2.4.5. Participation in decision making structures

Where there are formal ‘partnership’ structures the private sector is often be represented e.g. “the neighbourhood fund jury” (Berlin); “representatives in the Kvarterløft board” (Copenhagen), “… in form of public (social) committees under the Vilnius Municipality. Members of public committees are representatives of leading organisations and companies (both state and private). (Vilnius);”Owners and the local economy are being represented in the advisory board.”(Hamburg) “Local businesses on the board of GI. Particularly important when GI had a grants and loans scheme for helping business as part of their business development programme” (Glasgow) “the chamber of commerce and the chamber of trade are represented, which represent the interests of the local economy” (Hamburg).

These are all examples of where the private sector benefits directly from its involvement in decision making structures. The sector is less interested in decision making structures where it does not see a direct benefit. “The SIP [Social Inclusion Partnership] is required to involve someone from the commercial sector on their board. Their role has never been clear, and they are a ‘sleeping partner’” (Glasgow). “The main focus of local businessmen are the instant improvements in the business environment. There is a restraint to waste valuable time in endless discussions about the vague strategy for an area” (Berlin) “Commercial sector often regards strategic planning as a talking shop. What’s in it for them? They do not necessarily have a long term commitment to people or place. Experience with local business people on GI board shows that they are interested if strategic planning is about business development – removing the obstacles, help with recruitment, skill training (Glasgow)

This reinforces evidence from other research carried out into partnerships which indicates that “Business partners have little patience with ‘talking shops’, and can find the processes of consultation and decision making tedious and non-productive. Many are not interested in discussing the operational or detailed expenditure aspects of regeneration programmes, preferring to give their time to strategic development issues”[1]

Not everyone thinks that the private sector should be closely involved in strategic decisions. “...there is a conflict of interests. On the one hand the neighbourhood development should be decided by democratic and participatory procedures without the dominance of profit interests, on the other hand you need to involve the private sector to kick-off and sustain the regeneration of an area” (Berlin)

There are mixed messages about how far the private sector wishes to get involved in the overall strategy as compared to the individual projects. In some cities the private sector is involved “…in the preparation of strategic plans of city’s development; …in the decision making.” (Vilnius). In others “... the private sector protagonists that had some influence on decision-making were the owners, shop owners, other private investors and the residents. Their sphere of influence stopped on individual level and remained on individual projects. The latter were discussed with them, and their opinions were taken into consideration, specially the residents’ wishes. The owners didn’t have many options if they wanted to participate in the project. The municipality assumed global responsibility and conducted the whole process.” (Lisbon) 

In a less structured way the private sector is part of the participation process, although it is likely to be “underrepresented.”[2] This partially depends on how far the strategy deals with the development of the commercial sector “In the renewal concept all targets for example commercial promotion are being defined. The draft is being presented and discussed publicly. The businesses can exert direct influence on the concept.” (Hamburg) “The private sector is mainly involved in strategic planning through Public Consultation exercises” (Malta)  

“The residents, as the main beneficiaries had more influence than the owners of houses on the refurbishment projects. Nevertheless the owners were consulted. Shop owners had ample influence on the fittings and interior design of their shop while bearing the costs. Nevertheless, regarding the kind of activity and business, owners were ask to comply with the general strategy of economic renewal through tourism. Nobody of those actors had significant influence in general planning and creating future visions of the neighbourhood.” (Lisbon)