! !

! ! 1 -46

NTU Social Work Review

No.23, June. 2011, pp.1-46

NSC 95-2412-H-260-004

2010 3 5

E-mail: yshwang@ncnu.edu.tw
2010 3 20 2011 2 18

(1)
(2)(3)
(4)(5)
(6)(7)
(1)(2)
(3)
(4)(5)

1970
1980 New Right
Osborne Gaebler1992
New Public Management

1990
The Third Way

Fordist

Miller & Ahmad, 1997: 275

1998 New Deal for Communities, NDC

Ku2004

2000
2002
2008
2005

2008

1997

Tony Blair social exclusion

SEU, 2001

Local or Community governance

1990

1990

state-centred

society-centred

government
Max Weber

Weber, 2007: 264

1970

steering
rowing

Salamon2002: 8
1

third-party government

Pierre & Peters, 2000:

65-68

Weberian
Stoker2004: 24

vs.

Salamon2002: 9

Etzioni, 2001: 2
Denhardt Denhardt2000: 554-558
New public services, NPS

serving

good
governance

cross-cutting

Thompson,

Frances, Levacic, & Mitchell, 1991

Newman2001: 33-37

1.

2.

10

Newman2001

Kooiman1993: 251

11

self-organisation
Kooiman, 1993: 251
Evers
Laville2004: 12

Kooiman, 1993: 79

Etzioni, 2001: 5

governance
without government

12

Bruijn &
Heuvelhof, 1997: 121-132

13

1960

1960
1980-1990
1990

1997

1998
39

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM], 2003

14

NDC

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR], 2000

10-20
NDC 4000

70%
ODPM, 2003
NDC
NDC

NDC ODPM, 2003

NDC 39 NDC
1998 17 1999 22 NDC

39

15

NDC
ODPM, 2003NDC

ODPM, 2003

partnership boards

NDC

NDC

ODPM, 2003
NDC

NDC

NDC
what works?

16

ODPM, 2003
NDC
3,500-6,000
ODPM, 2003
NDC
Neighbourhood Renewal Unit[NRU], 2004

ownership

NDC Neighbourhood
Renewal Unit, NRU
Neighbourhood Renewal Teams, NRT

Local Strategic Partnership, LSPNeighbourhood management, NM 1

NRU 2001 Department for Communities
and Local Government, DCLG
NRU

NRU NRT
86

17

1!
Social Exclusion Unit (2001: 57)

18

LSP LSP

LSP
SEU,
2001 NDC NDC Partnership
Board NDC

Department for Communities and Local Government[DCLG], 2010c: 26

1999-2000 2007-08 39 6,900

place-related
people-related

NM National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal

NM

NDC NDC

NDC

19

1998
200220042006 2008 MORIMarket & Opinion Research International 2002
baseline
2005 Neighbourhood Renewal Unit[NRU], 2005
2010 NDC Department for Communities and
Local Government[DCLG], 2010a
Department
for Communities and Local Government 2010
2002-2008 DCLG, 2010a
39 NDC 36
32
27 26
NDC

NDC 24
NDC 18 13
NDC 10
34 NDC

20

21
NDC value for money
shadow pricing methods NDC

NDC

NDC

NCD
39
NDC

NDC post NDC world

NDC

DCLG

Department for Communities and Local Government[DCLG], 2010b

NDC
NDC

21

Beatty, Foden, Lawless & Wilson, 2010: 240

NDC

NDC
NDC NDC

Beatty et al., 2010: 241

NDC partnership
working

Dargan, 2009: 315

Beatty et al., 2010: 241

NDC
NDC
central-local
interface1.
institutional innovation

22

2. policy discourse
NDC

3. rationale for ABIsNDC

4. priortisation of delivery

5. role of agencies

Beatty et al., 2010: 242-45

NDC

DCLG, 2010c: 7

Lawless, Foden, Wilson & Beatty, 2010: 271-272

NDC
NDC

NDC

Beatty et al., 2010: 241; Wallace, 2007: 1

23

NDC

DCLG, 2010a
Wallace2007 NDC

NDC
place-based issues
people-related issues

NDC
DCLG, 2010b

Beatty
et al., 2010: 247 NDC
NDC

1958

24

1990

1990

2007

1990

1990

1972

2007

25

19952004
1970 1980

1990
2002

evidence-based

2002

26

community-based services

1980

1990

1990
1990
1996
921

1990

27

1990

Taylor, Barr, & West, 2000

2004

28

1990

2008

29

Asset-based community development model, ABCD model

Green & Haines, 2008

ABCD

30

1990
1990

31

Taylor et al.2000

32

NDC

NDC

33

Beatty et al., 2010: 240

34

1990

NRUNRTLSP NM

Pierre & Peters, 2000; Tenbensel, 2005

Etzioni, 2003

NDC

35

2004; 2009

36

37

NDC NDC
NDC

38

Lawless et al., 2010: 272

place-based issuespeople-related
issuesDCLG, 2010c: 9

39

Beatty et al., 2010: 245

governance by the community

governing without government

DCLG, 2010b; Beatty et al.,

2010: 247

40

2002
19: 30-38
2004
107: 78-87
2009
2007
1995
288: 1-12
2007

2002
Beatty, C., Foden, M., Lawless, P., & Wilson, I. (2010). Area-based regeneration
partnerships and the role of central government: The New Deal for Communities programme in England. Policy & Politics, 38(2), 235-251.
Bruijn, J. A., & Heuvelhof, E. F. (1997). Instruments for network management. In W.
J. M. Kickert, E. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks:
Strategies for the public sector (pp. 119-136). London, England: Sage.
Dargan, L. (2009). Participation and local urban regeneration: The case of the New
Deal for Communities (NDC) in the UK. Regional Study, 43(2), 305-317.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2010a). The New Deal
for Communities experience: A final assessment. London, England: Department
for Communities and Local Government.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2010b). The New Deal
for Communities: Reflecting on the first 10 years. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from
http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/communities/1500216.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2010c). The New Deal
for Communities programme: Achieving neighbourhood focus for regeneration. In
The New Deal for Communities national evaluation: Final report (Vol.1). London,

41

England: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than
steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). (2000). New Deal
for Communities: Developing delivery plans. London, England: Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Etzioni, A. (2001). Next: The road to the good society. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Etzioni, A. (2003). Communitarianism. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world (Vol. 1, pp.
224-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Evers, A., & Laville, J. (2004). Defining the third sector in Europe. In A. Evers, & J.
Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 11-42). Cheltenham, England: Edward
Elgar.
Green, G. P., & Haines, A. L. (2008). Asset building & community development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and
diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance: New government-society
interactions (pp. 33-48). London, England: Sage.
Ku, Y. W. (2004). Is there a way out? Global competition and social reform in Taiwan.
Social Policy and Society, 3(3), 311-320.
Lawless, P., Foden, M., Wilson, I., & Beatty, C. (2010). Understanding area-based
regeneration: The New Deal for communities programme in England. Urban
Studies, 47(2), 257-275.
Miller, C., & Ahmad, Y. (1997). Community development at the crossroads: A way
forward. Policy and Politics, 25(3), 269-284.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernsing governance: New labour, policy and society. London,
England: Sage.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU). (2004).
New Deal for Communities. London, England: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU). (2005).
The New Deal for Communities 2001-2005: An interim evaluation (Research

42

Report 17). London, England: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). (2003). New Deal for Communities
(Factsheet 9). London, England: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial
spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and state. London, England:
Macmillan.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An
introduction. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the
new governance (pp. 1-47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal:
National strategy action plan. London, England: Social Exclusion Unit.
Stoker, G. (2004). Transforming local governance: From Thatchersim to New Labour.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, M., Barr, A., & West, A. (2000). Signposts to community development. London,
England: Community Development Foundation.
Tenbensel, T. (2005). Multiple models of governance. Public Management Review,
7(2), 267-288.
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., & Mitchell, J. (1991). Market, hierarchies and
networks: The coordination of social life. London, England: Sage.
Wallace, A. (2007). We have had nothing for so long that we dont know what to ask
for: New Deal for Communities and regeneration of socially excluded terrain.
Social Policy and Society, 6(1), 1-12.
Weber, M. (2007). Bureaucracy. In C. Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J. Moody, S. Pfaff & I. Virk
(Eds.), Classical sociological theory (pp. 264-274). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

43

Implications and Lessons

of the New Deal for Communities
in England for Taiwans Community
Work Perspective of Community
Governance
Yuan-Shie Hwang , Su-Jen Liu**, Wen-Kao Hsiao***

Abstract
In England, when the New Labour came into the power in 1997, communities
and neighbourhoods were full of problems of unemployment, education failure
and crime. To cope with these problems, the Labour Government proposed the
new community programme, New Deal for Communities (NDC). The NDC intended
to solve the difficulties faced the deprived areas and to alleviate the phenomenon of
social exclusion. For the past decade, the reports of the NDC evaluation have been
published in succession. This paper aims to discover the contents, strategies and
operational model of the NDC from the perspective of community governance.

Professor, Department of Social Policy & Social Work, National Chi Nan University,
Taiwan.
**
Ph.D. candidate, Department of Social Policy & Social Work, National Chi Nan University,
Taiwan.
***
Assistant Professor, Department of Senior Citizen Service Management, Chaoyang
University of Technology, Taiwan.

44

After analyzing the contents and reflecting the experiences of community work
in Taiwan, this paper concluded some implications and lessons of the NDC experiences for future Taiwans community work. The implications include: (1) Rethinking
the community definition and range; (2) Readjusting the governments role and
function; (3) Elaborating the role of citizen of community residents; (4) Protecting
equal opportunity for deprived communities; (5) Promoting the evidence-based community projects (6) Constructing an integrated mechanism for policy implementation;
and (7) Reviewing the performance of community development and community
building. The lessons include: (1) Poor management for partnership cannot achieve
better community development; (2) Community development work is unsuitable to
overly rely on significant individual; (3) Community problems cannot be solved
entirely only by intervention through community level; (4) Community conflict
which is hard to solve will be harmful to community development; and (5) Stable
and long-term financial expenditure is not guaranteed to sustainable community
development.

Keywords: The New Deal for Communities, community governance, community

development, community building

45

46