Introduction

This chapter focuses on who chooses and who defines the indicators to be used in assessing the success of urban regeneration programmes, including the measurement of resident ‘participation’.

It is universally acknowledged that ‘progress’ should be measured over the life of any urban regeneration programme. This is significant to all investors in managing the process, from public, private and voluntary sectors, to the local authority, to the government departments responsible for maximising the costeffectiveness of interventions of this kind and most significantly to those living in the area. Relevant and practicable indicators of progress must therefore be identified at the outset and their values monitored as the programme unfolds.

But at this point, the universality evaporates, or is at least undermined. What is ‘progress’ in this or any other context? Even more important, who or which interests are to define it? This question is key because it is a short and almost automatic step from claiming the power to define progress to specifying the indicators to be used to measure this particular version of ‘progress’.

It follows that indicators, far from being boring, self-evident things, are in fact highly contestable in that they are implicit statements of political preferences. Those who specify them ‘from above’, and expect no challenge, act disingenuously. Those involved in regeneration who allow them to pass unchallenged miss the opportunity to take part in any debate about what constitutes ‘progress’. This is potentially disabling – especially for resident participants in the process.

This point is exemplified by the use of rising property prices and rents as indicators of ‘progress’ in a regeneration area. Such trends suit particular interests – notably those of existing owner-occupiers in or near the area and development companies who may wish to invest in the area as a speculation on rising future property and land prices. But there is a conflict of interest. Rising property prices and rents do not suit the interests of those currently in the area who may aspire to home ownership. It may ‘price them out’. To adopt this variable as an indicator of ‘progress’ implicitly prioritises the interests of one group over the other.