participatory approach to what previously were isolated financial aids and policies ranging from physical renewal of houses, investments in public infrastructure (schools, parks, streets) and social infrastructure. However, some of the German federal states such as and Hamburg had already experimented with ABIs in the first half of the 1990s (Selle 1991; Alisch and Dangschat 1993; Froessler 1994) and the nationwide programme drew on the experiences of these initiatives and, in addition, to the emerging European approach of integrated urban renewal (URBAN). The aspiration of the programme was also to implement the idea of the so called state’ (Aktivierender (see Jann 2003 pp. 111-113) that was part of the Staat) ‘activating governmental agenda of the Schröder government in the early 2000s (Mayer 2013). In a sense the activating state complemented the new public management approach by bring about the modernisation of a welfare state that was deemed to be too costly and not effective enough in tackling social problems. Part of the agenda of the activating state was the use of new forms of partnership between public and private agencies and the mobilization of civic engagement and the third sector. This idea was quite influential in the design of the Social City programme that was considered to be part of the modernisation of local goverment and the welfare state. A particular feature of the programme was the support of self-organizing capacities by place-based civic groups and associations (IfS 2004 p.121). However, it was clear from the beginning that the programme was temporary in nature. This implied that after an estimated period of approximately three to four years, the programme was expected to stop and civic associations or third sector organizations should take over some of the tasks and functions of urban renewal and social development. Although successful in some cases, this goal turned
participatory approach to what previously were isolated financial aids and policies ranging from physical renewal of houses, investments in public infrastructure (schools, parks, streets) and social infrastructure. However, some of the German federal states such as and Hamburg had already experimented with ABIs in the first half of the 1990s (Selle 1991; Alisch and Dangschat 1993; Froessler 1994) and the nationwide programme drew on the experiences of these initiatives and, in addition, to the emerging European approach of integrated urban renewal (URBAN). The aspiration of the programme was also to implement the idea of the so called ‘activating state’ (Aktivierender Staat) (see Jann 2003 pp. 111-113) that was part of the governmental agenda of the Schröder government in the early 2000s (Mayer 2013). In a sense the activating state complemented the new public management approach by bring about the modernisation of a welfare state that was deemed to be too costly and not effective enough in tackling social problems. Part of the agenda of the activating state was the use of new forms of partnership between public and private agencies and the mobilization of civic engagement and the third sector. This idea was quite influential in the design of the Social City programme that was considered to be part of the modernisation of local goverment and the welfare state. A particular feature of the programme was the support of self-organizing capacities by place-based civic groups and associations (IfS 2004 p.121). However, it was clear from the beginning that the programme was temporary in nature. This implied that after an estimated period of approximately three to four years, the programme was expected to stop and civic associations or third sector organizations should take over some of the tasks and functions of urban renewal and social development. Although successful in some cases, this goal turned
Area%20based%20initiatives.docx