3.1. Mainstreaming

"Mainstreaming" means taking innovative steps from experimental programmes and projects and generalising and rationalising them within longterm mainstream programmes.

Local Level

The comparative analysis shows that in some circumstances it may be necessary to set up a special initiative or task force of some kind to lead and co-ordinate urban regeneration efforts, while in others there is a need for more far-reaching institutional change and flexibility to deal with the multi-faceted nature of local problems. In order to secure efficient support for areas in decline, both institutional models are needed: special initiatives and more sensitive mainstream policies. So we come to two recommendations for decision-makers at a local level:

• The recognition of the “special need” of deprived neighbourhoods should be shown in the set-up of a special task-force with a direct connection to the mayor. In all examples, where the main responsibility lies with one department we see inefficiencies in the work of the responsible steering boards. A clear and visible commitment from the top is needed to overcome this. Such a task force should involve broad representation of public and private key players in its decision-making structure, have a long term perspective and a specifically allocated budget.
   
• It has to be accepted that part of an area's problems are rooted in state failure. So, mainstream policies should be made more sensitive and responsive for local needs – city-wide and not only for some areas. By changing the institutional routines city-wide, the exceptionality problem which is inherent to special initiatives – e.g. special projects for deprived areas are detached from ongoing service delivery; high attention only for a short period - would be overcome. In parallel, a – transparent - city-wide monitoring system is helpful in order to identify areas in need of special attention.

When it comes to business involvement in the regeneration process, there is little empirical evidence in the cases we have looked at at this level. However, it is evident that if the business sector is to take over a responsibility it has to be brought into the game already in the design phase rather than at a later point in the process (see also below).

National Level

All national evidence from the case-studies shows that intervention in the neighbourhoods in question is based on some sort of national incentive be it through legislation or otherwise. So the approach chosen will often be the result of a national strategy.

At national level it has to be seen as well that the promotion of special local initiatives – like Kverterloft in Denmark, SIP in Scotland or the “Socially Inclusive City” projects in Germany – are needed to foster innovation within mainstream programmes but not as a replacement for them. Mainstream solutions will not be possible until there is a recognition that some of the structural problems in regeneration areas – poverty, educational attainment, health, etc. are not going to be resolved solely by special needs intervention. Especially national legislation and funding programmes on housing still tend to have an anti-urban bias. Departmental policies – housing, employment, education - have to be made more responsive to the needs of deprived urban areas.  

European Level

A core contradiction of EU programmes supporting urban areas (in particular within ERDF), is the underlying additionality principle. The EU is supporting innovative measures in areas where it is difficult even to manage basic service delivery due to dramatic budgetary situations. It is difficult to see any possibility for local administrative learning here when the local administrations don't have the resources and management capacities needed. There are two recommendations to overcome this core problem.

• The EU could help to breakdown the unhelpful dichotomy between special, separate initiatives and ‘routine' mainstream policies by explicitly encouraging and facilitating arrangements for a knowledge transfer to local mainstream policies.
   
• The EU could widen the scope of their programmes and be more responsive to local priorities. Topics like traffic and housing should be included in the schemes.