literature on the subject has to a large extent located it within the wider contexts of housing policy development, public service reform and reform of the welfare state (for example, Ginsburg, 2005; Clapham, 2006; Pawson, 2006; Card and Mudd, 2006; Sprigings, 2002; Walker, 2001; Mullins and Murie, 2006; Murie and Nevin, 2001). As a consequence, the starting-point for much of this literature is to be found within the perceived political and economic imperatives underpinning public policy development in this area, as well as the effi cacy of these policies. With a few possible exceptions, such as Taylor (1999), Mooney
‘Better the Devil You Know’: Submerged
Consciousness and Tenant Participation
in Housing Stock Transfers
John McCormack
[Paper first received, December 2006; in final form, December 2007]
Abstract
To what extent does the Freirean concept of submerged consciousness contribute towards understanding of tenant participation in housing stock transfers? This paper describes the policy and process of housing stock transfer, noting both its contested nature and the role of tenants in the process. It explores Freire’s concept of submerged consciousness, relating it to a cliché common amongst tenants experiencing stock transfer—‘better the devil you know’—before applying a Freirean analytical framework to an ethnographic study of a housing stock transfer. The paper concludes that Freire does offer a valuable analytical framework in respect of tenant participation in housing stock transfers, before offering some suggestions for further, related research.
‘Revolutionary’ discipline depends on political consciousness—on an understanding of why
orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square.
(George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938)
Introduction
The transfer of low-cost, publicly owned housing stock in the UK to not-for-profi t re-gistered social landlords is a subject that has commanded somewhat limited attention in academic circles (Malpass, 2001). Scholarly
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online © 2009 Urban Studies Journal Limited
and Poole (2005) and Robbins (2002), little of the literature on stock transfer approaches the subject from a tenant perspective (al-though, as Cole and Furbey, 1994, have pointed out, this is true of the scholarly literature on housing policy generally). This, I believe, constitutes a signifi cant oversight. As a con-sequence, this paper seeks to contribute to the corpus of literature on stock transfer by exploring the subject of tenant consciousness in relation to it and how this impacts upon tenant perspectives on—and participation in—such transfers.
Using a Freirean theoretical framework and drawing upon the fi ndings of an ethnographic study, the paper addresses the question: to what extent does the Freirean concept of sub-merged consciousness contribute towards an understanding of tenant participation in housing stock transfers? In doing so, clearly, the paper is of interest to all those with a scholarly or practitioner interest in hous-ing policy in the UK. However, insofar as it explores the issue of user involvement in the planning and delivery of a key welfare service, I believe it will be of interest to all those with an interest in policy reform, development and delivery across the public and welfare sectors. Furthermore, in view of the fact that stock transfer involves the democratic participation of what are more often than not deprived, low-income communities (Pawson, 2006) (with little experience of decision-making in re-spect of public policy issues), I believe that all those interested in developing civic engage-ment amongst poor communities will have an interest in the issues explored in this paper.
The paper will proceed by outlining in more detail the policy and process of stock transfer, including the supposed benefi ts and alleged disadvantages. It will focus in particular on the contested nature of stock transfer, the role of tenants in the process and the infl uences that are brought to bear on tenant consciousness. It will then look closely at the meaning and signifi cance of a particular theme that emerged
strongly from a previous research exercise involving tenants affected by stock transfer proposals (McCormack, 2008)—‘Better the devil you know’—and suggest a prima facie case for adopting a Freirean approach to the issue of tenant consciousness and hous-ing stock transfers. The paper will then apply this approach to an ethnographic study and will conclude by suggesting that Freire’s concept of submerged consciousness (and the related concepts of naïve transitive con-sciousness and critical concon-sciousness) contrib-utes signifi cantly to our understanding of the dynamics of landlord–tenant relations and its impact upon tenant consciousness, and participation, in relation to housing stock transfers. Furthermore, such a conclusion has signifi cant implications for the research agenda relating to stock transfer and tenant participation; and the paper fi nishes off with some recommendations in this respect.
Housing Stock Transfer
A key feature of current public policy towards affordable social housing in the UK is the transfer of tenanted and leasehold stock owned by local authorities to not-for-profi t registered social landlords, commonly refer-red to as housing associations or—in some cases—local housing companies (and in Scotland, housing co-operatives also). Lat-terly, some practitioners and policy-makers have been celebrating the landmark of 1 million council homes being transferred to the registered social landlord sector (Inside Housing, 2006).
a wider range of tenant-infl uenced housing organisations to provide better and more responsive housing services to tenants; and, an opportunity for councils to focus on their strategic role of facilitating housing provision to meet needs, rather than directly providing housing as landlords (DETR and DSS, 2000). In fact, since 2003, the offi cial policy of stock transfer has been very closely linked in with a strategy for capital investment to attain a national standard for housing (the ‘Decent Homes Standard’) and many councils— unable to demonstrate their own capacity to meet this standard—have embarked upon formal stock transfer exercises in order to address the issue of long-term sustainability of decent, affordable housing stock.
Stock transfers have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State responsible for hous-ing policy in order to go ahead. Amongst other things, this involves the local authority, as the disposing landlord, demonstrating to the Secretary of State that a majority of the tenants affected by the proposal do not object to the transfer taking place. Although not a formal legal requirement, this has widely been interpreted as meaning that tenants have been balloted on the transfer proposal and a simple majority have voted in favour of the transfer (ODPM, 2004). Conversely, if a simple ma-jority of tenants vote against the proposal, consent to transfer is in practice not sought, let alone given. Housing stock transfers are, therefore, characterised by referenda and thus are a site of active citizenship, with tenants in effect determining the future provision of a key welfare service in their area. In addition to the ballot process, active citizenship in the stock transfer process is evidenced by the formation and function of a tenant panel to participate in the development of the pro-posals that are subsequently voted on in a ballot—investment programme, rent levels, tenancy conditions, service provision, etc. It is also standard practice for one-third of the places on the governing body of a stock
transfer landlord to be reserved for tenant rep-resentatives. Hence, tenants in stock transfer areas can not only vote on a major area of public service, but also help to develop its shape, and participate in its governance.
Resistance
To date, housing stock transfer in the UK has proved to be a highly contested policy and it is not uncommon for transfer proposals to meet with sometimes well organised and vocal opposition, be it from local or national politicians, trades unionists, local authority tenants and leaseholders, the press or a com-bination of all of these interested parties, such as (in England) Defend Council Housing (Ginsburg, 2005; Daly et al., 2005; Malpass and Mullins, 2002).1 Opposition to transfer often centres on the conceptualisation of stock transfer as a form of ‘privatisation’ (Defend Council Housing, 2004)—a somewhat vague term that is, as a result, diffi cult to confi rm or deny unequivocally. Robbins, however, has stated lucidly (if not scientifi cally) some of the key arguments against stock transfer. In essence, transfer is to be opposed, he argues, because it renders tenants more vulnerable to eviction by their landlords, costs tenants more in rents, removes the democratic account-ability of the landlord and reduces opportun-ities for tenant involvement (Robbins, 2002). It is not within the scope of this paper to critique the arguments for and against stock transfer. However, it is worth pointing out that the charge that stock transfer constitutes a form of ‘privatisation’ is one that appears to work effectively on behalf of anti-transfer campaigners (Pawson, 2006) and there is some evidence to suggest that local authorities have specifically sought to rebrand stock transfers as manifestations of ‘community ownership’, in a bid to side-step accusations of ‘privatisation’ (Mooney and Poole, 2005).
within a local authority that transfers its stock are considerable. In most cases, these include a capital receipt for the council, substantial pay increases for senior housing offi cers (House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, 2003) and political kudos for the ruling ad-ministration. However, the risks are consider-able too, such as abortive project set-up costs, political embarrassment, loss of a signifi cant investment opportunity for the housing stock and the possible necessity of cost-cutting measures, including job losses. In this context, it seems fair to say that few local authorities are in reality relaxed about the outcome of stock transfer ballots. Indeed, the tensions facing local authorities between, on the one hand, meeting their obligation to inform tenants in a ‘full and fair’ way of the pros and cons of stock transfer (ODPM, 2004, Annex N) and, on the other, advancing the broader fi nancial and corporate interests of the council by, in effect, advertising stock transfer, is an issue that has been addressed previously (Taylor, 1999). The issue of tenant consciousness is, therefore, central to the outcome of stock transfer proposals and several of the interested parties involved— be they supportive of, or opposed to, stock transfer proposals—in turn have an interest in infl uencing how tenants think—i.e. their consciousness.
There are a number of formal ways in which the issue of tenant consciousness is addressed in the stock transfer process. These generally include the provision of information to ten-ants on transfer by specially hired commu-nications consultants, through media such as DVDs and videos, newsletters, exhibitions etc. In addition, independent tenant advisers are appointed in order to provide impartial com-mentary and advice to tenants on the trans-fer proposals as they develop. This includes the independent tenant adviser—as well as designated civil servants—scrutinising in-formation and proposals circulated by both the disposing and purchasing landlords,
and verifying their accuracy and impartial-ity (DTLR, 2001). Furthermore, the offi cial guidelines on stock transfer—the Housing transfer manual (ODPM, 2004)—put an obligation on local authorities to arrange the provision of training for tenants, in order that they may participate effectively in the devel-opment of the stock transfer proposal.
However, whilst formal communications to tenants regarding stock transfer proposals are subject to scrutiny by a number of parties, informal communications—including those coming from organised anti-transfer cam-paigners, as well as casual, ad hoc discourse amongst residents on the subject of stock transfer—are not. Taylor has suggested that costly, professional communications exercises by social landlords to advertise stock transfer cannot always be guaranteed success in the face of informal, resistant discourse and counter-narrative amongst tenants. As a result, there is no simple, deterministic relationship between the amount of money disposing landlords spend trying to advertise stock transfer and the propensity of tenants to vote in favour of the proposal (Taylor, 1999). Consequently, whilst it is true to say that, in some cases, stock transfer proposals meet with relatively little overt resistance (be it collective or individual), in many cases ten-ants are subjected to signifi cantly different perspectives and communications on the pros and cons of transfer, all of which have one thing in common—a desire to perme-ate and infl uence the consciousness of tenants and the subsequent interventions of tenants in relation to the stock transfer process.
‘Better the Devil You Know’:
Submerged Consciousness
rather than a judgement in the truest sense of the word. There is no process of enquiry and information-gathering, and no real con-sideration of options, including refl ections upon the status quo. Instead, the phrase rep-resents a subject position characterised by fear, despair and disempowerment, and it is these feelings—rather than cognitive assimilation of data—that infl uence decision-making. Freire
The concept of submerged consciousness expounded by the Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire (1921–97) embraces virtually all of the properties associated with the phrase ‘better the devil you know’. Infl uenced greatly by Fromm (1942), Freire has argued that, although not historically inevitable, all societies—industrial and developing—are characterised by dehuman-ising oppressor–oppressed relations (Freire, 1970/1996). The oppressors seek to sustain their power over the oppressed not solely—or even principally—through force, but by maintaining the oppressed in a state of sub-merged consciousness. This consciousness is characterised by a number of features, in-cluding: resignation and fatalism; passivity; mutism; risk-aversion; fear of freedom and fear of change; preoccupation with survival (rather than dreaming of new horizons); lack of inquisitiveness; ambivalence towards the oppressor; ‘magical’—or fanciful—beliefs; and identifi cation with the oppressor (and the oppressor’s world-view) (Freire, 1974/2005). Indeed, Freire argues that one of the char-acteristics of submerged consciousness is ‘adhesion to the oppressor’
Under these circumstances [the oppressed] cannot ‘consider’ [the oppressor] suffi ciently clearly to objectivise him—to discover him ‘outside’ themselves. This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression. relation to their respective transfer projects.
Three of the interviewees responded with exactly the same statement: ‘Better the devil you know’ (McCormack, 2008). Indeed, com-menting upon the relative popularity of council housing amongst social housing tenants, Ginsburg comments, “Better the devil you know has long been the watchword” (Ginsburg, 2005, p. 118). Clearly, the phrase is a cliché and hence its meaning is taken for granted: namely, to resist change. However, if one looks at the statement more closely, it does, in fact, signify a number of things, other than simply a fear of change
– Choice: it is a ‘Hobson’s choice’, involving two imperfect options, but a choice none-theless, requiring agency on the part of the individual.
– Ambivalence: although preferred to a change option, the status quo is not something one feels positively about.
– Absence of epistemological curiosity: one is not inclined to explore alternatives to the status quo, in order to make a rational, informed choice.
– Risk-aversion: there is a degree of familiarity in relation to the status quo and the alter-native to this represents a risk that is not, apparently, worth contemplating, let alone taking.
– Privileging experience: understanding gained through experience of the familiar is accorded more value than understanding that might be gained otherwise regarding the change option.
– Resignation and fatalism: the choice one has to make concerns the lesser of two evils: there is no sense of hope for a better future, just one that does not get any worse. – Passivity: one is not intervening positively
to help shape the options available, but is instead accepting them as given.
At this level, their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identifi cation with its op-posite pole (1970/1996, pp. 27–28).
This concept of ‘adhesion to the oppressor’ seems to lend itself to paraphrasing as, ‘better the devil you know’. Given that the other fea-tures of submerged consciousness are also refl ected in the analysis of this cliché, there appears to be a prima facie case for adopting Freire’s concept of submerged conscious-ness in an analysis of tenant participation in housing stock transfers.
Oppression: A Freirean Perspective
According to Freire, the oppressors deploy a range of tactics in order to keep the oppressed in a state of submerged consciousness. Chief amongst these is conquest of the oppressed mass through the banking of myths; that is, issuing as unproblematic and uncontested ‘facts’ the world-view of the dominant op-pressors. This world-view centres on the principle of the world as an ahistorical, fi xed entity, impervious to the will of mankind and governed by the omnipotent, reifi ed forces of ‘destiny’, ‘fate’ and the ‘market’. The oppressed internalise this world-view, including myths that the oppressors propagate regarding the oppressed (such as their alleged inherent inferiority—drunkenness, laziness, unworthi-ness, etc.) and resign themselves to ‘reality’, as presented to them by the oppressors. As a result, they adapt to the world, accept the dominant oppressor narrative in a fatalistic manner and remain silent; they do not con-template the world critically and do not have their own independent story—their reading of the world—to tell.
Other means of maintaining the oppressed in a state of submerged consciousness in-clude: manipulation (in which the oppressors seek to head-off an autonomous emergence of the oppressed by organising the oppressed
on terms favourable to the oppressors, rather than allowing the oppressed to organise them-selves); divide and rule (in which the oppressed become divided amongst themselves as a result of conscious oppressor interventions); and cultural invasion (in which the oppressors impose their lifestyles, ways of being and values on the oppressed, often through the use of mass media, thus resulting in the op-pressed losing their authentic culture). It also includes acts of ‘false generosity’ on the part of the oppressors (or ‘assistencialism’), for which the oppressed are meant to be grateful, but which are in reality, according to Freire, instruments of oppression.
Critical Consciousness, Naïve
Transitivity and Vanguardism
Liberation of the oppressed occurs, according to Freire, when the oppressed intervene in the world to change it, based upon critical con-sciousness. In contrast to submerged conscious-ness, critical consciousness is characterised by: refl ection; ‘naming the world’ (speaking out and challenging the dominant narrative of the oppressor with the oppressed’s own reading of the world); inquisitiveness (‘epi-stemological curiosity’); risk-taking; histor-icity; and hope. It develops in a context of on-going, problem-posing dialogue amongst groups of oppressed people (facilitated by a ‘teacher-learner’) and is centred on the dia-lectical relationship of theory and action (‘praxis’), which is itself based on the exist-ential conditions of the oppressed. Awareness of the limitations of what is known in relation to what might be known ensures humility amongst both teacher-learners and the op-pressed (Freire, 2005, pp. 71–72).
consciousness. During times of major social transition, the dominant world-view of the oppressor becomes exposed. This is because the status quo—so long presented as destiny— is itself under serious, sometimes violent, challenge and both the oppressors and their world-view can—depending upon their leadership—be seen as vulnerable and open to challenge. In such circumstances, naïve transi-tive consciousness emerges out of submerged consciousness. This is characterised by anger, rebelliousness, polemics, gregariousness and oversimplifi cation of issues. At this stage, al-though no longer submerged, the oppressed are not engaged in praxis and epistemological enquiry, and it falls upon ‘authentic’ revolu-tionary leaders to work with the oppressed to develop such critical consciousness.
However, some revolutionary leaders are unwilling to engage in dialogue with the op-pressed and dismiss praxis as verbosity. What is needed, they argue, is for revolution to take place and for theorising to follow. Such revolutionary leaders Freire refers to as ‘van-guardists’. Vanguardism is characterised by the issuing of communiqués, by revolution-ary leaders, to the oppressed, albeit in the name of emancipation. It is, therefore, anti-dialogical, and thus oppressive, as it too seeks to maintain the silence of the oppressed and to dull their critical faculties. It also is indi-cative of a lack of faith in the oppressed and an arrogant belief in the superiority of the revolutionary leadership.
There are, therefore, a number of stages and types of consciousness that the oppressed can experience, according to Freire. They are not totally discrete, compartmentalised states of mind, as they can and do overlap. What is clear, nevertheless, is that these different stages and types of consciousness result in different actions—or interventions—on the part of the subjects experiencing them.
This paper will now move on to report on the fi ndings of an ethnographic study of a stock transfer project and will specifi cally
address the issues of tenant consciousness and intervention within a Freirean framework.
Methodology and Ethics
The research fi ndings of this paper are based upon an ethnographic study of a stock transfer project in which I was a researcher, having been appointed by the tenants of Riverside Borough Council to work with them throughout the course of their stock transfer project as an independent tenant adviser. Such a study would enable data to be generated for analysis (events, behaviour and interactions) in a holistic context. Com-mencement of the study deliberately coincided with commencement of my role as tenant adviser in April 2006 and, at the time of writ-ing, the stock transfer project is on-going. Whilst tenants were aware of my research role (one of them had been an interviewee in the previous research exercise referred to earlier), the fact that I was present principally in a consultant capacity meant that tenants did not have to respond consciously to a re-search agenda, thus enabling the rere-search to be carried out discreetly. Data were collected principally through observation of various meetings involving myself and the tenant panel (including, in several cases, those at-tended by council offi cers, local politicians and consultants), as well as some meetings involv-ing myself and council agents only. On one occasion, I attended, and observed, a staff con-ference. As often as possible, data from such events were recorded as particular observa-tions were made (or quotaobserva-tions uttered). Most of the time, however, such data were recorded in a journal as soon as possible thereafter. The other main research method utilised was document analysis (for example, council re-ports, newsletters, correspondence, etc.).
understanding of the broader social, political and economic (and historical) context in which the stock transfer project was taking place and so was, myself, less vulnerable to possible totalising, unproblematic, a his-torical narratives.
In view of the fact that the research aims to explore the issue of tenant consciousness in relation to housing stock transfers, it is intended that the principal benefi ciaries of the research fi ndings will be tenants them-selves. In particular, if Freire’s stages of con-sciousness can justifi ably be said to apply to such a context, this opens up a whole range of possibilities relating to policy, practice and the empowerment of tenants involved in housing stock transfers.
Finally, in order to ensure that the interests (individual and collective) of tenants involved in this research exercise are not compromised by my research role, all names referred to in the case study—including that of the council—are pseudonyms.
Riverside Borough Council Stock
Transfer Proposal
Background
Riverside Borough Council is a suburban local authority situated in the south of England. The standard of living within the borough is in general quite high and there are some wards within the council that are populated by extremely wealthy households. The vast majority of households are owner-occupied and social housing represents a particularly small percentage of the borough’s housing stock. Many of the tenants living in council housing are elderly and/or disabled, and some 20 per cent live in sheltered accommodation. However, in spite of the affl uence of the area, the local authority itself has in the recent past suffered from a locally well-publicised, and serious, fi nancial crisis, leading it at one point to seek to liquidate its greatest asset—its
housing stock—by selling it to a housing association. The subsequent transfer pro-posal spawned the birth of a local tenants’ association, whose principal aim was to pre-vent the council from selling the housing stock by campaigning against the transfer proposal. Many of the founding members of the tenants’ association believed that their homes were being sacrifi ced unfairly in order to resolve a crisis that affected the council overall and not just the housing department. Consequently, few of them believed that the publicly stated reason for pursuing transfer— the delivery of a programme of improve-ments to the borough’s housing stock—told the whole story. Following an at times bitter and personal campaign, the transfer pro-posal was defeated heavily in a ballot and a mould was cast for adversarial landlord-tenant relations, characterised by mutual suspicion and mistrust.
The Author as Participant-observer
rapport was established which, over time, matured into a co-operative and constructive working relationship.
The most signifi cant outcome of my initial work with the tenants of Riverside was an awareness that the biggest issue facing them was a need for double glazing in properties and the installation of modern central heating systems (not all properties at the time had such heating systems). In addition, it was apparent that, in spite of having been subject to a formal stock transfer proposal, very few tenants had a clear grasp of what transfer to a housing association would involve. As a result, a series of consultation, training and research exercises was carried out with tenants in the borough over a number of years, faci-litated by myself, that aimed to address the issue of how best to ensure the on-going provision of good quality social housing in the borough. Ultimately, following a formal stock options appraisal carried out in ac-cordance with government requirements (ODPM, 2003), representatives of the tenants’ association agreed to support a proposal to embark upon a formal consultation exercise on a transfer of housing stock to a registered social landlord, but on the conditions that, fi rst, such a proposal would be led by tenants, in the form of a specially constituted Tenant Consultative Group, supported by an inde-pendent tenant adviser, and, secondly, the council would nevertheless endeavour to develop a contingency plan for the housing stock—‘Plan B’—in the event of tenants once again rejecting the transfer proposal. The transfer project commenced at the end of 2005 and, at the time of writing it is on-going, with my working closely with the Tenant Consultative Group.
The Tenant Narrative—Naming the Word, Naming the World
By the time the formal stock transfer project commenced, the tenants’ association at Riverside had developed its own story in
relation to council housing in the borough. The key elements of the tenant narrative are as follows
Low priority. Affordable social housing is a low priority of the council. Over the years, it has committed very few of its available cap-ital resources (basic credit approvals, capcap-ital receipts) to either investment in the repair and improvement of its existing stock, or the development of new social housing in partnership with registered social landlords, as is common elsewhere. Instead, such funds have been diverted to other, general fund service areas, resulting one year, for example, in the construction of a golf course (a service rarely, if at all, used by council tenants).
Poor governance. Housing has been a
party-political ‘football’ within Riverside, with individuals dividing along party lines in housing debates and political point-scoring appearing to be more important to members of the council than rational, informed debate. Very few councillors are interested in social housing, as borne out by their non-attendance at key policy debates, notably in relation to the stock options appraisal. Furthermore, over the years, barely any of them have been council tenants and thus do not empathise with council tenants.
Tenure of failure. Owner-occupation is
daughters of existing council tenants. Social housing is therefore, a necessary service, but one very much associated with failure in relation to aspirations.
Exploitation. The council’s housing
re-venue account (its ring-fenced income and expenditure account relating to housing assets) has indirectly been subsidising the general fund, by, for example, picking up cer-tain costs (such as grass-cutting in communal areas and the maintenance of footpaths) which ought to be shared equitably with neighbouring owner-occupiers, who benefi t from the services concerned.
Responsible tenants. Tenants living in
general needs (i.e. non-sheltered) council housing treat the properties in which they live very much as theirs, even though they do not own their homes. Many tenants carry out their own repairs and improvements, if it appears to them that the council is not going to do this work. In some cases, this involves tenants paying large sums of money—for example, to replace obsolete or broken roofs, kitchens, bathrooms, doors, windows, etc. In doing so, tenants are in effect contributing to the asset value of the council’s housing stock and, in some cases, are getting themselves into personal debt in so doing.
Summary. Overall, the tenant narrative
in Riverside is one of injustice. Some of the poorest members of the community—council tenants—are being exploited by the council in the interests of the wider, and more pros-perous, community. In addition, whilst the welfare interests of council tenants are not valued by the council, the income stream associated with council housing is. In terms of seeking political redress of this exploitative situation, this is rendered impossible by the fact that council tenants are a very small per-centage of the local electorate. Far from bene-fi ting from the power to elect local politicians
and hold them to account in respect of the housing service, it is precisely the democratic nature of council housing that is the prob-lem: the wider (and in electoral terms much more powerful) community does not value council housing, so the latter is not a signifi -cant vote winner.
On this basis, it was determined by the tenants’ association of Riverside that it would support in principle the development of a stock transfer proposal, as a stock transfer would halt the anomaly and injustice of poorer people subsidising the better-off. However, in coming to this conclusion, the association’s committee members were mind-ful of the fact that, whilst this particular injustice could be redressed, there were risks involved in a transfer proposal that would need to be addressed and resolved prior to a ballot of tenants. In particular, if the valua-tion of the stock, by the council, was taken as definitive by bidding registered social landlords, then a relatively high proportion of tenant rents would be paying simply for transfer of the stock, rather than any im-provements to their properties and services. Similarly, in view of the fact that the options appraisal concluded that any transfer should be to a newly formed subsidiary of an existing registered social landlord, certain risks relat-ing to the (potential) lack of autonomy of the subsidiary were highlighted (Audit Commis-sion Housing Corporation, 2001). As a result, towards the end of the options appraisal, the tenants’ association drafted its own specifi -cation for transfer, in which all known risks associated with transfer were addressed. This was to be a bottom-line negotiating position when the stock transfer project commenced: if no registered social landlord was prepared to accommodate the tenant requirements, the tenants would pull out of the transfer process. The Landlord Narrative: A World-view
communications around stock options and, subsequently, housing transfer—both intern-ally within the council and externintern-ally with tenants and other interested parties, such as the media, government offi cials and so on— have been dominated by a managerial dis-course. It can be summarised thus
Decent homes standard. Following the
publication of the government’s Communities Plan in 2003, the council must ensure that the housing stock it currently owns can achieve at least a minimum national standard by 2010—the ‘decent homes standard’. In add-ition, this standard must be sustainable beyond 2010.
No real choice. Having carried out a stock
options appraisal—which included looking at the possibility of the council remaining as landlord, transferring the stock to a registered social landlord, entering into a private fi nance initiative with a partner organisation in the private sector, or setting up an arm’s-length management organisation—only a stock transfer will deliver and sustain the minimum decent homes standard. Indeed, a transfer would enable a higher standard to be achieved on a sustainable basis.
Government-driven. A key factor in the
decision to transfer the housing stock relates to the government’s fi scal policy. The latter requires that Riverside pays over more than a third of its rental income to meet the cost of housing benefi t payments in the borough. By contrast, in the event of a transfer, all surplus monies will be retained by the land-lord and may be spent on improved services and amenities, as well as funding the devel-opment of new homes.
Partnership. The stock transfer proposal
will be a partnership between council staff, elected council members and tenants. Tenants will therefore be involved in the development
of the proposal, including negotiating service standards, amenities, rights, privileges, rents and service charges, and no transfer will take place unless a ballot of tenants across the borough endorses the proposal.
Not-for-profi t. In the event of a transfer, the stock will be transferred to a not-for-profi t landlord and tenant representatives will sit on the governing body, thereby exercising more power over landlord services than they currently enjoy.
A bleak alternative to transfer. A report
by the council’s financial consultants has suggested that, in the event of tenants voting against the transfer proposal, the council will seriously have to consider reducing service standards, if it is to avoid the unlawful situation of failing to balance its housing revenue account. This will result in homes that are already ‘decent’ eventually dropping below that standard, due to a deteriorating maintenance service, and those that become decent in the next few years also deterio-rating as a result of a limited maintenance service.
Summary. In summary, the council’s
it is also restricting the resources available to local authorities to meet this need.
Oppression
To date, the stock transfer process at Riverside has seen the council, and its agents working on the stock transfer project, engage in a number of activities that constitute oppression in the Freirean sense. It is not possible to chron-icle and analyse every single incident of op-pression that I have encountered, but some of the principal mechanisms of oppression that I have identifi ed will now be discussed, along with illustrative data.
Imposing the landlord world-view. The
dominance of the council’s managerial dis-course in communications concerning the transfer proposal constitutes a world-view. Vindicating a case previously made else-where by Darcy (2002), this managerial world-view strips the stock transfer project of its broader historical, political and socio-economic context, and conceals important power dynamics in the community. Most notably, there is no reference to the sense of social justice that is the pretext of tenant support, in principle, for the transfer option. Rather, the council is presented as an innocent victim of central government rules and regu-lations. In spite of this, the dominant narra-tive is challenged by tenant activists and, as a result, the wider body of tenants is to a limited extent exposed to differing narratives around the stock transfer.
Silencing the tenant voice. Thus far, the
council and its agents have been nervous about tenant representatives exercising an inde-pendent voice in the wider community. For example, a protracted argument developed when the tenants, assisted by myself, pro-duced a newsletter which explained, in their terms, why there had been a delay in the commencement of the stock transfer project and what would happen if the transfer did
not proceed (‘Plan B’). Initially, tenants were (mis)informed by the council’s project man-agement consultants that their newsletter would have to be scrutinised by civil servants before it could be published and distributed. In addition, the council’s lead offi cer for the transfer project—supported by the council’s communications consultants—argued that the tenant newsletter would ‘muddy the waters’ by ‘sending out mixed messages’ to tenants. The council, its agents and a civil ser-vant then criticised the newsletter for being ‘divisive’, ‘infl ammatory’ and ‘alarmist’, and threats were made, fi rst, to refuse to fi nance the printing and distribution of the tenant newsletter (which has been council practice in Riverside for some time) and, secondly, to issue a council supplement with the tenant newsletter, rebutting the content of the for-mer. However, when invited to correct any fac-tual inaccuracies, nothing was forthcoming from council offi cials and advisers, and the only amendments proposed were aimed at minimising embarrassment to the council, even if this was to be at the expense of fac-tual accuracy. In the end, the council relented and allowed the newsletter to be printed, but only after tenant representatives resisted landlord pressure and decided to apply pres-sure themselves by boycotting the project meetings. Apart from wanting to avoid em-barrassing publicity for the council, these attempts by the council and its agents to silence the tenant narrative indicate a lack of faith—and a concomitant reluctance to take risks—in respect of the ability of the wider body of tenants critically to encounter confl icting narratives and form their own conclusions. This is a point noted by some of the tenants
They think we are all thick (Dennis).
They think we haven’t got a brain (David).
Appropriating the tenant voice. At the same
was on-going, the council’s communications consultants were busy contacting tenants and seeking to obtain their input into the council’s newsletter. The irony of this was not lost on the tenant representatives and several refused to assist the communications con-sultants in their newsletter production, as they felt they were being used as mouth-pieces of the council
They [the communications consultants] won’t allow us to say anything they don’t agree with (Dennis).
In the end, pictures of some tenant repre-sentatives appeared on a council newsletter alongside text that included carefully selected quotes from the same tenants, none of which contradicted the overall message of partner-ship within the newsletter.
Imposing the landlord’s language. A
number of disputes have arisen in the course of the stock transfer project in relation to the issue of words and language. In particular, the power of the council to impose its reading of the world on tenants (through newsletters and other correspondence) has been seen by tenant representatives as wishful thinking. For example, there is a tendency for the pro-ject to be described as a three-way ‘partnership’ between council staff, elected members and tenants. The contentious nature of the con-cept of partnership has been documented in community development literature (Barnes et al., 2003) and at Riverside the tenant ac-tivists see the transfer process as an arena of struggle in which different participants have different—and sometimes conflicting— interests. For this reason, tenant support in principle for the transfer option was premised on such a proposal being tenant-led. Never-theless, the council, its agents and civil servants insist on decreeing the project a ‘partnership’ and, in doing so, dismiss the historical con-text in which the transfer option was endorsed by tenants. Similarly, in a discussion amongst
council staff and consultants concerning the tenant demand that no existing staff or pol-iticians from the council should be allowed to act as board members of a stock transfer landlord in Riverside, both the council’s head of housing and the council’s legal consultant used the term ‘baggage’ to describe the tenant perspective. In fact, the tenants took the view that, given that council staff and members have shown little interest in the housing stock when they have actually been the lawful owners and custodians of the stock, why would they be actively interested in the housing service in the event of it being transferred? The ten-ants were using their historical awareness of the borough to inform their views on, in this case, board membership. Describing their views as ‘baggage’, therefore, indicates a path-ologising of the tenants’ position and offers a pretext for dismissing it. However, in spite of the council’s attempt at controlling the dis-course on stock transfer in Riverside, the tenants were confi dent that other tenants would resist the council’s messages (by—in relation to newsletters—‘chucking them all in the bin’) and, instead, listen to those mes-sages put out by the tenants themselves
Tenants will listen to us because we talk the way they do (David).
Banking of communiqués. The
tenants, regarding the pecuniary interests of registered social landlords bidding to take over ownership of council stock. In fact, registered social landlords can, and usually do, make profits and those that are non-charitable pay corporation tax on such profi ts, just like any other profi table private-sector business. In addition, whilst such profi ts are not distributed to shareholders as dividends (as they would be in most private-sector busi-nesses), registered social landlords can (and many do) pay performance-related bonuses to staff. Furthermore, some use profi ts to invest in speculative new business ventures, often in areas far removed from their existing tenant base. There is, arguably, nothing in-herently wrong with any of these means of expending profits. The point, however, is that within the stock transfer process no dia-logue has taken place with tenants regarding the role of profi ts within the registered so-cial landlord sector. Instead, the question of ‘profit’ has been addressed in simplistic terms which conceal the true complexity of fi nancial arrangements within the registered social landlord sector and leave many tenants feeling that the broader issue of pecuniary interest in the stock transfer process is being obfuscated.
Arrogance and ignorance. Throughout the
project, the council and its agents have shown contempt for any theoretical insights or research fi ndings that do not correspond with their world-view. Attempts made either by myself or tenants to highlight and analyse the problematic nature of many of the taken-for-granted issues within the project (for example, the nature of ‘partnership’, the existence of a counter-narrative to the managerial world-view of the council, the role of social capital in the public discourse on transfer) have consistently met with disdain on the part of the council and its agents. On one occasion, the Chief Executive of the council—aware of my research role—expressed his concern that
the project does not fall prey to ‘academic’ infl uences. Some of this contempt has been expressed through silence and negative body language (including looking away from the speaker and talking to someone else, throwing hands in the air). On a few occasions, it has been expressed through laughter, notably, when it was suggested by myself (mindful of the observations of Daly et al., 2005) that it does not logically follow that lack of faith and trust, amongst tenants, in relation to the council as landlord in itself leads them to vote in favour of a stock transfer proposal. In other cases, it has been expressed verbally. Freire (1998/2001) argues that such arrogance is allied to the ‘false superiority’ that oppressors feel in relation to the oppressed, a point observed by one of the tenants thus
This council makes me sick. They are so arrogant, and treat us as if we are all kids. Yet from what I see, they are the ones who are bloody thick! (Sharon).
In view of its anti-dialogical nature, such arrogance is at the same time a manifestation of ignorance. Indeed, an inescapable conclusion from the stock transfer project at Riverside so far is the overwhelming lack of intellectual rigour and theoretical insight at the heart of the project.
Manipulation. At the outset of the formal
have taken place in recent years, including the formation of Walsall Association of Tenant Management Organisations (WATMOS). Furthermore, the government in the UK has recently issued a policy document outlining its support for tenant-led transfers (Housing Corporation, 2006).
In proposing that the tenant voice be re-duced to a subsidiary role within the project governance arrangements, the council and its agents were not only overlooking the fact that tenant support for the stock transfer process was contingent upon it being tenant-led, but they were also seeking to organise the tenants—setting parameters for their role and infl uence within the project—in a way that suited them rather than the tenants. Ironically, this attempt at controlling the tenant voice has been counter-productive. It has meant that tenants have at key stages in the project (short-listing of expressions of interest from regis-tered social landlords, drafting of bidding document for registered social landlords) refused to endorse such project milestones if they have not felt in control of the process, in spite of pressure from council staff and consultants
I’ve got all the time in the world (Dennis).
Funny how they haven’t bothered [carrying out major repairs for us] for years and now all of a sudden they want it done yesterday, and are blaming us for holding it up! [Brian]
Consequently, following tenant resistance to what they perceived as token consultation, the project governance structure has itself been a site of struggle and, at the time of writ-ing, the entire project timetable has had to be extended by one year as a result of this resist-ance, thereby almost inevitably increasing the set-up costs of the transfer to the council.
Divide and rule. It is not uncommon for
participating tenants to be branded ‘unrep-resentative’ by landlords (Millward, 2005) and,
at various stages in the stock transfer project in Riverside, council offi cers have suggested that tenant activists are not representative of the rest of the tenants in the borough. The communications and consultation strategy that has been deployed involves, on the one hand, the independent tenant adviser work-ing on the details of the transfer proposal (centred on the tenant narrative) with the tenant activists and, on the other, the council’s communications consultants issuing com-muniqués to the wider body of tenants through the mass media, all of which are presented within the terms of the dominant landlord narrative. As a result, there is limited scope for the tenant narrative to be made accessible to other tenants, let alone be en-countered critically by them. This, in turn, means that the tenant narrative is dismissed by the council and its agents as unrepre-sentative of the wider mass of tenants and, therefore, not worthy of dissemination. Indeed, when tenant activists requested a list of addresses of other tenants to contact regard-ing the transfer, there was apprehension amongst council staff and consultants, and a specifi c request was made by the latter that tenant activists do not canvass other tenants without fi rst clearing the narrative with them or, preferably (from the point of view of the council), being accompanied on canvassing exercises by council staff.
Consequences of Oppression: A Freirean Analysis
to attend meetings, contact other tenants, council staff and agents, or myself directly. Nevertheless, based upon observations of the responses of those tenants who have attended meetings arranged to consider the transfer proposal, as well as informal feedback offered to active tenants, it is possible to draw some conclusions regarding consciousness amongst the non-active tenants.
However, with regard to the participating tenants, there are two members of the Tenant Consultative Group that display characteristics associated with critical consciousness. Both take risks in respect of the questions they ask, such as the risk of looking foolish and the risk of engendering the wrath of those (the oppressors) who would rather certain lines of enquiry are not pursued. In addition, they both have a predisposition towards question-ing answers given, rather than acceptquestion-ing them at face value and, in so doing, engage in problem-posing dialogue. Furthermore, they are aware of the limits of what they do know and are humble in their dialogue with others, not arrogant, and demonstrate a sense of solidarity with—and commitment to—their fellow tenants. As a result, both understand the stock transfer issue at Riverside in its wider social and political context, and recognise the oppressive character of the landlord, in re-spect of its using the poor to subsidise the better-off and also in its attempts at obfuscat-ing this. Thus, they can see the world for what it is, name it as such and intervene in such ways as to challenge its oppressive character.
Most of the other active tenants display characteristics associated with naïve trans-itivity. There is a growing sense, amongst these tenants, of vulnerability on the part of the council and its agents and, with this, is a palpable sense of contempt for the oppressor. Nevertheless, there is also a tendency towards platitudes rather than critical enquiry, as well as emotional rebelliousness. Indeed, at various stages of the project some members of the group have gravitated towards one of
the local political parties, which has been campaigning against the stock transfer. Acting like vanguardists, this party has no tenant representation amongst its elected members, does not enter into dialogue with tenants regarding housing policy and has no policy details in respect of council housing. Moreover, many of its elected members used to be members of a ruling party and have in the past set budgets that approved the switch-ing of resources from council housswitch-ing into other service areas. Consequently, it offers council tenants in Riverside nothing by way of redressing the current injustice to which council tenants are subject. In spite of this, the emotionally rebellious public pro-nouncements of this party at times strike a chord with some of the tenant activists, particularly when there is frustration or dis-may with the actions of the council in relation to the stock transfer process, and a number of tenants have openly considered joining the party in its campaign against transfer. Irrational as this may seem in the context of Riverside, the scenario of tenants adopting a rejectionist position in respect of stock trans-fer proposals on the grounds of process as distinct from principle is not without prece-dent (Daly et al., 2005). Consequently, many of the participating tenants respond to the vulnerability of the landlord and its agents with emotive and irrational acts of rebellion (including, increasingly, verbal and personal abuse), rather than with rational, and digni-fi ed, epistemological curiosity.
informally regarding the proposed transfer, one tenant representative put it this way
None of them want to know. They all want to stay with the council. ‘Better the devil you know’, they all say (Danielle).
At a number of meetings that I have attended in different parts of the borough, particularly in relation to sheltered housing schemes for the elderly, the sense of mutism that I have encountered amongst many tenants has been striking. When they have spoken out, these tenants have often been keen to em-phasise that they have ‘never had any problem’ with the council and even those that have been less than satisfi ed use the phrase ‘better the devil you know’ in reference to the council as landlord. Several have expressed dismay at what they believe to be central government attempts at forcing councils to transfer their housing stock and, in doing so, echo the landlord’s message that it is an innocent victim of government policy. In addition, almost all of the older and disabled tenants have spoken in terms of the transfer being a fait accompli and refer to the proposed trans-fer in defi nitive terms—‘when it goes over to a housing association’. Several have prof-fered magical explanations for the transfer proposal (usually in the form of fanciful conspiracy theories surrounding who stands to benefi t from transfer or interpretations of articles in the local press) and many of the older, disabled tenants—aware of their own vulnerability, but not that of the oppressor— imply in their statements that they are ‘only’ tenants and therefore have limited powers of intervention.
However, in spite of the sense of powerless-ness and resignation that is commonplace amongst tenants in Riverside, it is notable that whenever tenant activists speak at open meetings and challenge some of the oversim-plifi cations around the stock transfer debate, there is a tendency for them to be listened to in a way that I—as a paid, professional tenant
adviser—am not. Whilst a number of tenants that I have encountered at such meetings have listened attentively to what I have to say, particularly in respect of the tenant narrative (and some of the current tenant activists were recruited to the Tenant Consultative Group as a result of attending such meetings), at least as many question my motives and ask who it is that is paying me for my services. Tenant activists, on the other hand, can in general command confi dence in their motives and integrity amongst other tenants and, on a number of occasions, their presentation of the tenant narrative to hitherto silent tenants has resulted in a degree of indignation at past and present injustices. In turn, this has led in some cases to a willingness amongst such tenants to take the fi rst steps towards critical engagement with the problematic world of housing stock transfer and, in so doing, rec-ognise and externalise the oppressor.
Conclusions
The evidence provided by the study at Riverside borough council suggests that a Freirean theoretical framework (and, in particular, Freire’s typologies of consciousness, includ-ing submerged consciousness and ‘adhesion to the oppressor’) can usefully contribute towards our understanding of tenant experi-ences of, and interventions in, housing stock transfers. A local authority is ostensibly working in ‘partnership’ with its tenants to reform a key welfare service, whilst at the same time, in a Freirean sense, oppressing its tenants, principally through its attempts at suppressing critical consciousness. As a result of its actions, the council elicits—and encounters—varying responses from its ten-ants, including submerged consciousness amongst those not directly involved in the stock transfer project and, amongst those tenants actively participating, both naïve transitivity and, in a few cases, critical consciousness. At the same time, a vanguardist (and oppor-tunist) political party is attracting support from amongst some tenants disaffected by the actions of the council due to its capacity and willingness to give voice to the emotional rebelliousness that some of these tenants are feeling. Consequently, at the time of writing, it seems fair to say that the risk-averse, anti-dialogical strategy of the landlord at Riverside aimed at promoting the stock transfer option appears to be counter-productive and thus— ironically—a risk.
There are a number of potential criticisms of the analysis offered in this paper. Perhaps most obviously, one might challenge the construction of a local authority landlord as an ‘oppressor’ and the binary oppressor– oppressed characterisation of the landlord– tenant relationship. Indeed, whilst attending and presenting at a staff conference during the study, I was struck by the sense of submerged consciousness amongst many of the council’s own staff, particularly those in manual and
low-paid jobs. It seemed that these staff had more in common with the tenants than they did their senior colleagues and elected council members. Consequently, in the case of the proposed stock transfer in Riverside, the op-pressors appear not so much to be the coun-cil per se but a bureaucratic élite consisting of politicians, senior council staff and agents.
In addition, one might argue that Freire’s typology of consciousness offers us nothing unique. After all, Lukes’ three-dimensional view of power allows for power as control of consciousness (Lukes, 1974/1983). However, unlike Lukes, Freire’s typology of consciousness allows for depth of understanding regarding the nature of the various states of conscious-ness, the relationships between them and the exercise of power, as well as the circumstances in which consciousness changes, including the development of critical consciousness (or ‘conscientisation’). They also help us to understand how consciousness (especially submerged consciousness) is not only infl u-enced by dominant narratives but mediates such narratives, resulting in different inter-ventions amongst those with, arguably, simi-lar interests. Furthermore, Freire’s concept of ‘adhesion to the oppressor’ provides us with a means of understanding seemingly irrational behaviour on the part of tenants involved in proposed housing stock transfers and, in doing so, provides us with a counterpoint to the increasing tendency to construct tenants in social housing as ‘rational consumers’ (Flint, 2003).
of the situation, in the sense that within Riverside much of the landlord–tenant strug-gle revolves around the overall aim of the project. Whereas the tenants want to see social justice at the heart of the stock transfer pro-posals (expressed through, for example, a minimal capital receipt for the council and, therefore, maximum resources for a new land-lord body to spend on services and amenities for its tenants), the council is looking to use the stock transfer project to reinforce existing power dynamics. This it is seeking to do by ensuring it receives a high capital receipt for investment in general fund service areas (its historical political imperative). Viewed this way, the stock transfer project in reality rep-resents a cosmetic change that seeks to con-solidate existing, underlying power dynamics within the community, rather than lead to a fundamental shift in this respect in favour of council tenants.
Finally, it could be argued that, in the context of stock transfer, the concept of sub-merged consciousness as outlined in this paper seeks to ‘have it both ways’, in the sense that tenants can be deemed to display char-acteristics associated with submerged con-sciousness both when voting for a transfer proposal (because, for example, they have internalised uncritically the landlord narrative around the necessity for change) and also when voting against a transfer (because they fear change—‘better the devil you know’). Notwithstanding the debate around the extent to which stock transfer represents change—and Pawson points out that, bearing in mind in most cases the staff do not change notably in the event of a stock transfer, in some respects the process can be caricatured as “simply involving a change in the offi ce nameplate and corporate logo” (Pawson, 2006, p. 774)—this argument misses the point: namely, that submerged conscious-ness is above all characterised by a lack of critical judgement which, depending upon the particular circumstances and individuals
concerned, can be expressed principally either by an uncritical internalisation of the landlord world-view (and a vote for transfer) or by an uncritical adhesion to the oppressor (and a vote for the status quo). The concept of submerged consciousness does, after all, allow for some degree of agency.
communities that places too much emphasis upon formal participatory rights, whilst over-looking (or treating only superfi cially) the pedagogic context necessary for such rights to have any real meaning for those expected to benefi t from the exercising of them.
In conclusion, several implications for fu-ture research fl ow logically from the fi ndings outlined in this paper. They include the fol-lowing. First, more research is needed into the subjective tenant experience relating to housing stock transfers, as this is an area largely overlooked in the literature on stock transfer. Amongst other things, such research could raise the profi le of the tenant voice in scholarly and practitioner debates concerning stock transfer and tenant participation. Secondly, some research into the perspectives of the commissioners and providers of ten-ant training in relation to how tenten-ants learn would be instructive. In particular, one might be able to deduce the extent to which, if at all, policy-makers and administrators within the fi eld of stock transfer are in possession of a theory of pedagogy. Thirdly, assuming that rational, informed consent is in reality the ob-jective of stock transfer consultation exercises, and also that Freire’s stages of consciousness do indeed have analytical value in a stock transfer context, some detailed research into the implications of the latter for stock transfer policy and practice—particularly in relation to those with a pedagogic role, such as com-munications consultants and independent tenant advisers—would be worthwhile.
Note
1. As at 1 March 2007, 1 052 315 local authority dwellings in England had been transferred into the registered social landlord sector in 251 separate ballots relating to 174 local au-thority areas. The majority of these transfers have been whole stock transfers, mainly in rural and suburban areas, in which local authorities have disposed of their entire housing stock to a housing association (or, since 1996, a
registered social landlord, or RSL). However, 106 transfers have been partial transfers, in which mainly urban authorities have transferred portions of their stock requiring major capital investment to RSLs (http://www.communities. gov.uk/pub/566/CompletedLSVTs_id1152566. xls; accessed 26 June 2007). As at 31 March 2007, 467 235 dwellings involved in 79 stock transfer ballots in England have been the sub-ject of negative ballot results. Of this fi gure, approximately 41 000 have subsequently been transferred following positive second ballots (DCLG, private correspondence).
References
Audit Commission/Housing Corporation (2001)
Group dynamics: group structures and registered social landlords. Audit Commission, London. Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A. and Sullivan,
H. (2003) Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation, Public Administration, 81(2), pp. 379–399.
Cairns, T. (2003) Citizenship and regeneration: participation or incorporation?, in: P. Coare and R. Johnston (Eds) Adult Learning, Citizenship and Community Voices: Exploring Community-based Practice, pp. 108–123. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Card, P. and Mudd, J. (2006) The role of housing
stock transfer organisations in neighbour-hood regeneration: exploring the relation-ship between regeneration, ‘new localism’ and social networks, Housing Studies, 21(2), pp. 253–267.
Clapham, D. (2006) Housing policy and the discourse of globalization, European Journal of Housing Policy, 6(1), pp. 55–76.
Cole, I. and Furbey, R. (1994) The Eclipse of Council Housing. London: Routledge.
Daly, G., Mooney, G., Poole, L. and Davis, H. (2005) Housing stock transfer in Birmingham and Glasgow: two contrasting experiences of two UK cities, European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(3), pp. 327–341.
Darcy, M. (2002) Community management: how management discourse killed participation,
Critical Quarterly, 4(4), pp. 32–39.
DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1999) National framework for tenant participation compacts. DETR, London. DETR and DSS (Department of Social Security)
(2000) Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All. London: HMSO.
DTLR (Department of Transport, Local Govern-ment and the Regions) (2001) Independent Tenant Advisers and Stock Transfer: A Good Practice Guide. London: The Stationery Offi ce. Flint, J. (2003) Housing and ethopolitics: con-structing identities of active consumption and responsible community, Economy and Society, 32(3), pp. 611–629.
Freire, P. (1970/1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
Freire, P. (1974/2005) Education for Critical Con-sciousness. London: Continuum Books. Freire, P. (1993/2005) Teachers as Cultural Workers:
Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Freire, P. (1998/2001) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld.
Fromm, E. (1942) The Fear of Freedom. London: Routledge.
Ginsburg, N. (2005) The privatization of coun-cil housing, Critical Social Policy, 25(1), pp. 115–135.
House of Commons Public Accounts Committe (2003) Fortieth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts: Improving Social Housing through Transfer. London: The Stationery Offi ce. Housing Corporation (2006) Tenant
empower-ment programme: guidance on tenant-led stock options (http://www.housingcorp.gov. uk/upload/pdf/TLSO_Guide.pdf; accessed 17 November 2006).
Inside Housing (2006) Associations triumphant as transfers hit one million, 3 November. Lukes, S. (1974/1983) Power: A Radical View.
London: Macmillan.
Malpass, P. (2001) The restructuring of social rented housing in Britain: de-municipaliza-tion and the rise of ‘registered social landlords’,
European Journal of Housing Policy, 1(1), pp. 1–16.
Malpass, P. and Mullins, D. (2002) Local authority housing stock transfer in the UK: from local initiative to national policy, Housing Studies, 17(4), pp. 673–686.
McCormack, J. (2008) Critical pedagogy, experi-ential learning and active citizenship: a Freirean perspective on tenant involvement in housing stock transfers, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(1), pp. 3–18.
Millward, L. (2005) ‘Just because we are amateurs doesn’t mean we aren’t professionals’: the im-portance of expert activists in tenant participa-tion, Public Administration, 83(3), pp. 735–751. Mooney, G. and Poole, L. (2005) Marginalised
voices: resisting the privatisation of council housing in Glasgow, Local Economy, 20(1), pp. 27–39.
Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (2006) Housing Policy in the UK. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Murie, A. and Nevin, B. (2001) New Labour transfers, in: D. Cowan and A. Marsh (Eds) Two Steps Forward: Housing Policy into the New Millennium, pp. 29–45. Bristol: Policy Press. ODPM (Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister)
(2003) Sustainable communities: building for the future. ODPM, London.
ODPM (2004) Housing transfer manual: 2005 programme. ODPM, London.
Pawson, H. (2006) Restructuring England’s social housing sector since 1989: undermining or underpinning the fundamentals of public housing?, Housing Studies, 21(5), pp. 767–783. Robbins, G. (2002) Taking stock: regeneration
programmes and social housing, Local Economy, 17(4), pp. 266–272.
Sprigings, N. (2002) Delivering public services under the new public management: the case of public housing, Public Money and Management, October/December, pp. 266–272.
Taylor, M. (1999) Unwrapping stock transfers: applying discourse analysis to landlord com-munication strategies, Urban Studies, 36(1), pp. 121–135.
