urban regeneration in deprived european neighbourhoods 403
III PARTNERSHIP AT CITY LEVEL
Historically, European cities developed an urban regime that mediated
between particular economic interests and the interest of the city as a whole,
(Hussermann and Haila, 2005, p. 59). Citizens and decision makers felt social
responsibilities and developed programmes for social housing, public health,
poverty alleviation and public education. Indeed, municipalities frequently
offered programmes of public assistance before they were made available
through the central state. The role of the urban regime, however, has been
dramatically reshaped in the post-Fordist era. Since the 1980s a major spatial
shift has occurred which has resulted in cities, or metropolitan economies
emerging as the key foci of economic development strategies. As Jessop points
out “... there have been major shifts in cities’ roles as subjects, sites and stakes
in economic restructuring and securing structural competitiveness”, (1997,
p. 28). These shifts are reflected in the new focus on the “entrepreneurial city”
at regional and local level. Indeed, the idea of the entrepreneurial city has
been embedded in public narratives about the city and has emerged as the
dominant response to urban problems (Jessop, 1997, p. 31). The entre-
preneurial city promotes economic development aimed at counteracting the
deleterious effects of de-industrialisation on the one hand, and at creating new
forms of employment and new sites for consumption on the other. The city, in
other words, makes a virtue of devising strategies aimed at improving its
economic competitiveness. Urban entrepreneurialism is pursued in a variety
of ways but most notably, in European and North American cities, through the
creation of “fantasy” projects, flagship grands projets culturels, and business/
cultural incubation quarters, (Hannigan, 2004).
Cities increasingly have developed urban locational policies and compete
with each other on the international stage for inward investment. Mayer
argues that these developments are a response to changes in capital mobility
and shifts in the technological and social organisation of production, which
make it increasingly impossible for the state to retain an organisation/co-
ordination role, (1995, p. 232). The economic imperative has come to dominate
the urban regime, and in the process the sphere of local political action has
been expanded to include not just the local authority but a range of private
and semi- public actors.
“The rise of local partnerships seems to demonstrate that neither the
market, nor the state, nor civil society alone, are capable of dealing with the
complex problems of both economic growth and the accompanying social
dislocations which cut across the boundaries and responsibilities of institu-
tional structures” (Geddes and Le Gales, 2001, p. 253). Mayer suggests that
the actions of local authorities in response to the changing dynamics between
the national and local state, have gradually consolidated into an economic