418
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REVIEW
The task of regeneration in the European city can only be a piecemeal
response to a much larger spatial re-configuration of urban space that is
determined by the global circulation of capital. The real money is beyond the
control of the local partners - the local state, its agencies and the local
commercial sector. Power ultimately resides where the money is, and
accessing that money is a difficult task for the urban regime. The creation of
local level partnership arrangements allows the central state to off-load some
of its responsibility for social provision to the community. However reflexive,
open and responsive these local arrangements are, it continues to be
structural forces working in global space and mediated by local political forces
that ultimately drive forward urban regeneration.
Partnership at the neighbourhood level remains, in practice, highly
aspirational. Under the rubric of partnership, cities, neighbourhoods and
regeneration programmes deploy a range of strategies as they seek to address
individual and collective interests. There is little consensus about the meaning
of the term partnership, not all partners in the locality can be successfully
mobilised, and community participation in partnership varies from one
context to the next. As Geddes suggests, there is no one partnership template
but a variety of “partnership regimes” (2000, p. 789). Despite the high priority
accorded to the mobilisation of the private sector in the interests of urban
regeneration, there is little evidence of success on the ground. In fact, Dublin
stands out among the eight cities studied, largely because of the muncipality’s
unusual capacity to offer direct benefits to commercial developers (through tax
incentives) and to the community (through community gain).
Methodologies for embracing community partners tend to appeal to
citizens who are already politically engaged in the neighbourhood, i.e. those
who are rich in social capital. This can result in the reliance through
consultative instruments on semi-professional resident representatives whose
views and interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the communities
they purport to represent. Local public-private partnerships - in all their
different manifestations - do not though constitute an apparatus of social
control. Rather, they tend toward a more subtle social incorporation by
bringing the community’s interests more into line with those of other
stakeholders and the private sector.
Locally embedded regeneration agencies that act as mediators between
the municipality and the target neighbourhoods generally have greater
flexibility for action than the more cumbersome local authority institutions.
They also have greater potential to be more creative (and successful) in terms
of their methodologies for community participation. This was especially the
case in Copenhagen and Berlin. However, the Integrated Area Planning
strategy pursued by Dublin (and now being adapted by other cities such as
Valletta) are achieving some success in pursuing a de-centralised approach to