Left-behind communities need more than decentralization; they need central and local government to really care.

One of the dominant themes of recent UK election debates has been regeneration and how to tackle regional inequality. Amid Labour's plans revive economic growthThe party dropped the phrase “leveling up” and instead promised to powering britain although a Take Back Control Bill is proposed, which would seek to provide a framework for devolution across England.

Labor is also proposing to introduce new local growth plans and a new community right to buy system. The idea is to enable communities to regenerate empty shops, pubs and community spaces.

The Conservative Party, for its part, said The government is sticking to Boris Johnson’s flagship programme of levelling up the playing field. It has promised to extend existing funds, add a $20m endowment fund for local improvement projects and boost initiatives such as freeports. More broadly, Rishi Sunak is proposing to extend devolution powers, ensuring that by 2030 any region or city in England will be eligible for a devolution deal.

Politicians talk about left-behind communities to refer to those who suffer economic disadvantage and lower standards of living in areas characterized by population decline and a lack of infrastructure. Research has long shown that around the world, these communities are less likely to vote either local or general electionslargely because they feel neglected by the political process.

Scholars speak of a geography of discontent and of regional bitterness describing the old industrial centres and deprived coastal areas where people, feeling abandoned, turn against the traditional parties to express their anger and dissatisfaction with contemporary politics.

---

Want to learn more about elections from the academic experts at The Conversations? Over the coming weeks, we will provide insightful analysis of campaign developments and fact-checking.

Sign up for our weekly election newsletterdelivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

---

In England, recent waves of decentralisation to local authorities combined authorities have tried to solve this problem. Since 2019, the upgrade program sought to demonstrate the government's renewed focus and commitment to areas that felt underserved.

My doctoral thesis focuses on the reasons why communities considered neglected can exclude themselves from participation in public institutions, such as education or politics. Government policies often fail to recognize what geographers and sociologists call peripherality and the way it makes people in these communities feel physically and symbolically removed from London-centric policy decisions. This extends to local democratic systems and calls into question the effectiveness of decentralization as a legitimate form of community power sharing.

Distrust of local politics

For 18 months, between May 2022 and October 2023, I ran community workshops with local residents, 15 teenagers and 25 adults, in Cumbria, in the North West of England. The county includes some of the most deprived areas in the country. The residents and I explored different strategies to boost democratic participation in their community. We then discussed these ideas with Cumberland Council.

Some residents felt that the term “left behind” was apt to describe how they felt about national policies, such as the levelling up agenda. As one put it: “We can’t compete with London.”

However, they also expressed what they felt was a certain level of dissonance, with many feeling unfairly pigeonholed by external parties who do not understand the strengths, complexities, and nuances of their communities. As another resident said: “We have not been destitute like they say in public. We were deprived of services, but not destitute. » In other words, the problem is not with people or communities, but with the lack of services offered to them.

Some residents felt that the omitted or left-out terms were more appropriate. They felt the focus should be on those who are leaving behind. One resident said she felt the local council’s attitude was: “Well, take them away, it doesn’t matter.” This can leave communities feeling like they have little power or control to make positive changes in their area.

The dominant narratives about local political leaders that I have heard reveal a symbolic distance from the local political system, similar to that often felt towards Westminster and Whitehall. Local politicians may be much closer in physical proximity. Yet the people I have spoken to feel that these leaders are not interested in the views of the communities they claim to represent. Residents feel that their politicians’ decisions are predetermined. As one person put it: “They are not very inclusive and there is no transparency. It is all secret. You will find out what happens after it has happened.”

Many people feel that local politicians act primarily in their own interests, which does not necessarily reflect the needs of the community. As a result, people feel they cannot be trusted. They promise you the world and say they will deliver, one resident said, but it never happens.

This point is important to emphasize because whatever symbolic distance communities may feel from their local democratic system translates into disengagement from local politics. People abstain from voting. They do not participate in consultation exercises. In one community I looked at, Kells and SandwithThe turnout was 29.1%, well below the regional average of 36.1%.

Research increasingly shows that existing decentralization models are no substitute for authentic, grassroots community engagement. Political theorist James Hickson writing on the need for double decentralization. The idea is to bring more people into civic life; more hyperlocal approaches, developed at the neighborhood level, might be necessary.

Policy and budgetary decisions made at the local level are more likely to benefit residents in the immediate community. Yet people in low-income communities along England's coasts, in particular, do not necessarily trust existing local democratic institutions to faithfully represent their best interests, any more than they trust central government. Decentralization alone is not the solution to helping people feel disenfranchised.