ABSTRACT
To recap, the economic rationale behind regeneration is for a redistribution of income within the city via a combination of ‘trickledown’ and the multiplier effect. The assumption, for there is little actual evidence of its effectiveness, is that increased revenue from visitor spending and investment will do two things. First, it will trickle-down into the pockets of the most disadvantaged through the creation of jobs servicing visitors and incoming investors (Hambleton 1995a). Second, it is assumed that this revenue will have a positive, knock-on effect as it spreads through the local economy through increased consumer spending. These assumed economic mechanisms are held up as justification of the claims of urban regeneration. However, this rhetoric, and the inherent assumptions, ignore a number of critical issues. Perhaps most importantly they ignore the compelling evidence against the effectiveness of the trickle-down and multiplier mechanisms. Further, they ignore the wide-ranging negative impacts that projects of urban regeneration can have on the local economy and upon certain groups within it. Clearly in any genuine evaluation of the impacts and effectiveness of urban regeneration, rational debate needs to replace the rhetoric that has been characteristic.
