The aim of this publication is to identify key points about practice, principles and policy on community development and social exclusion that are shared within the European context. It would, however, be surprising, even strange, if there was always agreement. That would suggest superficiality. Not only are the situations very different across Europe but they also represent different and sometimes contrasting approaches to community development. Thus, while we are looking for what is held in common with regard to principles, we are also alert to differences that reflect the unique political, social and cultural experiences of communities across Europe. We will indicate where there are differences in the following discussion of principles.

Equally important is the need to avoid presenting community development as a panacea. The commitment to be found among those people involved in community development, as well as its idealistic, principled language, make it vulnerable to this tendency. Our concern is to examine the particular contribution of community development to tackling social exclusion. Community development, however, is only one of a number of interventions and methods that are required to make an impact on social exclusion. This point is made by two researchers who refer to the ‘fishing trips problem’, the fact that many of the activities of community groups are small-scale and appear to have little chance of supporting the more ambitious claims of community development: “small community groups cannot, by themselves, combat the effects of exclusionary forces like poverty, polarization and depopulation. A fishing trip is just a fishing trip” (Richardson and Mumford, 2002, p 225). The researchers, however, do set out ways whereby community groups can contribute to tackling such forces, concluding that:

• • Even where problems are too big for community action to tackle alone, community support can help protect other investments (by local and central government for example). Indeed, without it, these investments may be wasted.

• • Service-providers, especially in deprived neighbourhoods, should recognise that residents can help them provide stronger management of neighbourhoods and should enforce controls on behaviour open to them.

• • Volunteers and community representatives should be recognised and supported.

• • We need to develop new and better ways of measuring the impacts of community activity. (Richardson and Mumford, 2002, p 225)