topromote development projects whether they are ‘‘sustainable’’ ornot. They will almost certainly promote a shallow green development

336 Antipode


agenda in which economic growth will be the central objective ofpolicy.

And yet, to characterise the government’s proposals in the ThamesGateway as a manifestation of rolled-out neoliberalism would bepremature and partial. The SCBF agenda is underpinned by a ration-ality of massive, direct, and wide-ranging state intervention in thespatial economy, not all of which is aimed at supporting propertycompanies to take advantage of local development opportunities. Thepursuit of economic growth per se, as the SD discourse demonstrates,does not make an agenda ‘‘neoliberal’’ or necessarily undermine thecapacities and well-being of local communities; indeed a diverse,healthy, and accessible employment base is often critical to meetingtheir needs. The problems faced by communities in and around theThames Gateway relate to broader concerns with issues of socialreproduction, such as the quality of local public services, the lack ofaccessible housing and employment, and demographic change. Insome ways the SCBF proposals seek to address these to try to ensurethat a broader range of communities and individuals benefit fromdevelopment.

Moreover, at the same time as the government has sought toenhance business representation, its response has also been shapedby existing socio-political relations in the Thames Gateway andattempts to satisfy a diverse range of competing and autonomousdemands on its capacities. The recent history of the London Dock-lands Development Corporation and its widely acknowledged failureto tackle the problems faced by deprived local communities has actedas a focus for local political activism5. This explains why the SCBFframework is insistent that the new UDCs will ‘‘operate with the fullinvolvement of local actors and partners’’ (ODPM 2003a:48). Theywill act as ‘‘benign UDCs’’, drawing on the successes of UDCs of thepast, in terms of land assembly and property-led regeneration, whilstensuring community involvement and a less economically focused setof agendas. The government is adamant that the new UDCs will,therefore, unlock ‘‘the potential for growth and regeneration … andwould have the effect of improving the quality of life for those in thearea now, and in the future, with particular benefits for those cur-rently living in areas of high deprivation’’.

Local authorities in the Thames Gateway have, in fact, been callingfor enhanced investment in the area and for the establishment ofUDCs. Through a partnership organisation, named Thames GatewayLondon Partnership (TGLP), local authorities have been pressurisingthe government to concentrate development efforts in the ThamesGateway area (TGLP 2003a, 2003b). Some of the pressure for devel-opment has, therefore, been coming from the bottom up rather thanthe top down. In addition, the Thames Gateway is located within



Greater London and responsibility for its development also falls, inlarge part, to the machinery of London government—the electedMayor, the Great London Assembly, and the London DevelopmentAgency (LDA). The UDC is being implemented in this existinginstitutional landscape and its additional role is not as clear cut aswith earlier UDCs. The LDA, in particular, is empowered to carry outsimilar functions to the UDC, but brings with it a set of differentmechanisms of accountability and local responsiveness.

Under concerted pressure from the LDA and the London Mayor,the proposals for the London UDC have run into problems. After adelay of six months they were finally published in October 2003 andwere significantly scaled down to cover a much smaller area thanoriginally planned (see ODPM 2003c). Instead of focusing on elevendevelopment areas, the UDC will now be restricted to six. Far fromproviding a mechanism for private sector empowerment, the board ofthe new UDC will be drawn from a variety of interests, with signifi-cant representation from local authorities and the local community,so that overall one group will not dominate. In addition, the govern-ment’s intention of appointing a Chair from the property industry hasnot been met as the private sector has so far shunned the UDC as anineffective and weak institution. The TGLP and other local publicsector bodies, ironically, continue to lobby for a stronger UDC on thegrounds that it may help them to achieve their broader socio-eco-nomic development objectives. In particular, their focus has been onthe need to expand the local housing base and to tackle the complexlocal problems of fragmented land ownership and governance respon-sibilities.

Whilst the rhetoric of government has focused on the inadequaciesof the planning system and public sector bodies, its actions andproposals thus far do not advocate a dismantling of the planningsystem. Local authorities and local communities will continue to actas local gatekeepers of the planning process. Challenging brownfieldtargets for new development have been imposed and the requirementthat local community and voluntary projects are directly supported asspin-offs of development projects (through Section 106 agreements)do not constitute a blind, ideological shift towards aggressive neo-liberalism. In many ways the SCBF proposal recognises that marketshave failed to meet broader needs and that state agencies do have acritical role in ensuring that development takes place, which is moreequitable and more economically and socially sustainable. Thebelated recognition in the SCBF proposals that the problems facingplanners and communities are complex and inter-connected is some-thing that geographers and planners have been advocating for anumber of years. The outcomes of the policy-making process are,therefore, relatively complex and whilst they do embody, both

338 Antipode


implicitly and explicitly, elements of rolled-out neoliberal principles,they are also constituted through a range of competing demands,some specific, some more generic, that push development agendasin alternative directions more akin to broader discourses of SD.Similar processes have been evident in the SCBF characterisation ofsustainable communities and it is to these that the paper now turns.

Creating Sustainable Communities: New Subjectivities andSustainable CitizenshipOne of the key elements of the regulationist characterisation ofneoliberalism is that it uses the notion of ‘‘community’’ to re-drawsubjectivities and to create new entrepreneurial, active modes ofcitizenship. Citizenship becomes linked to the ability to reduce‘‘dependency’’ on the state and to create new modes of self-help. Inmany ways the SCBF’s explicit and implicit characterisations of com-munity do promote such rationalities. In terms that echo Thatcheriteconceptions of citizenship, the SCBF document openly declares that‘‘owning a home gives people a bigger stake in their community, aswell as promoting self-reliance’’ (ODPM 2003a:37). Community ischaracterised as a mechanism of self-reliance, with a reduced rolefor the (welfare) state to manage the risks of everyday life. Involve-ment in circuits of consumption creates new forms of subjectivity, withindividuals becoming direct stakeholders in the fortunes of housingmarkets. In so doing, they become, it is argued, new types of citizenwho can break free from a dependent or reliant relationship with thestate. Conversely, those without access to housing are seen to have lessof a stake in their areas and become, by default, less responsiblecitizens, unable to fulfil the Blairite vision of a society of self-governing,self-regulating and responsible individuals in sustainable local commu-nities.

In these terms, a sustainable citizen is one who actively contributesto the (economic) well-being of a community. Passive, dependentcitizens at the same time undermine community sustainability. It isassumed that by conforming to market principles such agents arefulfilling their social responsibilities and that it is incumbent onpolicymakers, planning agencies and local communities to find waysof maximising choice. The terminology of sustainability is used tocover an extension of existing Blairite agendas into new areas ofpolicy. Consequently, the SCBF programme has not promoted con-ceptions of universal entitlement and rights. Instead, it has reiteratedone of the key principles of neoliberal governance that assistanceshould be given to those who have demonstrated a capacity to beresponsible whilst marginalizing the needs of those who have failedto take responsibility for themselves. It is this shift in the rights,



responsibilities and treatment of citizens in the SCBF proposals thatreflects New Labour’s modernisation agendas for the welfare state.

In addition, the SCBF can be criticised for its promotion of com-munity ‘‘norms’’. The presence of middle-class households is seen asthe key to area regeneration and community salvation, as placeswithout such households are characterised, through the SCBF docu-ment, as ill-balanced and failing. Exclusive gated communities orprivileged neighbourhoods are not criticised for their failure to attractlower-income populations but are portrayed as the justifiable exerciseof market power and choices on the part of the affluent. SC agendasin some ways, therefore, justify and promote forms of gentrification asa vehicle for transforming the fortunes of people and places throughthe re-invigoration of local property and land markets (see Lees2003).

For New Labour, community ‘‘sustainability’’ has only become a‘‘problem’’ now that economic and social pressures are beginning toimpact upon the economic competitiveness of the South East regionand the quality of life of middle-income groups. The SCBF’s focus onso-called ‘‘key’’ or ‘‘essential’’ middle-income workers who are nolonger able to purchase their own homes and enjoy market freedomsis a case in point. The SC document states that ‘‘in parts of thecountry there is a shortage of housing. Homes are unaffordable forpeople on moderate incomes, including many of the key workers onwhom our public services depend’’ (ODPM 2003a:6). The SC planclaims that up to 10,000 key workers will, therefore, be helped intohome ownership between 2001 and 2004, with expenditure of over £1billion (35). And yet, lower-income groups have long suffered fromsuch trends but this was not (and is still not) considered to be asignificant ‘‘problem’’ requiring sustained government investment inhousing or regeneration projects. The housing needs of low-incomeworkers are not viewed as a break on economic development, indeed,much of the urban renaissance literature and the government’sbroader economic development agendas are premised upon theexploitation of those sectors of the labour market that are requiredto service the new economy (see Amin, Massey and Thrift 2000).Thus a specific set of problems brought to a head by uneven spatialdevelopment are to be tackled by a particular manifestation of rolled-out neoliberal development agendas.

And yet, there are conflicting messages in the SCBF’s definitions ofSCs. On the one hand, community is conceptualised as a source ofdynamic change, with planning policy becoming a process of giving‘‘choice to customers’’ so that cities become ‘‘places where peoplewant to live and will continue to want to live’’ (ODPM 2003a:5).The emphasis of such agendas is to try to make cities attractive tothose with enhanced market power, rather than seeking to restrict

340 Antipode


choice through stronger regulatory, legal and policy measures such aschanges to the taxation system. On the other hand, the proposals givecommunity ontological status as a source of ‘‘fixity’’ in an increasinglyunstable and changing social and economic environment. Creatingplace-based communities that ‘‘will stand the test of time and [beplaces] in which people want to live’’ becomes the means and theends of policy—community as both subject and object of action(Prescott 2003:3). The creation of lasting, rather than temporary,communities becomes a key element in ‘‘creating communities thatcan stand on their own feet and adapt to the changing demands ofmodern life’’ (ODPM 2003a:5). Meeting the needs of social reproductionis given a new priority in development agendas.

Whilst the concern with activating communities can be charac-terised as a part of broader rolled-out neoliberal re-regulation ofsubjectivities, the recognition that decision-making processes needto be broken open and made more directly accountable to localcommunities is also inherent in the proposals. Notions of community‘‘stewardship’’, although ill-defined, do provide a recognition thatagendas need to be shaped from the bottom up as well as the topdown. Community subjectivities are not simply being reworkedaround competitiveness agendas, but are being re-shaped through aseries of institutional mechanisms that will have an impact on thedelivery and outcomes of the SCBF. Thus, at the same time as neworganisations, such as UDCs, are being established in the ThamesGateway, a whole range of parallel initiatives, such as CommunityStrategies, Local Strategic Partnerships, and the New Deal for Com-munities Programmes, have been launched in and through whichcommunity representation (albeit with limitations) is being chan-nelled and mobilised. Providing new platforms for community actiondoes not necessarily result in a shift towards new neoliberal subjectiv-ities. Instead, it may work in a variety of ways by, for example,instigating new, alternative development discourses and practices.As Gough (2002) argues, activating individuals does not constitute aone-way process of socialisation from one mode of regulation toanother but, instead, provides new opportunities to reshape andmould emerging agendas. Indeed, early evidence suggests that newforms of community activism are emerging in the Thames Gateway inthe wake of the development proposals (The Guardian 2004).

The SCBF also provides a policy framework in and through whichgovernments are able to directly tackle existing inequalities betweencommunities. Whilst its conceptions of SCs contain contradictoryrationalities, there is, at least, a clear recognition that links can bemade between the needs of communities and the broader re-capita-lisation of derelict and contaminated brownfield sites. One of theenduring problems faced by Britain’s cities has been the flight of



affluent populations to areas beyond urban boundaries. The SCBFrepresents one of the first government initiatives to recognise theenvironmental and socio-economic costs of urban–rural spatial divi-sions and makes explicit links between planning, economic develop-ment, community change, and environmental sustainability. Whilst itembodies notions of citizenship that establish new boundariesbetween different types of citizen, it also seeks to tackle some of thedemand-side pressures faced by communities which have found theircapacities of social reproduction eroded by economic change andfailing welfare support systems.

ConclusionsThe Labour government’s proposals for the Thames Gateway repre-sent one of the most ambitious spatial development programmes ofits kind in Western Europe. The recognition that there are structuralimbalances within the UK economy is to be strongly welcomed as forthe first time in two decades a UK government has accepted thatunchecked spatial imbalances not only impact on economic competi-tiveness but also have significant implications for people and places.Under the banner of SD, massive injections of public money are to bemade in house construction and infrastructure provision. There is alsoa new focus on development agendas concentrating on the reclama-tion of brownfield sites and the formation of SCs. Undoubtedly, theSCBF agenda represents a ‘‘light green’’ manifestation of SD. Eco-nomic growth is characterised as the means and ends of policy. It doesnot reject the principle that development is sui generis environmen-tally unsustainable and socially divisive. Instead it embraces the pro-spect of enhanced, locally managed growth, the benefits of which canbe devolved to a range of SCs.

This paper has assessed the ways in which significant developmentprojects, such as this, can be characterised and understood in relationto broader shifts in state regulation and development discourses andpractices. It has examined the extent to which it constitutes a form ofactually existing development practice and what this has meant on theground. It has argued that, in many ways, the principles of a rolled-out neoliberalism are inherent in the SCBF—from the focus on thedevelopment of the South East of England as a core global region, tothe drive to establish and mobilise active, independent communitysubjectivities. Moreover, the government’s deployment of the term‘‘sustainability’’ has been interrogated and it too has been used todenote a variety of meanings, many of which differ from the principlesthat underpin broader sustainability discourses. In practical terms thegovernment’s reluctance to place strong regulatory measurers onprivate sector developers and its over-reliance upon spatial planning

342 Antipode


as a blunt instrument of policy control will, in all likelihood, limit theSCBF’s impact over the medium to long term.

However, the paper has also shown that a number of rationalitiesare evident and that actually existing development programmes con-tain within them a variety of competing and conflicting agendas. Atthe same time as the SCBF is concerned with promoting market-driven solutions to planning problems, it also establishes broad-ranging agendas which focus on the demands made by a variety ofsocial groups. Its emphasis on ensuring the (albeit inequitable) provi-sion of the means of social reproduction are as strong as its emphasison meeting the supply side requirements of potential investors. Inaddition, ‘‘embedding’’ policy proposals in specific places providesopportunities for a range of existing actors, from community groupsto local authorities, to influence the implementation and evolution ofactually existing policy agendas.

The implications of this are two-fold. First, the paper raises anumber of questions over the theoretical characterisations of devel-opment that currently exist in critical geography. Is what is emergingin major development projects like the Thames Gateway a form ofrolled-out neoliberalism, a new manifestation of SD practices or ahybrid of the two? As Jessop (2002:113) notes, ideal types ‘‘are con-structs formed by the one-sided accentuation of empirically-observablefeatures of social reality to produce logically coherent and objectivelyfeasible configurations of social relations’’. In this sense the form of‘‘empirically observable’’ features highlights a hybridity of develop-ment discourses, to the extent that characterising changes to theregulation and governance of Western societies as constitutingrolled-out neoliberalism is highly questionable. This is not to saythat such approaches do not provide useful heuristic vehicles forinterrogating empirical study. But it highlights the dangers of adopt-ing top-down discourses and ideologies to explain diverse develop-ment practices. The SCBF document is not simply a neoliberalagenda that has been played out in a particular way. It is constitutedfrom a number of rationalities, some of which can be defined asneoliberal, some of which are drawn from other intellectual, political,and ethical traditions. If what is actually occurring is at odds with whatregulationists assert should be taking place (ie the transition from onemode to regulation to another), then is it not time to revisit theore-tical constructs? For example, the parallel discourse of SD is given farless emphasis in regulationist accounts than is warranted. It is tempt-ing to dismiss SD as conforming to wider ‘‘neoliberal’’ logics, giventhat the latter is presented as the new reality of meta-governance.Yet, as this paper has shown at a variety of levels, the picture is morecomplex and development agendas need to be embedded in broaderprocesses of socialisation and the meeting of autonomous and



contrasting political demands (see While, Jonas and Gibbs 2004). Theimplementation of any progressive or alternative agenda needs to begrounded in and though detailed critical empirical research that teasesout the rationalities and philosophies of state practices and theirimpacts on a variety of social groups.

Secondly, an approach that emphasises the hybridities that char-acterise actually existing policies provides the discursive and intellec-tual space to develop alternative and broader ranging conceptions ofdevelopment processes and practices. There are a variety of elementsof SD discourses that are shaping the form and character of policyprogrammes such as SCBF, and these could be expanded. An alter-native agenda might call, for example, for a reduced emphasis onregional economic competitiveness and more focus on developing theindigenous capacities of businesses and communities in areas such asThames Gateway. It may promote the establishment of strong regio-nal policy frameworks that encourage more equitable and socially,environmentally, and economically sustainable development in bothdonor and recipient regions (see Amin et al 2003). In addition, theestablishment of new regulatory frameworks could provide significantstate regulation and direction to the development process. Forinstance, a time limit could be placed on planning proposals to pre-vent the damaging practice of land-banking or regulatory controlscould be imposed on greenfield site development to prevent andencourage new development in urban areas.

A new vision for urban development that does not simply privilegeany development on the grounds that it is ‘‘brownfield’’ (the sociallydivisive property-led regeneration programmes of the 1980s, forexample, were almost always ‘‘brownfield’’ developments) and amore pluralist conception of the notion of a sustainable communityin which the rights to both the benefits of economic development andaccess to forms of collective consumption are enshrined in develop-ment agendas, would also lead to more rounded and successful devel-opment projects. In some ways the SCBF represents the beginning ofa shift towards such approaches. It is, perhaps, its failure to redefinesustainable citizenship in broader, less choice-focused terms and thelack of intellectual and policy connection between the South Eastregion and other regions in the UK and beyond that represent itsbiggest failings. It is for critical academic work to assess the capacitiesand possibilities of future directions in such ‘‘sustainable’’ regionalplanning frameworks.

AcknowledgmentsThe research for this paper was funded by the Engineering andPhysical Sciences Research Council through the Sustainable UrbanBrownfields: Integrated Management (SUBR:IM) research consortium

344 Antipode


of which the author is a member. The author would like to thankNoel Castree and three referees for their insightful and constructivecomments on the paper. In addition, thanks are extended to thefollowing, all of whom actively and constructively engaged with earlierversions of the paper: Sophie Bowlby, Philip Carey, Tim Dixon,Stephen Henderson, Rob Imrie, Andy Jonas, Jim Meadowcroft,and Jude Shephard. Responsibility for the final product is, ofcourse, the author’s alone and does not represent the collectiveview of the SUBR:IM consortium.

Endnotes1 Keith Hill is currently a Minister responsible for planning and housing policy at theOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister.2 As Hutton (2002a) notes, it is estimated that over 85,000 plots of land remain unusedin England as developers deliberately create blockages in urban land markets togenerate additional profits from rising values. According to the Royal Institute ofChartered Surveyors, the low level of housing supply currently being experienced inBritain is a consequence of house builders ‘‘controlling supply and releasing newhomes at the level that suits them best in line with obligations to shareholders’’(quoted in Planning Online 2003). In addition, the RICS’ figures show that in Londonalone, from 1997 to 2003, the permissions granted by planners for developmentincreased from 17,000 to 30,000, yet new start developments over the same periodonly increased from 6000 to 6500 (Planning Online 2003).3 Moreover, these ‘‘pressures’’ on housing and land supply are then used to underpinpolitical campaigns which call for the relaxation of planning controls on profitablegreenfield sites that developers would prefer to develop. This practice is particularlycommon in the United States where it has had a major impact on urban landscapesand environments in places such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas where socially divisiveand environmentally damaging urban development has taken place for decades (seeDavis 2003).4 Section 136 of the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Act sets out thepowers of UDCs: ‘‘to secure the regeneration of its area by bringing land and buildingsinto effective use, encouraging the development of existing and new industry andcommerce, creating an attractive environment and ensuring that housing and socialfacilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area’’.5 The London Docklands Development Corporation was in existence from 1981 to2000. It was responsible for the massive-scale property-led regeneration of the Dock-lands area. It was amongst the most explicit UDC proponents of property drivenregeneration during the 1980s and its programmes were renowned for their failure totackle the needs of local communities, indeed its programmes undermined many ofthem (see Brownill 1999).

ReferencesAmin A, Massey D and Thrift N (2000) Cities for the Many not for the Few: Bristol: The

Policy PressAmin A, Massey D and Thrift N (2003) Decentring the Nation: A Radical Approach to

Regional Inequality. London: CatalystBrenner N and Theodore N (2002) Preface: From the ‘‘new localism’’ to the spaces of

neoliberalism. In N Brenner and N Theodore (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: UrbanRestructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp 2–32). Oxford: Blackwell



Brownhill S (1999) Turning the East End into the West End: The lessons and legaciesof the London Doculands Corporation. In R Imrie and H Thomas (eds)British Urban Policy, an Evaluation of Urban Development Corporations (pp43–63). London: Sage

Chatterton P (2002) ‘‘Be realistic: Demand the impossible’’. Moving towards ‘‘strong’’sustainable development in an old industrial region? Regional Studies 36: 552–562

Davis M (1998) Ecology of Fear—Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. London:Picador

De Roo G and Miller D (2000) Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development—

A Critical Assessment of Policies and Plans from an International Perspective. Lon-don: Ashgate

Gibbs D (2002) Local Economic Development and the Environment. London: RoutledgeGough J (2002) Neoliberalism and socialisation in the contemporary city: Opposites,

complements and instabilities. In N Brenner and N Theodore (eds) Spaces ofNeoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp 58–79). Oxford: Blackwell

Haughton G (1997) Developing sustainable urban development models. Cities 14:189–195

Hill K (2003) Planning must deliver the homes needed in our communities, says Hill.ODPM Press Release, 2003/0137. London: ODPM

Holmes S (1993) The Anatomy of Antiliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress

Hutton W (2002a) The World We’re In. London: Vintage PressHutton W (2002b) Cities shouldn’t loosen their Green Belts. The Observer, 12 MayImrie R and Thomas H (1999) British Urban Policy and the Urban Development

Corporations. London: SageJessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism and urban governance: A state-theoretic

perspective. In N Brenner and N Theodore (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism:

Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp 105–125). Oxford:Blackwell

Lees L (2003) Visions of the urban renaissance: The Urban Task Force report and theUrban White paper. In R Imrie and M Raco (eds) Urban Renaissance? New

Labour, Community and Urban Policy (pp 61–82). Bristol: Policy PressMassey D (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity PressMcChesney D (1999) Introduction. In N Chomsky Profit over People: Neoliberalism

and Global Order (pp 3–10). London: Seven Stories PressMcRobie G (1990) Small is Possible. London: Abacus PressMeadowcroft J (1999) Planning for sustainable development: What can be learnt

from the critics. In M Kenny and J Meadowcroft (eds) Planning Sustainability(pp 12–38). London: Routledge

Neumayer E (1999) Weak Versus Strong Sustainability—Exploring the Limits of TwoOpposing Paradigms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Nussbaum M (2000) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University PressOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003a) Sustainable Communities:

Building for the Future. London: HMSOODPM (2003b) Creating Sustainable Communities: Thames Gateway and Growth

Areas—Progress Report. London: HMSOODPM (2003c) An Urban Development Corporation for Thurrock—Consultation Paper.

London: HMSOO’Riordan T (1992) The environment. In P Cloke (ed) Policy and Change in Thatcher’s

Britain (pp 297–324). Oxford: Pergamon PressPearce D, Markandya A and Barbier E (1991) Blueprint for a Green Economy.

London: Earthscan

346 Antipode


Pech J and Theodore N Temped out? Industry rhetoric, labor regulation and eco-nomic restructuring in the temporary staffing business. Economic and IndustrialDemocracy 23:143–175

Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neo-liberalising space. In N Brenner and N Theodore(eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western

Europe (pp 33–57). Oxford: BlackwellPlanning Online (2003) Surveyors clear system of stifling home supply, 15 August.

http://www.planning.haynet.com/news_story.cfm?ID=1331 Last accessed 15 August 2003Prescott J (2003) Introduction. In Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future

(p 3). London: HMSORaco M (2003) New Labour, community and the future of Britain’s urban renaissance.

In R Imrie and M Raco (eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community andUrban Policy (pp 235–250). Bristol: Policy Press

Rose N (2000) Community, citizenship and the Third Way. American BehavioralScientist 43:1395–1411

Schuhmacher E (1973) Small is Beautiful—A Study of Economics as if People Mattered.London: Blond and Briggs

Thames Gateway London Partnership (2003a) Thames Gateway Building for theFuture—a Briefing on the Sustainable Communities Plan. London: Thames GatewayLondon Partnership

Thames Gateway London Partnership (2003b) Written Submission to the Draft London

Plan—Overall Sub-Regional Strategy Issues. London: Thames Gateway LondonPartnership

The Guardian (2004) Londoners demand share of Olympic gold, 31 January, p 10While A, Jonas A and Gibbs D (2004) Unblocking the city? Growth pressures,

collective provision and the search for new spaces of governance in GreaterCambridge, England. Environment and Planning A 36:279–304

Whitehead M (2003) (Re)analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation andthe regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies40:1183–1206

Willers W (1994) Sustainable development: A new world deception. ConservationBiology 8:1146–1148

World Bank (1989) Urban Policy and Economic Development. New York: World BankWorld Commission for Environment and Development (1988) Sustainable Development—

Building for the Future. Oxford: Oxford University PressWorld Conservation Union (1991) Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable

Living. Geneva: Gland [published by the International Union for the Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources/United Environmental Program/World WildlifeFund]



Sustainable Development, Rolled-out Neoliberalism and ......tion of critical academic work on the...

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Development, Rolled-out Neoliberalism and ......tion of critical academic work on the...