ABSTRACT
A major difference between these programmes and those of the 1980s is that they were aimed at creating more sustainable forms of regeneration. First, they aimed to be catalysts that created new structures and practices which might be replicated elsewhere. Second, the institutional capacity, formed by the programmes, the structures, partnerships and arrangements that they generated, was as important as the actual material outcomes of the policies. It was this capacity, once created, that was deemed likely to sustain regeneration into the future. A further aim, especially of City Challenge, was to change the way local government operated, making it less bureaucratic and more responsive to both the market and to the needs of its local community (Davoudi 1995: 333-4). Despite these qualitative aims both City Challenge and SRB contained a number of quantitative economic and environmental aims.
