“The Manchester miracle”: how did a city in decline become the poster child for urban regeneration?

The Piccadilly area of central Manchester in 1887. Image: Hulton Archive/Getty.

In an April 2015, a poll commissioned by the Manchester Evening News found that 72 per cent of respondents were in favour of Manchester seceding from the United Kingdom.

Like the post-Brexit petition for London independence, perhaps the poll shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But it does illustrate the independent Mancunian spirit – a spirit that’s also seen its civic leaders reshaping the city’s political institutions and economic strategies since its post-industrial nadir in the 1980s.

Today, Greater Manchester is moving towards electing its first metro mayor next year. Could it really go beyond that – to independence?

Post-industrial decline

Manchester was the first of western Europe’s industrial boomtowns – but the city underwent a catastrophic process of deindustrialisation following the Second World War. Between 1971 and 1981, Manchester lost almost 50,000 full-time jobs and 17.5 per cent of its population.

Whole areas were described as “emptied”, characterised by social exclusion, crime and deteriorating living conditions: landscapes soundtracked by Joy Division. The world’s first industrial city seemed to be in terminal decline by the 1980s. A huge economic disparity subsequently opened up between London and declining industrial cities like Manchester. Per capita GDP in London remains double that of northern English regions.

Manchester's cotton mills in 1936. Image: Hulton Archive/Getty.

This uneven development was driven by the forces of globalisation, and facilitated by the British state (a fact which helps to explain Manchester’s recent strive for greater autonomy). The disparity between the London and the north opened up dramatically from the late-1970s, when governments ceased trying to spread economic growth more widely among cities.

The most significant policy decision was the so-called “Big Bang” of 1986: the deregulation of London’s financial markets, enabling its emergence as the world’s preeminent financial centre. The proximity of the thriving financial centre to Britain’s existing political centre has encouraged successive governments – whether Conservative or Labour – to further enhance the capital’s dominance.


Manchester’s economic miracle

Manchester’s city leaders have since employed new economic strategies to re-define its role and improve its position in the global market. The turnaround witnessed in recent years has been so successful that it’s sometimes termed the “Manchester miracle”.

To prosper in the competitive global economy, cities need to harness their “monopolies of place” – those distinctive qualities granted by location and local assets that cannot be easily imitated elsewhere.

Improving regional and international connectivity via transport infrastructure upgrades is one economic strategy being employed to exploit Manchester’s position within the northern English conurbation, and at the tip of the European “blue banana”. Specific changes include the Northern Hub, a project to improve the rail connections between Manchester and other cities in the north, and the development of its airport’s international flight connections.

The recent announcement of direct flights from Manchester to Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping, underlines the importance of this strategy; it also highlights the increased Chinese investment flowing into Manchester, including £800m invested in the airport expansion, as well as other funding for wider urban regeneration.

Another set of assets contributing to Manchester’s growth are its universities, which draw highly-skilled future employees from across the globe to the city, and produce innovative research which has major economic benefits when commercialised. A 2003 report from Manchester council termed the city’s universities its “knowledge factories”. The term makes clear that they aren’t merely sites for scholarly learning, but play a role in economic growth.

A new form of city government

Precipitated by both the neglect of the London-centric national governments, and by the failure of the socialist city administrations to deal with the economic problems faced by Manchester in the post-war period, the city government changed course in the 1980s.

The Labour council had previously been driven by a redistributive and welfarist agenda, prioritising the protection of jobs in the declining industrial sector – policies in marked contrast to the aggressive privatisation and de-industrialisation pursued by the national Conservative governments of the time.

Manchester’s council dramatically changed direction in 1987, moving towards a governance form labeled “urban entrepreneurialism” by the radical geographer David Harvey: governing in alliance with businesses rather than relying on a centralised bureaucracy, and focusing on increasing the city’s competitiveness within the global market, for example through place marketing strategies. Others have instead labeled it realism: a new approach that acknowledges the failure of past redistributive methods to halt urban decline and social injustice.

In recent years, the Manchester city region has increasingly exercised power independently of the nation state. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), formed in 2011, brought the city-region’s 10 local authorities together into one body. From next year, the GMCA will be led by a directly elected mayor (most likely, Labour big beast Andy Burnham) with control over the policy areas of employment, housing, transport and economic development. The executive board exercising these powers will be assisted by a business leadership council comprising both public and private sector actors.

Another example is the council’s use of the transnational Eurocities network, bypassing the passivity of the nation state to seek international expertise in place-marketing tactics and acquisition of EU funding.

Manchester today. Image: Getty.

The state continues to be influential – not least because it facilitates the increasingly independent exercise of power by Manchester’s city institutions, as shown by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne’s pursuit of the “Northern Powerhouse” agenda.

The state also retains influence over Manchester through its membership of the EU – which, as the examples of the Eurocities network and EU funding suggest, has been a significant asset for the city. The implementation of Brexit could have a profound impact on Manchester’s economic strategy, and yet it is a nationally determined policy: both in terms of the referendum’s electorate, and in terms of who leads the Article 50 negotiations with other member states.

A “post-political” city?

The idea of a “Manchester Miracle” is tempered by the evidence of negative effects on social outcomes and democratic decision-making processes in Manchester.

Academic critics of the entrepreneurial and relatively independent city government and its new approach have pointed to the dangers of its “post-political” nature for two main reasons. The new streamlined, business-friendly institutional forms have been accused of, firstly, eroding democratic principles, and secondly, subordinating social justice to the pursuit of economic growth.

There has been a relatively lukewarm response from local activists to the imminent governance changes so far – yet the new political structures could in fact give greater opportunity for citizens to directly engage with local policy through more powerful, locally accountable representatives.

Like Sadiq Khan’s London, we could be witnessing the metamorphosis of the city of Manchester into a major political space – whether or not it gians its independence.

Fred Paxton is studying for a Masters degree in urban studies at the University of Copenhagen. He tweets as @fredpaxton.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Are Britain’s political parties finally taking housing seriously?

Some houses. Image: Getty.

For more than 20 years we have been researching and writing about the downgrading of public housing in the UK. Thankfully, the tide finally appears to be turning.

Government failure can be seen most clearly in the form of homelessness, but the problems are bigger – high prices, high rents, housing insecurity and its high toll on mental health, overcrowding, beds in sheds and so on. For decades, financial support for public housing has been cut. Politicians have referred to estates of public housing as “sink” areas, marring the reputations of places and people.

While homelessness and rising prices and rents fill conversations about the housing problems of today, government action has focused on helping existing and new home owners. In the meantime, private landlords reap profits from an insecure, frequently poor quality and high cost sector.

But finally, several British political parties – Labour, the Green Party and Liberal Democrats – are offering evidence-based and convincing analyses of the problem and pledging to improve non-market housing provision.

It is perhaps not surprising that recent decades have generated this new position on how to fix the broken housing system, where the state – local and central – takes a more active role. It is increasingly clear that the market, often lauded as the most efficient way of providing and allocating housing, is actually a key driver of the failure to provide decent homes for many hundreds of thousands of households.

New homes

So what are the parties offering at this stage? The Conservatives focus on overseeing the construction of a million homes in the next five years. Social housing, it seems, will continue to be neglected under a Tory government.

Labour, meanwhile, have pledged to build 100,000 council homes a year by 2024 for those most in need. It also wants to fund a further 50,000 homes a year to be built by Housing Associations who also target those needing a home and will put a stop to Right to Buy: a scheme which has led to over 40 per cent of former council homes now being rented out by private landlords.

The Liberal Democrats propose 300,000 homes a year by 2024, to include 100,000 for social rent (by housing associations). The Greens match the Lib Dems while stressing the need for zero-carbon homes.

This social housing project won the Stirling Prize 2019.

The Conservatives stand out here, with their continued focus on offering public money to help aspirational owners rather than providing housing for those most in need. Their costly Help to Buy scheme, which they plan to extend, has been widely criticised for inflating prices, bolstering developer profits and doing nothing to help those in most need. The party’s election manifesto does not provide any details as to how it will increase the supply of social other than to state that “it will bring forward a social housing white paper”.

Talk of austerity, poverty and inequality may be tiring for some to keep hearing, but it is critical that we understand how bad things are for many people. Many older homeowners find it hard to understand the pressures of simply finding a place to live, let alone the ongoing challenge of funding that space, heating it or accessing it if disabled. Paying rent to help secure someone else’s retirement is particularly galling for many.


A social system

A system is needed that is designed for the needs of all people. Research shows that yes, of course a regulated market in owned housing is needed (controls are needed to ensure it is high quality and built in the right places). But this needs to exist alongside a high quality, professionally managed public housing sector capable of helping people to find decent homes. Increasingly, the shortfall in supply has enabled private landlords to offer low income households sub-standard properties.

The argument that public housing does not work is locked in a vision of large-scale estates that became increasingly unpopular as funding has been drained from them. Most analysts today envision a for-life option (the ability of tenants to stay for as long as they like so that they can feel secure) at a cost that allows other areas of life to be better enjoyed (health, education, access to work). Only home ownership and public rented housing can provide these kinds of outcomes.

Whatever our personal politics, it is vital that we understand that powerful interests circulate to promote housing as a market commodity, rather than a critical social good to be enjoyed by all. The pathway to this vision is littered with the profits to private landlords and the shattered dreams of the homeless and ill-housed.

It is precisely not in the interests of market providers to resolve the housing crisis. This may sound like heresy, but it is the evidence of many years of analysis.

Hope for the future

Looking to a future in which social housing forms a basis for social and economic investment offers genuinely thrilling prospects. There is no reason that a new council building programme cannot be enjoyed in partnership with private builders, and indeed using smaller companies, many of whom have been threatened or busted by the current crisis.

On the environmental front, social homes can be built or retrofitted to enhanced standards that are warm, safe, flood resistant and carbon neutral.

To say this will cost a lot of money is stating the obvious. But housing is a major component in the reproduction of wealth inequalities, private profiteering and carbon emissions (energy use in homes accounts for 14 per cent of the UK’s total). The fact that political attention is being focused more clearly on challenging these problems and getting traction on a home-building programme for citizens should be welcomed by all.

The housing crisis of today is an enduring problem, one that goes back more than a hundred years, when walking through the slums of the growing industrial metropolises, Friedrich Engels asked why more housing wasn’t provided when so many people were in need. The question today is, why are we still asking the same old question?

Rowland Atkinson, Chair in Inclusive Societies, University of Sheffield and Keith Jacobs, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Housing and Community Research Unit, University of Tasmania.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.