https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0567-5683
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Inclusive growth is a label increasingly deployed as the uneven consequences of growth are brought sharply into view. Whilst numerous policy transfer agents are shaping policy diagnoses and suggesting indicator dashboards, conceptualisations of inclusive growth remain markedly varied. Proposing some foundations, this paper argues that capabilities enables a pluralistic and agent-centred view of place-based change to be developed. In order to apply this perspective to a particular policy context, the paper outlines steps to develop an inclusive growth framework – taking the starting perspective of an ‘evaluability assessment' – to inform the monitoring and evaluation of a large urban infrastructure project. Questions about the benefits that existing communities may experience from the development come to the fore in this framing.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted for an independent Commission which provides inputs to the Glasgow city-region Cabinet, the governing body of the Glasgow city-region City Deal (as referred to in this paper). Aspects of this research have been communicated to policymakers (for their consideration). The first author of this paper provides research support to the Commission, though is not a Commissioner. Commission activities receive resource from the City-region Programme Management Office. We are very grateful for the logistical support provided by Catherine Tabbner in developing this research. For comments on the research and resulting paper we would like to thank: Prof Ken Gibb, Prof Alan McGregor, Prof Duncan Maclennan and other colleagues on the Commission and in Policy Scotland; attendees at a seminar at CURDS at Newcastle University (particularly Prof Danny MacKinnon and Prof Andy Pike); attendees at a conference session on inclusive growth at the AAG in New Orleans. We would also like to acknowledge and thank the numerous policy officials who have engaged with the authors on the broad issue of inclusive growth. The paper reflects the views of the authors only.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 There is an ambiguous relationship between growth and poverty reduction, in other words.
2 Composite indicators mesh a number of indicators into a single indicator; for example, the ‘genuine progress indicator’ (Lawn, Citation2003) and ‘multiple dimensional living standards’ (OECD, Citation2016a)
3 Dashboards provides a suite of indicators, populating a set of relevant categories. The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (Citation2009) remarked on the merits and challenges of both composite indicators and dashboards, citing parsimony, challenges with weightings and normative underpinnings (also see Felice, Citation2016).
6 See, for example – European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/index_en.html;
12 ‘Mid market rent properties have a monthly cost that is lower than the normal market’ - https://linkhousing.org.uk/find-a-home/renting-options/mid-market-rent/
14 https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=P62AFQDNT1DNT1ZL81
15 Of this £1.13 billion, the Scottish Government provides £500 million; the UK Government, £500 million; with the remainder provided by local authorities.
16 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.
18 https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=P62AFQDN2U0GDXDX0G