The approach adopted by the Social Exclusion Unit focused on a broad definition of social exclusion as a shift away from the terms poverty and deprivation. Social exclusion is a wider concept and refers to the disconnection of individuals from employment, opportunities, and decision-making. Framing the problems of disadvantage neighbourhoods and individuals in this language allowed New Labour to move the focus “away from poverty, the economy and jobs, towards ‘softer’ issues” (Kearns, 2003, p. 39). Problems were seen to derive from traits such as skills, cultures, and aspirations of individuals and communities, instead of material resources. This coincides with New Labour’s shift away from its focus on social justice after 2004 and the emphasis on the economic competitiveness of areas (Lupton et al., 2003).
In line with the focus, authors have argued that New Labour’s regeneration approach embraced social capital as a means to combat social exclusion (Kleinman, 2000; Kearns, 2003; Hastings, 2003). The concept of social capital suited the general policy agenda set by the SEU (2001) which emphasised skills and cultures in access to employment, and community participation in local decision-making and public services (Lupton et al., 2013a; Levitas, 1998; Kearns, 2003). In line with this agenda, Labour's approach to urban regeneration was based, first and foremost, on policies designed to provide people with the skills and capacities to reduce their poverty and dependence on state support. The neighbourhood renewal programme proposed by the SEU
(1998) as well as the Scottish regeneration policy (Scottish Executive, 2002a) referred to social capital as a way of incentivising people and communities to help themselves. Social capital as related to skills, resources and networks could improve sense of power, motivation and self-esteem in poor communities through informal community learning and action (Kearns, 2003; Burton et al., 2004). The aim was to build skills and confidence through volunteering and participation in community associations, which would make residents act to improve their community and influence or run public services (SEU 2001; Imrie & Raco, 2003; Levitas, 1998).
This emphasis on social capital further appeared in New Labour’s ‘Third Way’ approach. Local partnerships were considered to have the benefits of creating social capital and improving local democratic abilities through community participation (Burton et al., 2004; SEU, 1998; Docherty et al., 2003). The way in which communities would improve their services was embodied in the term ‘community capital’, referring to community organisations and partnerships. Neighbourhood organisations would link communities to policy makers with their networks, and further access resources to support collective actions and social activities to produce social capital (Kearns, 2003; Kleinman, 2000; Lupton et al., 2013a). The agenda set out by The Scottish Executive (2002b) similarly aimed to increase communities’ influence over the integration of local services and discussed social capital under the theme of community development. However, as a difference to UK-level policy, the Scottish approach introduced targeted programmes to build capacity for participation and leadership skills within communities (ibid.; Rolfe, 2016). Furthermore, the Scottish policy seems to explicitly pay attention to potential issues regarding social capital in community empowerment by stating that community groups must be aware of their inclusivity (Scottish Executive, 2002b).
The focus on social capital and the wider discourse of social exclusion have been criticised for their failure to account for the role of income and employment in tackling inequality (Kearns, 2003; Levitas, 1998; Lawless et al., 2010; Watt & Jacobs, 2000; McCulloch et al., 2012). Communities were expected to actively help themselves, and the government should only help communities take advantage of their social capital, while effectively refraining from providing resources (Kearns, 2003; Kleinman, 2000; Lupton et al., 2013a).
Critics go on to state that the political narrative which centres around the responsibility of communities and individuals to improve their situation deliberately deflects attention from the causes of poverty (Kearns, 2003; Levitas, 1998; Watt & Jacobs, 2000). Indeed, Watt and Jacobs (2000) conclude that the neighbourhood initiatives of New Labour avoided addressing problems of poor housing and poverty directly by using this language of social exclusion and considering the source of problems in neighbourhoods to be the ‘underclass’ culture and anti-social behaviours. Furthermore, the role of social capital was most likely overstated in combating social exclusion, leaving aside the impacts of labour and housing markets among others. Social capital turns the attention away from the lack of jobs and low income to ‘network poverty’, ignoring structural inequality and the redistribution of power and resources (Levitas, 1998; Kearns, 2003; Watt & Jacobs, 2000).
Critics have further argued that the community empowerment approach lacked recognition of local communities’ unequal positions in gaining access to resources and engaging with decision-making processes. More affluent communities are likely to advantages in this regard, as they are found to host more formal and political types of participation, while the community organisations in these areas tend to also be more connected to decision-making processes (Temkin & Rohe, 1998; Purdue, 2001; DeFilippis, 2001). In turn, some have pointed out that disadvantaged neighbourhoods may lack power to influence decisions despite hosting social networks and community organisations (Levitas, 1998; Lawless et al., 2010; Watt & Jacobs, 2000; Hastings, 2003; Rolfe, 2016). Affluent communities are also more likely to benefit from the skills and cultural capital of highly-educated individuals that allow them to gain access to information, take advantage of these opportunities and to manage cooperation successfully (Clarence & Painter, 1998; DeFilippis, 2001; Rolfe, 2016). Therefore increasing levels of volunteering or other civic participation in disadvantaged communities is unlikely to help them to compete for resources and overcome barriers to political influence (Kearns, 2003; McCulloch et al., 2012; Cheshire, 2007). In this way, participation and the lack thereof relates to the distribution of power and abilities, which resonates with a Bourdieusian view of social capital (DeFilippis, 2001). Bourdieu (1986) focused on the ways in which certain social
groups gain power through economic, social, and cultural capitals. Policies are found to have lacked recognition of communities being unequal in their strengths (Watt & Jacobs, 2000) and that the local governance of cities itself impacts upon the possibilities for communities to enact collective influence (Kearns, 2003; Imrie & Raco, 2003). This implies that disadvantaged communities are to be empowered, the exclusive character of many decision- making processes should also be addressed (DeFilippis, 2001; Kearns, 2003; Imrie & Raco, 2003).