In the 1990s, mode of governance in the United Kingdom began to change. Greater emphasis was placed on partnerships between government and society in which more responsibilities were put on individuals and communities. 

More attention, therefore, was drawn to roles of the community in processes associated with urban renewal and neighborhood regeneration. Power must be shared with communities so as to play their roles well. The government usually devolves certain power to communities so that they can participate in the process of addressing their local affairs. Some scholars have identified three benefits of community empowerment for public governance. First, community empowerment is more creative. Residents can come up with creative solutions to local problems. Second, it is more effective. Residents tend to engage with local affairs more actively. Third, it is more democratic. Residents’ involvement with national affairs can be increased by their engagement with local affairs. Consequently, community empowerment is often perceived as a prerequisite for the success of urban renewal and neighborhood regeneration.

Authors of this article conducted research on the Clydemount estate in the United Kingdom for seven years. Researchers analyzed interactions among three main actors in the process of its neighborhood regeneration: 1) the Housing Association, 2) Tenants Organization, and 3) local residents. A key finding is that the phrase of “community empowerment”, despite being highly esteemed in policies, was often misused in practice. The empowerment was claimed on paper but did not turn into reality. Informed by this finding, authors raised a key question: Whose purpose does the policy goal of community empowerment serve?

The three conclusions of this article are also of great value. First, community empowerment may not be guaranteed when the strategic objectives of entire city come into conflict with the best interests of a community, even though such interests are generally regarded as central to neighborhood regeneration. Second, the claimed community empowerment may not be realized due to the common practices of ‘paying more attention to planning but not implementation”. Third, people tend to focus much on whether a policy includes certain procedure for community empowerment but lack due consideration of its applicability to the community as well as the community’s feedbacks on its empowerment.

In the Chinese context, community empowerment does not weaken the government’s management of local communities. It helps local communities not only to better carry out their responsibilities as shared by the government, but also to protect their interests more effectively. Community empowerment, therefore, should not be a popular idea on paper alone. It should become a concept of governance in practice. In addition, a mechanism for feedbacks on community empowerment should be further developed so that the voice of the community can be heard indeed. Otherwise, community empowerment will not match the best interests of the community, nor will it be implemented effectively.