2.1.3. Evidence of institutional learning

However, looking for evidence of institutional innovation, the Glasgow experience is quite sobering: There seems very little evidence of this type of innovation being integrated into mainstream policies. Part of this could be due to it being resource intensive, requiring commitment and the right bottom up chemistry between community activists and executives. It is also seen as contentious in terms of accountability and in the current political structures could be seen to undermine the process of councillor representation. In general local authorities and national agencies are given a clear steer from the centre. The drive is to reduce the scale of delivery so there is very little enthusiasm to expand mainstream activity – even to the point of integrating successful local projects. At the same time, with regard to community associations, there are issues over participation fatigue and limited number of activists. The cyclical nature of funding and in many cases arbitrarily imposed conditions on funding lead to difficulties and may bring projects to an early end. There has also been a simplistic view on sustainability that community groups somehow can find ways to generate income and alternative sources of funding that are not viable.

For the other cases, we can see that the new rules of the game forced the actors involved to take a new look at the neighbourhood and at project implementation. Partnerships either emerged or were reinforced, especially for housing associations there is evidence of altered perceptions and an increasing sensitivity for the environment of their houses. Increased awareness is connected to the local embeddedness and mobility of an actor. If he is dependent on the neighbourhood he will be more loyal and active than if he has the possibility to exit. Learning, however, is dependent on a supporting environment, and it is within partnerships where new approaches can emerge and routines be “bended”.