Urban Regeneration's Poisoned Chalice: Is There an Impasse in (Community) Participation-based Policy?

Abstract

The meteoric rise of 'participation' in urban policy is premised upon the supposed benefits it brings in terms of added project 'efficiency', 'sustainability' and even 'empowerment' of participants. Yet, even as participation appears to reach its very zenith, it comes under heightened criticism from a growing chorus of observers. Some critics have suggested, for example, that 'participation', and contemporary urban regeneration's preferred institutional vehicle for it, 'partnership', can have a capacity for tyrannical decision-making. The article draws upon a diverse range of literature, including the rich experience of almost 20 years of 'participation' in the 'developing world', as well as the findings of a research project looking at a major regeneration programme on Merseyside, in order to highlight the multifaceted problems of—and possibilities for-participation. Ultimately, whether participation can alter social stratification within communities is unclear, it may even (re)produce inequalities. The difficulties should not mean that the participatory project is jettisoned. Rather, the article is a call for a research and policy debate characterised by a greater degree of honesty and maturity concerning participation.