ABSTRACT
In the concluding chapters we hope to draw out some of the specific and broader themes associated with the concept of partnership, arising from both the case studies and the earlier chapters on theoretical explanations and the historical development of the idea. At best, the evaluation of something as complex as urban policy is an inexact science, and our approach has been to examine not just the outcomes in terms of jobs created, houses renovated or the number of training places provided. We are particularly concerned about the processes at the national and local levels that have given rise to coalition building, the way resources of all kinds have been deployed, and the extent to which the capacity of local communities to contribute to, and in some cases manage, regeneration programmes has been developed. Perhaps most important, we are explicitly adopting the position of Stone (1987; Stone et al. 1991) and Keating (1991), quoted in Chapter 2, who suggest that urban regimes are “constellations of public and private power within a structurally defined context…with the composition of each and the balance between (economic and political power) varying among cities” (Keating 1991:7-8). From this starting point it is necessary to examine empirically which interests are involved, how resources are allocated, which stakeholders are gaining and which losing, and whether outcomes suggest that the organization’s own objectives are being achieved.
