A major justification for urban regeneration partnerships (URPs) is that they provide synergistic benefits for their participants. Some argue that the major beneficiaries will be private-sector agencies. This proposition is examined in the light of evidence from a survey of property-related agencies. The opinions of developers and property consultants on the success of the partnership process in regeneration schemes with a significant property redevelopment component are examined. Many were found to have concerns about the URP model, centring on governance structures, decision-making, cost implications and time-frames. This suggests that synergy benefits may not actually exist. It is concluded that management and decision-making structures in partnerships need to be of greater concern in policy debate than is currently the case.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K. (1962) The economic implications of learning-by-doing , Review of Economic Studies, 1962(2), pp. 155-173.
2.
Atkinson, R. (1997) The new urban governance and urban regeneration: managing community participation. Paper presented to the European Urban Research Association Seminar, Governing Cities: International Perspectives, Brussels.
3.
Audit Commission (1989) Urban Regeneration and Economic Development: The Local Government Dimension. London: HMSO.
4.
Ball, M. (2002) Cultural explanations of regional property markets: a critique, UrbanStudies, 39, pp.1453-1469.
5.
Ball, M. (2003) Markets and the structure of the housebuilding industry: an international perspective, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 897-916.
6.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000) Building partnerships: case studies of client-contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 18, pp.819-832.
7.
Detr (Department Of Environment, Transport And The Regions) (2000) Joining it Up Locally: Report of Policy Action Team 17. London: DETR.
8.
DoE (Department Of The Environment) (1995) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: A Guide for Practitioners . London: DoE.
9.
DoE (Department Of The Environment) (1997) Partnerships for Effective Regeneration. London : DoE.
10.
Dtlr/Jsspinnacle (1998) Partnership: a working definition, Working Paper I, DTLR/JSSPinnacle Partnership Series . London: DETR.
11.
Foley, P. and Martin, S. (2000) A new deal for the community? Public participation in regeneration and local service delivery, Policy and Politics , 28(4), pp. 479-491.
12.
Gla (Greater London Authority) (2002) Future housing provision: speeding up delivery. SDS Technical Report 2. London: Greater London Authority .
13.
Guy, S. and Henneberry, J. (2000) Understanding urban development processes: integrating the economic and the social in property research, UrbanStudies , 37, pp. 2399-2416.
14.
Guy, S., Henneberry, J. and Rowley, S. (2002) Development cultures and urban regeneration, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 1181-1196.
15.
Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the process of 'partnership' in urban regeneration policy, Urban Studies, 33, pp. 253-268.
16.
Hastings, A. (1999) Analysing power relations in partnerships: is there a role for discourse analysis ?, UrbanStudies, 36, pp. 91-106.
17.
Lgmb (Local Government Management Board) ( 1994) Partnerships in Action. London: LGMB.
18.
Mackintosh, M. (1992) Partnership: issues of policy and negotiation, Local Economy, 7, pp. 210-224.
19.
Mayo, M. (1997) Partnerships for regeneration and community development: some opportunities, challenges and constraints, Critical Social Policy, 17, pp. 3-26.
20.
McArthur, A. (1995) The active involvement of local residents in strategic community partnerships, Policy and Politics, 31, pp. 61-71.
21.
McGreal, S., Adair, A., Berry, J. ET Al. (2000) Accessing private sector finance in urban regeneration: investor and non-investor perspectives , Journal of Property Research, 17, pp.109-131.
Seu (SocIal Exclusion Unit) (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal . London: SEU.
24.
SEU (2001a) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Report. London: SEU.
25.
SEU (2001b) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan. London: SEU.
26.
Smith, M. and Beazley, M. (2001) The community decides? Continuity and change in the involvement of communities in regeneration, Area-based Initiatives in Contemporary Urban Policy. Danish Building and Urban Research and European Urban Research Association Conference, Copenhagen.
27.
Yin, R. ( 1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
