Brexit and the North East discussion event

Posted on 25 July, 2018 by Jenny

In our latest Institute for Social Renewal blog we look back at our recent discussion event focused upon the implications of the European referendum.

The impact of leaving the European Union (EU) and the North East region was a focus of discussion on 3^rd July 2018 that attracted a large audience of members of the public, business leaders and academics as well as Political Reporter Fergus Hewison and subsequent BBC Newcastle radio coverage (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p069r1rq). We heard from an expert panel of speakers that included Professor David Bailey from Aston University who is a columnist, media commentator and influential business expert on economic restructuring and industrial policy, perhaps best known for his knowledge of UK and West Midlands car manufacturing; Professor Danny MacKinnon, Professor of Regional Development and Governance and Acting Director of the Centre for Urban Regional and Development Studies, Newcastle University, an economic and political geographer, with expertise in economic and regional development; Dr Cathrine Degnen, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology, Newcastle University, and successful Economic and Social Research Council award winner on Identity, Belonging and the role of the Media in Brexit Britain and James Ramsbotham, Chief Executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce, that represents 3,000 businesses in the region.

Panel members; Danny Mackinnon, David Bailey, Cathrine Degnen, James Ramsbotham, Mark Shucksmith

Nissan is the region’s largest private sector employer and Professor Bailey talked about the implications of Brexit on the car industry which will depend on a number of issues including what the final trading arrangements will be between the UK and the remaining EU countries and the economic policies of the UK post-Brexit. Regardless of the terms of the exit deal, most economists consider that leaving the EU will have a detrimental impact on the UK’s economy but the risk to the economy is greater the more we deviate from current EU arrangements as the EU is the UK’s major trading partner.
The UK auto-sector is successful and has the highest productivity in Europe, it has attracted £8bn of investment over the last 3-4 years and the broader industry employs over 800,000 people, some of whom are highly skilled workers from the EU. Over half (57%) of our auto-exports are to the EU and the success of the auto-sector is linked with being a member of the Single Market and the recent falls in exchange rate depreciation. Risks to the car industry post-Brexit include slower economic growth and hence lower car sales, investment delays and export delays. Although the lower exchange rate may help exports, there is the potential that the imported components for car manufacture are higher, risking the profitability of the UK plants and the current uncertainty of the Brexit deal may mean that auto-makers place work with non-UK plants.

Professor Danny MacKinnon outlined that the terms of the Brexit deal negotiations are heavily shaped by Westminster and there is a sense that Brexit is reigniting fundamental questions relating to England’s governance. There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and some conflicting analyses and predictions about what this will mean for the economy and the regions. Older industrial areas tended to vote strongly for leave and regional inequalities are likely to increase as a result of Brexit where there is the risk of increased marginalisation in the North East and Midlands post-industrial areas. Additionally, the government’s proposal to remove direct payments to farmers also has potentially wide ranging implications beyond Brexit as 70% of farms will be loss-making without this subsidy and the proposed Industrial Strategy represents a science-led and sectoral approach rather than being place-based.
The Brexit vote has been linked with the rise in populism and economic nationalism internationally and the current Brexit negotiations reflect Westminster’s voice rather than those from the regions and their localities, although there is lobbying from the regions.

Dr Cathrine Degnen described the background to her forthcoming Economic and Social Research Council funded research, ‘Identity, Belonging and the role of the Media’ in Brexit Britain. Media depictions of the leave and remain voters are deeply polarised based, amongst other things, on region, age, education and income. Much of the research about ‘Brexit Britain’ is based on large surveys and aggregated data. Survey data is useful but her forthcoming research will enable a deeper understanding to be gained as it will provide an opportunity to explore the complex national, regional and local histories and explore peoples’ views and feelings about the vote. The role of the media and how everyday use of the media frames people’s identity formation and questions of immigration, national and European belonging will be explored.
Her research will be spread across six sites nationally (Newcastle and Sunderland, Exeter and Devon, and Leicester and Boston, Lincolnshire) and will involve 12 months of community-based ethnographic fieldwork involving participant observation and interviews with people of different ages, from different social classes, ethnicities and with a range of migration and citizenships. How participants’ attitudes are shared and reproduced (or not) within families, across generations, amongst friendship networks and neighbours will be explored.

James Ramsbotham, Chief Executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce represents the views of their 3,000 members’ businesses in the region that includes small and medium enterprises up to multinationals. Surveys of their members has enabled the Chamber of Commerce to fully engage with business leaders’ views, the majority of whom are in favour of remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. Smaller businesses are less likely to be in favour of this because they tend to have local / UK customers and supply chains than larger businesses so any effects of customs and border controls are considered not to directly impact on them, but any downturn in the economy due to Brexit will affect their businesses too as local people will have less money to spend on goods and services.

Brexit has potentially huge implications for businesses nationally and in the region and there is and a lack of guidance and a feeling of unpreparedness from the UK government, especially in the event of leaving the EU without a deal. As a region, we export a much greater percentage of our products to Europe than elsewhere in the UK and we are heavily reliant on the export market. Leaving the EU without a deal will mean an increase in customs staff will be needed, and no recruitment or training of UK customs appears to be underway. To support local businesses to prepare for Brexit, the North East Chamber of Commerce has produced a guide ‘Business Brexit Checklist’ (https://www.neechamber.co.uk/updates/knowledge/blog/business-brexit-checklist-cross-border-trade ) to help local businesses through the transition period.

Following the presentations, there was the opportunity to ask the expert panel questions and a rich and lively discussion followed. Key questions from the discussion are included in the Brexit and the North East Report.

Brexit Looms: what about rural policy?

Posted on 9 May, 2017 by Fiona

Sally Shortall and Mark Shucksmith

Brexit will have significant effects on rural areas of the UK – the loss of EU funds will not only require new thinking in relation to agricultural and environmental policy but also for broader rural businesses, communities and services. What national policies for each of the devolved territories should replace these after Brexit? Could this offer an opportunity to introduce better rural policies, suited to 21^st Century rural potentials and challenges?

Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy recently launched its report ‘After Brexit: 10 key questions for rural policy’ in Westminster on April 27^th, 2017. CRE’s research addresses many aspects of rural economies and societies; food, farming, housing, poverty, gender, employment, the environment, rural community development, rural businesses and services. Our staff seek to inform policy and practice relating to all aspects of rural life. So far, public debate about Brexit has tended to focus primarily on issues relating to agriculture and the environment, however, neglecting these other elements of rural economies and societies.

Rural policies in England have been ripe for reform for many years. Brexit could offer an unforeseen opportunity to rethink policy approaches. The Common Agricultural Policy will no longer apply, the Single Farm Payment and rural development funding such as LEADER will be swept away. Much is yet uncertain. Questions must be posed about what should replace the CAP. But these questions should extend beyond agriculture to consider how the needs of rural communities should be supported in order to give them the best chance of thriving and playing their full part in the future of the UK. Here are some examples of the key questions we raise in our paper:

How can we draw on our experience of European programmes and the successes of the Local Enterprise Partnerships and Rural Growth Networks, and on the valuable evidence we already have (including evaluations of Defra’s Rural Development Programme for England) to inform immediate actions in the wake of Brexit?
Is it more beneficial to embed rural policymaking across all government departments or are rural interests met more effectively when a single department is tasked with leading on this?
Does Brexit offer an opportunity to be more experimental in supporting different, more wide-ranging partnerships that could drive rural development?
What part could neighbourhood plans play in identifying potential sites for affordable housing and should landowners be incentivised to release land for this purpose?

At the event, an invited panel of people made short presentations, followed by a lively and informative debate with an extremely knowledgeable audience. The CRE’s Fran Rowe presented some aspects of our paper, emphasising the potential of the rural economy. Richard Quallington offered insights from ACRE’s perspective, focusing in particular on rural housing and the contribution of voluntary and community organisations. He proposed five priorities for post-Brexit rural policy: reinstatement of a rural housing target; recognition of a rural premium; investment in connectivity; support for rural businesses; and investment in VCSEs. Martin Worner spoke from his experience as a successful rural entrepreneur, highlighting issues of people, premises and training. John Varley also discussed business and give some examples from his work with Clinton Devon Estates of successful strategies for the rural economy to thrive. Tamara Hooper offered a RICS perspective on what should be priorities for negotiations around the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The ensuing discussion was lively, well-informed and good humoured. People wondered about the governance of rural policy going forward at both national and local levels, and how these might be integrated vertically and horizontally. Who should be in charge of rural policy? Questions were asked too about what would replace LEADER and what should it look like. The argument was cogently made that some of the earlier LEADER programmes that focused on capacity building were very creative and in many countries helped all rural communities to take advantage of economic and social opportunities. Without this focus on capacity building, we run the risk of increasing inequalities between and within rural communities. Questions were also asked about the trade aspects of Brexit and, in the event of ‘no deal’ with the EU what would be the effects of tariffs not only on farms but on rural businesses in general?

The future is uncertain. Newcastle University and the Centre for Rural Economy take seriously our responsibility to inform public debate. We work closely with stakeholder groups, policy makers, and business, to provide independent analysis and always try to ensure that our research is accessible to those who need it. In this era of fake news and post truths, it is particularly important to remember our public responsibility as academics. We hope that with our short report and this event in Westminster we have helped to start an informed public debate about post-Brexit rural policy which others will now continue. As John Varley said, Brexit could be a disaster or an opportunity for rural areas: we must do our best to ensure it is an opportunity for rural economies and societies to thrive in these turbulent times.

CRE’s report referred to above can be downloaded here: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/centreforruraleconomy/files/CRE_10_Key_Questions_final.pdf

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Chair of Rural Economy

Mark Shucksmith is the Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal and a Centre for Rural Economy Associate

Rethinking a National Curriculum and finding space for the local

Quote

Posted on 20 September, 2016 by Fiona

On 14 July 2016, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced her new Cabinet, following a significant reshuffle and re-structure of Government. In this context, researchers from all over Newcastle University express their thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for the Government in the Ideas for May’s Ministers blog series, considering how individuals, communities and societies can thrive in times of rapid, transformational change. Professor David Leat is Professor of Curriculum Innovation in Newcastle University, and he directs his Idea to Justine Greening.

From: Professor David Leat, Newcastle School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences
To: Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Education

One of the principles of a nation having a National Curriculum is that pupils can move from school to school with some continuity in their education. There is the added attraction to policy makers that they have more control over schools. However, the social and economic turmoil of the last ten years has moved the political goalposts as both radical right and left wing movements have proved attractive to many who feel that they have been left behind as social inequality grows. Political elites are rethinking and renegotiating the relationship between the nation and its component parts – regions, cities and communities. In England, we need our government to give the message to schools and teachers that they should be using ‘the local’ as one of the building blocks of the curriculum to put meaning back into learning.

Successive governments, however, have learned that exerting control by detailed specification of curriculum content has a considerable downside. They are open to attack from many quarters about too much content or the wrong content. As a result, they have shifted from ‘input regulation’ or the specification of content as a means of control, to ‘output regulation’ or the setting of exam targets as a means of control. The targets-related data has had the added incentive of helping to marketise education as it provides a means of comparing schools and ‘driving up standards’. However, there are signs of considerable collateral damage from this policy fix:

Teachers teach to the test and can lose sight of any wider purpose to education – a message which pupils internalise as education becomes a steeplechase of exam hurdles. This is a dangerous context for adolescent mental health and learning to learn.
Teachers are de-professionalised as their role is restricted to delivering content. Teachers who do not develop their own curriculum do NOT develop ownership of the curriculum. It is hardly surprising that so many teachers are leaving the profession. The National Union of Teachers data shows that 50,000 teachers (11% of the workforce) left the profession in 2015.
Young people are poorly prepared for further and higher education and indeed for the labour market as demonstrated by the Independent Advisory Group report (Anderson, 2014) commissioned by Pearsons Publishing
It tends to make schools look towards the DfE and Ofsted for all their cues and not to their locality and its resources. It is astonishing just how many organisations, businesses and individuals want to help shape the lives of young people and society in the most positive ways – but few get the chance.
As a consequence engagement is a serious issue. Across the developed world, there is strong evidence that pupils begin to lose interest in school work from the middle of primary school, even for many who are successful in the exam system (see for example Berliner, 2011). One of the reasons is that the curriculum lacks meaning for them, and they find precious few connections to their lives, despite the best efforts of dedicated teachers.

There are some real advantages in having a locality and community dimension to the curriculum, especially if there is a strong focus, through demanding projects, of going places, meeting people and making and doing things.

Horizons are broadened as pupils encounter people who have interesting jobs (not just professional jobs) and life histories – providing both role models and powerful raw material for developing their own identities. Pupils can take real pride and find meaning in the things that they make and do, both for and with the community. It should also be remembered that digital technology is changing the learning landscape as it provides the power to access, analyse and present information and understanding to a wide range of audiences through a variety of media. A local dimension to the curriculum can provide an element of service learning in which young people are given responsibility and make a contribution. Some of these principles are elucidated in the work of Mimi Ito and colleagues (see http://clrn.dmlhub.net/).

Gemma Parker, a Newcastle University doctoral student, has found that many more recently qualified teachers have no conception of curriculum, equating it to schemes of work or a yearly plan, usually ‘given’ to them to teach. Generally, they do not see themselves as having a role in curriculum development, which undermines their professional standing.

In the last 30 years the voices of government, of ministers, of the DfE and of Ofsted have become the dominant ones for teachers, and their vocabulary around ‘standards’ and ‘targets’ is repeated and relayed by senior leaders in school – ultimately this cramps thinking about what curriculum is possible in school. We need government to use different words, in order to give permission to teachers to take up the opportunities for demanding curriculum projects in their communities, localities and through digital technology. Teachers need to hear that voice.

We need good professional training and support so that there is rigour and challenge in community generated curriculums. In particular, many teachers will need to learn about the process of curriculum development, how best to work with community partners, how to find the balance between guiding work and allowing pupils to take greater responsibility for the pace and direction of their work, how to harness digital technology to its fullest and how to map projects back to important subject questions, methods, concepts and principles.

All across the world there are serious questions being asked about exam driven education. In response, there are also numerous organisations promoting and developing enquiry and project based learning and competence-based approaches. These include the International Baccalaureate (IB), Expeditionary Schools, Connected Learning, Self Organised Learning Environments (SOLEs), the Partnership for C21st Skills and Opening Minds. England could position itself as a world leader in educational practice if it embraced the principle of schools developing much of their curriculum through the medium of high quality locally generated and resourced projects.

References

Anderson, R. (2014) Careers 2020: Making Education Work, London: Pearson.

Berliner, D. (2011) Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows, Cambridge Journal of Education, 41:3, 287-302.

To engage in the conversation, tweet @Social_Renewal #IdeasforMaysMinisters

Reducing inequality…in national wealth

Posted on 24 July, 2015 by Jenny

The next in the blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, is from Dr Andrew Walton, Lecturer in Political Philosophy in School of Geography, Politics and Sociology.

In the current proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 10 states the aim to ‘reduce inequality within and among countries’. For many (good) reasons, much articulation of this goal has focused on its first component – reducing inequality between co-citizens within countries. But it is important also to consider what should be the appropriate target for the second component. What should be our aim and measure in reducing inequality amongst countries? My suggestion is to lessen the gap in per capita national wealth – the value of each country’s financial and physical assets.

Measures of (in)equality

The basic idea of measuring (in)equality involves comparing the circumstances of certain actors. Thus, any conceptualisation of equality must specify an answer to two questions:

Which actor should be compared?
What aspect(s) of their circumstances should be compared?

There are different ways to conceptualise and measure (in)equality historically [1]:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	Countries	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen (country ÷ population)	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
Income	Persons or households	Disposable income / expenditure
Wealth	Persons or households	Assets, including financial holdings and physical goods, such as real estate

Perhaps obviously, these models ask us to think about (in)equality in rather different ways. For example, on current figures using GDP suggests that China is better-off than Switzerland, whereas GDP/capita suggests the opposite [2]. Similarly, both GDP and GDP/capita suggest that Brazil is a relatively well-off country, but measuring income and wealth highlight that it is home to individuals who are worse-off than almost the entire populations of similarly well-off countries [3].

What these differences highlight is that asking which model we should use to measure (in)equality pushes us to explore deeper philosophical questions about our underlying reasons for being concerned with (in)equality, and to find a measure that is tailored to these concerns. My suggestion here is that some of our underlying concerns point in the direction of exploring how countries compare in per capita wealth [4].

Why compare countries and why compare them per capita?

For many people it will seem obvious that there is something important about whether their country is well-off. It is sometimes thought important for ensuring that their country is respected by others and very commonly because it has a significant impact on whether its citizens have comfortable lives.

Some argue that comparing national circumstances is a mistake. They suggest that, ultimately, it is only the welfare of people that matters and, as noted above, cross-country comparisons can hide that some individuals within countries are badly-off. Advocates of this view might argue that Goal 10 should be collapsed into one goal: measuring (in)equality amongst individuals worldwide.

We should reject the conclusions of this argument. Because the SDGs also consider (in)equality within countries and have other goals targeting aspects of individual welfare, they will not overlook the worry mentioned above. Meanwhile, because one thing that benefits people’s welfare is to participate in the collective decisions and development of their nation, even this individual-centred view can acknowledge the importance of a world involving country groupings and, thus, the additional relevance of cross-country comparisons.

However, we should accept the point that countries are, in essence, valuable only insofar as they benefit their populations and our comparisons between them should reflect this concern. It is for this reason that our cross-country comparison should focus on a per capita measure, which looks at how some aspect of a country’s circumstance relates to its people.

Why compare wealth?

Some possible ways we could make per capita inter-country comparisons would be the following:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Final value of goods & services produced within nation’s borders
Wealth/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Assets, including currency, stock, bond holdings and physical goods, such as land, natural resources, and rights to global commons
Capabilities	‘Average’ citizen	Human development indicators, such as life expectancy, education, income

A reasonable case could be made that reducing inequality between countries in any of these respects would be a worthwhile target. Nevertheless, I proposed at the beginning of this post that the goal should be to focus on wealth/capita. Two related points support this view.

First, neither GDP/capita nor capabilities takes full account of the aspects of a country’s circumstance that affects the welfare of its population. To take two clear examples, currency reserves and natural resources, which are considered in wealth/capita, but not these other measures, both allow a country to provide its population with economic security and future consumption [5].

Second, many of the assets that countries hold are a matter of luck. For example, no country did anything to entitle it to the oil or gold that lies within its borders and, indeed, much of their economic wealth arises from the fortunes of the market.

In cases where there is a good that many actors desire and which no actor is entitled automatically to own, it seems sensible to distribute that good equally. If Isaac and I are sat beneath a tree feeling hungry when an apple falls on his head, it seems reasonable for us to share it. Similarly, insofar as it is valuable for countries to hold financial and physical assets and their current holdings have arisen from good fortune, there is a reason to aim for equalising their shares.

Moving towards international equality

A more fully fledged case for measuring inter-country (in)equality in terms of per capita national wealth is that achieving parity in this regard can, under certain conditions, represent a truly idealistic aim. There is a moral argument that a distribution of assets is fair if it mirrors what each relevant actor would have bought with equal purchasing power in the context of all goods being priced at a market-clearing equilibrium [6]. Such a distribution, in the international context, would entail equality in per capita national wealth and it is fair because it reflects the equality of all parties in their access to these goods and allows them to shape their holdings according to what they believe is worth having.

Realising this aim is perhaps a more long-term project than for the framework of the SDGs. Nevertheless, it helps show the value of building our understanding of (in)equality in national wealth and beginning to reduce it, whilst casting light on some important steps for moving towards this goal:

Pursue (the second component of) Goal 10 by:

Establishing a national wealth index and collect data on countries’ standings.
Setting a target of reducing inequality in per capita holdings.

Connect these targets and their longer-term aim to:

Adding impetus to Goal 16.7 of ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making, in order for countries’ choices about asset holdings to reflect the collective interests of their people.
Helping articulate Goals 17.10-17.12 on shaping international trade towards an equal and equilibrated market.

Dr Andrew Walton is lecturer in political philosophy at Newcastle University. His main research interests are in global justice, liberal-egalitarian and socialist thought and questions of justice in public policy.

[1] The essential ideas used to construct this table are taken from Milanovic, B., Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)

[2] These figures can be found via UN, ‘National Accounts Main Aggregates Database’, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[3] See, for example, Credit Suisse, ‘Global Wealth Report 2014’, available at https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[4] This suggestion is elaborated in more detail in Walton, A., ‘On the Currency of International Equality’, forthcoming.

[5] It is worth noting that Capabilities also seems to point towards important aspects of human welfare. However, many other SDGs will pursue these kinds of concerns anyway, leaving space for the second part of Goal 10 to speak to the concerns I mention here.

[6] This view is most commonly associated with Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Posted on 13 July, 2015 by Fiona

A north east listening project

On the radio and online we are witnessing renewed concern to record local memories of cherished landscapes before they are lost forever. Examples of how this can be done include the BBC Listening Project and the National Trust Sounds of our Shores – a crowd-funded sound-map of people’s favourite seaside sounds. These examples build on classic Mass Observation recordings of everyday life (1937-1970) – notably Pub Conversations.

Inspired by this approach, Dr Helen Jarvis and postgraduate student Tessa Holland (both from the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology) are collecting impressions of the once-thriving salmon fishing industry in Berwick upon Tweed; both to stimulate public debate on this disappearing livelihood, and to record the wealth of local knowledge involved.

The project involves a series of ‘pop-up’ citizen-led story-telling events that coincide with the town celebrating 900 years of history, with collaboration from fishing communities and local history experts representing Our Families (a Berwick Record Office, Heritage Lottery funded project for Berwick 900). Participating in a summer of fishing-related feasts and festivals, including the crowning of the Salmon Queen, offers the ideal opportunity to raise awareness of the issues at stake.

The salmon fishing project moves to Berwick Town Hall, with a storytelling booth, from 17^th to 19^th July. After this time the exhibition will be held at the Watchtower Gallery until August 16^th.

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Written accounts of net fishing on the Tweed exist from the 1200s, but the skills and knowledge of the river date back to before records began. Net and coble fishing is a traditional way of life which made Berwick-upon-Tweed famous and the industry once provided jobs for around 800 local people. The local significance of the industry is captured in pictures and memories of customs such as ‘blessing the salmon’ at the opening of the Tweed salmon netting season, midnight on 14^th February. The vicar of Norham ended the custom in 1987 when the fishery in his parish closed.

Blessing the salmon

Blessing the salmon, 1946, by permission of Berwick Record Office.

Loss of the nets

Chronic disinvestment and loss of the nets began in the 1980s, when many of the fisheries were bought out and closed down. Indeed, this experience – of close-knit community ties and generations of fishing expertise dismantled at a stroke – resonates with text-book accounts of deindustrialisation in heavy industries such as coal and steel. In each case, powerful commercial and political interests claimed economic competitiveness and new technology as motivation for consigning ‘outmoded’ industries to the past.

Since the Tweed Act of 1857 the right to catch and sell wild Tweed salmon is only held by net fisheries; rod-caught salmon cannot be sold commercially, so without the nets, there is no legal source for the wider, non-angling public. The rights to work these dormant fisheries are now held by the Tweed Foundation. Only two net fisheries remain active today – one at Paxton, and one at Gardo (near Berwick Old Bridge). The Paxton fishery now works in partnership with the Tweed Foundation to fish only for educational and scientific purposes. This explains why, despite the undisputed potential for a premium brand of locally caught wild salmon to put Berwick on the map, none is available to buy at the fishmonger or eat in local restaurants. The irony is that Berwick is closely identified with ‘slow food’ and ‘slow living’ civic organisations that promote locally produced, sustainable food and cultural heritage.

Prospects for renewal?

Despite its decline, powerful local attachments to salmon fishing traditions continue to shape the cultural heritage and landscape of this market town. From stories recorded so far, we learn that, in the past ‘thousands of people would go to watch the netting of the salmon – all through the season’ and this made the river a site of spectacle. This hints at some of the non-economic benefits that have been undermined by loss of the nets.

It is too early to report on the impact that public dialogue might have in reviving the last remaining fishing stations – and it is beyond the current scope of the project to make policy recommendations. But it is provocative to consider novel examples of government policy for small towns, like Berwick, which need to attract and retain residents, jobs and tourist income. In France, the government subsidises cafés that provide music and entertainment, justifying this by the combined stimulus to jobs and spending in public spaces – that in turn foster a convivial public life (Banerjee 2001). Is it far-fetched in this context to regard net fishing as a form of entertainment?

Dr Helen Jarvis, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology

Ideas for an Incoming Government

Posted on 20 February, 2015 by Jenny

Newcastle University is known around the world for its vision “to be a world-class civic university”. Our guiding principle – excellence with a purpose – helps us to focus on not just what we are good at, but what we are good for. Much of the research we do has relevance for policy and practice, and so the Institute for Social Renewal tries to help bring colleagues’ findings to the attention of policy makers and the general public. For example, in 2014 we organised an event in Westminster to showcase our Queens Anniversary Award winning work on rural economies and societies.

“Meeting colleagues from across the University and hearing about their research, I’m struck by how much of what we discover has relevance for policy, and could help inform better decisions by government,” says Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE, Director of the Institute. “We are working to find new ways in which to bring these findings into discussions about future policies, underpinning their evidence base.”

With the general election approaching, there is a heightened opportunity to contribute to public debates, campaigns and policy formulation, and to engage with voters and parliamentary candidates. With this in mind, Newcastle University academics are now taking part in a series of blogs during February and March to inform election debates and the political parties’ thinking.

Examples of work that has already made a difference can be found on the Highlighted Projects section of the NISR website.

Tweet @Social_Renewal using #Ideas4anIncomingGovt to join in the conversation.

Challenging the Orthodoxy: A Year of Little Heresies

Posted on 3 December, 2014 by njs139

Here, Rob Wilson discusses an exciting series of lectures that is fast becoming established as a key platform in which to challenge conventional views of public sector management.

One of the key roles for a Civic university in a society is to stimulate, provoke and challenge. KITE’s ‘Little Heresies’ seminar series has been established by Rob Wilson, Toby Lowe, Charlotte Pell and Karen Scott for academics, practitioners and managers willing to challenge the orthodox thinking in the public sector and seek innovative, alternative ideas and practice in a stimulating and challenging context. The series is now 5 seminars old and we have sparked significant interest in the local area and beyond, with the number of attendees above 200.

Our first speaker was Dr Toby Lowe, visiting Fellow at Newcastle University Business School, with his paper ‘Is Payment By Results Doomed to Fail?’ Toby’s ground breaking work on outcome-based performance management approaches has received interest from academics and practitioners all over the world since he presented the ideas in Newcastle in 2012. Toby argued that payment by results and outcomes-based performance management models are inherently flawed and create unwelcome paradoxes. Instead of improving the lives of service users, his evidence suggests that focusing on outcomes and results distorts both the priorities and practice of organisations, leading to poorer results for those most in need.

Subsequent heresies have covered problems caused by target led policing from Simon Guilfoyle, a critical analysis of the concept of wellbeing by Karen Scott and a deconstruction of current approaches to public procurement from John Little. Our second year has already seen a seminar on Offender Health and the use of PR in Public Services. Discussions with potential speakers are ongoing and have highlighted future topic areas such as Devolution and Evidence Based Policy amongst others.

If you want to join in or if you feel you have a heresy in you, please go to www.ncl.ac.uk/kite to sign up, or follow @Kiteresearch on Twitter to receive announcements of the next seminar.

The #LittleHeresies seminars build on a highly successful UK national tour during 2012/13, in collaboration with Vanguard Consulting, called ‘Kittens are Evil’ which attracted over 500 attendees and significant social media activity. The first event was held in Newcastle and was sponsored by KITE and NET2 in 2012. This set of seminars brings the talks back to Newcastle, where it all started. Some of the case studies are being developed into academic papers and published in an edited book.

An Awfully Big Adventure – Four Visit No 10

Posted on 15 October, 2014 by Kate

Guy Garrod, Director of the Centre for Rural Economy, writes this blog following an invitation to meet with the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street on Monday 10th October. The meeting was to discuss the challenges facing rural communities. Attending were (l-r) Guy Garrod, Dr Neil Powe, Professor Mark Shucksmith and Rhona Pringle.

This blog has kindly been shared by CRE. It first appeared:
http://creblogsite.blogspot.co.uk/

A big challenge for any research centre that specialises in the applied social sciences, is to make sure that their findings reach the relevant people in the policy and practice community. Imagine my excitement when last week I received an invitation from the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit to visit No 10 to discuss the challenges facing rural communities, and what more Government could be doing to support rural areas. It seemed that our recent policy document ‘Reimagining the Rural’ has dropped onto some influential desks in Westminster.

Continue reading →

Getting Ready for the 2015 General Election

Posted on 9 September, 2014 by Kate

Save the Children has commissioned Professor James Law and Tom King, School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, to carry out analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study. The paper produced features prominently in the Read On Get On (2) report, published 8th September 2014, which suggests there are strong links between poor literacy, low pay, unemployment in the UK.

In the run up to the General Election, lobby groups press hard to have their interests represented in the party manifestoes. With the 2015 General Election looming now is the time to line up the arguments and write the documents that will inform this process.

Save the Children, together with a number of different charities, are writing a document entitled “READING FOR A FAIRER FUTURE: A national mission to ensure all children are reading well by 11 by 2025: delivering the Read On, Get On campaign”. This draws together data from a variety of sources to make the case that parties need to be focusing on the attainment (and specifically oral language and literacy) of very young children in the early years if they are to get a grip on key policy issues flagged up by the UK’s performance in the PISA and other international league tables. Continue reading →

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Category Archives: Uncategorized