Richard Crisp, Tony Gore, Sarah Pearson and Peter Tyler With David Clapham, Jenny Muir and Douglas Robertson Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), Sheffield Hallam University, University of Reading, Queens University Belfast, University of Stirling and University of Cambridge.

Year of publication: 2014

This report, based on a review of existing literature and findings from a call for evidence, assessed the impact of regeneration on poverty.

Key findings were:

  • Poverty can be understood as having both a 'material' dimension (lack of income or material deprivation) and a wider 'non-material' dimension (e.g. poor health or the negative experiences of living in poor areas).
  • Regeneration has been more effective in tackling 'non-material' forms of poverty than it has been in reducing 'material' forms of poverty.
  • Place-based interventions (housing, crime and the physical environment) contribute far more to improving the non-material dimensions of poverty than people-based interventions (health, education and community participation.
  • Regeneration has created jobs but these are not always 'additional' and they are often taken up by individuals living outside target areas.
  • Area-based interventions to tackle worklessness increase the chances of individuals finding employment but they do not reduce overall levels of worklessness within deprived areas.
  • More could be done to ensure that regeneration provides jobs for those living in poverty
  • The important 'ameliorative' role that regeneration has played in improving conditions in deprived areas means place-based interventions to improve housing, the environment and community safety should remain priorities within regeneration strategies

Content type: Economy

Tags: Report

Regeneration and poverty: evidence and policy review

View external report

This will open in a new tab