4. Participation and the Socio-Political Foundations of the Management of Urban Redevelopments

Can the participation of civil society actors improve the planning and management of re-development and regeneration schemes? Can such participation mobilise social capital in ways that complement the provision of political and financial capital to achieve successful outcomes? Or does more civil society participation impede the management and implementation of complex schemes? Before tackling these questions, they have to be contextualised in the much broader socio-political shifts in the triangular interaction of the state, business, and civil societies. Traditional centralised decision making and implementation of urban and local economic planning are being replaced by new schemes of governance spreading from the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ societies of North American and the United Kingdom through Western Europe. It could even be claimed that, in some domains, governance through polyarchy is supplanting either the monopolistic authority of state and local government or, in other cases, narrower, ‘corporatist’/social partnership triads of government, business, and trade unions. The EU is in the process of adding ‘civic partners’ to its conventional reliance upon governance through the social partners of labour and capital (Frazer, 2005). Business involvement in redevelopment is not new but now its role is changing; from that of contractor or adviser to more active funding, planning, and management of schemes. Such business involvement has a much longer pedigree in the United States (Reushcke, 2004). However, since its adoption by the neo-liberal, Thatcherite and ‘third way’, New Labour governments in Britain, it has been augmented by policies for inclusion of ‘communities’ and civil society associations to help reverse the decline of both urban economies and social vitality. A pragmatic, efficient case for the direct involvement of business in financing or management of redevelopment schemes can easily be made. However, the participation of community and civil society groups is more difficult to define and justify.