Transforming Society ~ How neoliberalism impacts at the community level

It is well established that neoliberalism, which has become the dominant economic, political and social ideology in most countries across the world, claims that free markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources. In practice, however, what neoliberal policies have done is to create a powerful hegemony that benefits nation states, corporations and influential super-rich individuals. The cornerstone to neoliberalism is that by giving even greater wealth, and therefore greater economic power, to corporations and the already well off, the less wealthy will gain through the ‘trickle-down’ effect and will, in time, become better off. There is no evidence that this has happened since neoliberalism was first launched in the 1970s. In fact, the outcome has been greater inequality in urban and rural communities.

Recent research, including our book Neoliberalism and Urban Regeneration: London’s Communities Finding a Voice and Fighting Back, highlights the impact of these policies on local communities. Redevelopment or regeneration purports to offer urban revitalisation, local economic growth and opportunities in all its various manifestations. Instead, it has the opposite effect, producing negative consequences for existing working-class communities and local businesses.

Although our study focused primarily on a community in Deptford in south-east London, similar patterns are evident across all of London’s 32 boroughs, the City of London and other cities around the UK and globally.

The consequences can be grouped into several recurring themes:

 Grossly inadequate community engagement and participation

1. Developers’ ‘top-down’ control offers limited or virtually non-existent engagement or consultation with existing communities during all the planning stages, including at the final decision-making meeting. In addition, developers collude with planning officers and local politicians.
2. The failure to adequately address communities’ specific needs and requirements, or to reflect the community’s demographic traditions and cultural values, results in resistance, for example, through community campaigns and objections, and feelings of resentment or of being ‘put upon’.
3. Any form of community co-design and/or co-production – such as communities’ own alternative plans or vision – is virtually non-existent.

 Profit not community need 

1. The demolition of council housing estates and familiar streets of terraced houses to make way for expensive high-rise flats further exacerbates the issue of working-class displacement and ignores local housing affordability and need.

2. Developers’ quest for profit generates expensively priced local new builds for incomers, along with increased property values – particularly in the privately rented sector – and new expensive shops, all potentially pricing out existing residents and established local businesses already struggling with the cost of living.

3. The introduction of new businesses and facilities aimed at the lifestyles of incoming residents are often chosen to the detriment and exclusion of longstanding local amenities, traditional family businesses and local residents’ needs.

Cultural and historical loss

1. The retreat from public view and access to and/or demolition of historic buildings and cultural landmarks impacts the unique identity and character of a community – for example corner pubs, small family-owned shops and buildings of commercial and industrial heritage.

2. The influx of new businesses and residents brings in a new social class with different cultural norms and practices, potentially eroding or marginalising existing traditions and ways of life within the community.

3. Gated or difficult-to-access new or existing green and open spaces and other newly created amenities become barriers for existing residents and their children. 

4. The disruption to and loss of long-existing community hubs such as small ‘greasy spoon’ cafés, social clubs and networks, erases a community’s unique cultural and historical character, such as those alongside the River Thames in London.

Creating and reinforcing social class differentials

1. Segregated neighbourhoods appear within communities, creating feelings of ‘them’ and ‘us’, and widening socioeconomic disparities.
2. Existing community social and health inequalities and residents’ needs are not addressed.
3. New or improved community amenities and infrastructure are primarily intended to be enjoyed by higher-income residents, while existing residents’ experience is limited and their living conditions are in no way improved.
4. Existing inequalities are deepened, along with a feeling of marginalisation among long-term residents who have established community histories over generations.
5. There is a significant impact on existing residents’ mental and physical health and wellbeing, for example, on those who are displaced, lose their homes and children’s schools, social clubs and networks. They also experience heightened stress and anxiety from what they see as negative changes within their communities.

Developers of urban regeneration offer the opportunity to re-energise struggling communities, for example, promising new local economic growth on the high streets and wide-ranging employment prospects. However, without meaningful and inclusive community engagement, prioritising the expressed needs of existing residents, and implementing strategies to mitigate displacement and address potential negative impacts on social cohesion, health and the environment, such regeneration ultimately results in their rapid displacement and ‘social cleansing’. Over time, the once-flourishing traditions, culture and history of a working class community are lost.

Our book explores these dynamics in greater detail, but the central point is clear: Global capitalism in the form of neoliberalism has concentrated power and wealth in the hands of the few. Meanwhile, many of our communities suffer housing shortages, poverty and dispossession. However, campaigns across London and beyond show how communities are mobilising to resist, challenging top-down change and offering alternative visions for urban life.

Roger Green is Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Urban and Community Research at Goldsmiths, University of London and Vice-Chair of the Voice4Deptford Campaign.

Keith Popple is a researcher, author and Emeritus Professor of Social Work at London South Bank University.

Neoliberalism and Urban Regeneration by Roger Green and Keith Popple is available on Bristol University Press for £27.99 here.

Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.

Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Image credit: Chloe Christine via Unsplash