The basis for the emphasis on community involvement must be that of effectiveness rather than sentimentality.

At present local community interests are represented though Local Strategic Partnerships which draw together local public, voluntary and business sectors and take decisions about priorities and funding for neighbourhood renewal (such as the use of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund). However, there are differences in the effectiveness of such groups nationally and in the balance of power held by the different representatives.

Programmes such as New Deal for Communities go one stage further in terms of local ownership. By insisting on high representation of community members on the board of an NDC it is felt that local problems will be identified by the community and, consequently that the most appropriate solutions will be developed.

The radical solution to community empowerment is that of Neighbourhood Management. This was developed perhaps as a result of appreciating that communities could mobilise around issues of concern and the success of community participation in other countries (such as Brazil), where more tangible power was devolved to the local level (in the form of budgets). Initially NM was intended to involve residents in the design and delivery of services locally by establishing neighbourhood forums encouraging active involvement in community issues and attempting to increase capacity and ‘social capital’.

‘Neighbourhood managers can help focus services on residents priorities and customer needs by making service level agreements; running local services, managing a devolved budget; and/or putting pressure on higher tiers of Government’. (SEU, 2001 p51)

Areas that have implemented Neighbourhood Management are frequently cited as success stories by government departments. Balsall Heath in Birmingham, with its established programme of Neighbourhood Wardens, the conversion of buildings to community use and environmental improvements as well as education and employment projects is hailed as a success story. Yet the Balsall Heath Forum, which coordinates the work, has highlighted some of the remaining issues such the need to enable Neighbourhood managers to directly allocate increasing proportions of mainstream local authority budgets to spend on key services such as health and education. This is one stage further than LSP input into decision taking. By handing local communities the power to directly buy appropriate services it is hoped that many of the ‘social capital’ as well as service efficiency issues will be addressed. This is not without risks; as with NDCs corruption may be a problem, and there is the accusation that buying in private services may denude the mainstream service provision – privatisation through the back door. However, The Balsall Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan (2001-2004) argues that ‘This is not privatisation but mutual self-help’ and that such ‘participative democracy’ is a complement to representative democracy locally.