Every little hurts: Why partnering with chains will not work

This paper responds to 'From "chains" to partnerships? Supermarkets and regeneration' by Gareth Potts ([2a]Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 22–36). It argues that any analysis of the role of supermarkets in regeneration requires an understanding of the enormous institutional and corporate power of supermarkets, and the manner in which this power is exercised on the planning system and in regeneration projects. The paper presents evidence that the benefits from supermarket-led regeneration, such as through the Under-served Markets project, are overstated. In fact, this approach creates reverse multipliers sucking money out of local economies. Alternative approaches to regeneration centred on local distinctiveness such as street and farmers' markets and Local Food Webs deliver substantial benefits to the local economy and community. Drawing upon research from the US and the UK, the paper argues that the presence of a supermarket damages the small business sector, with serious consequences for entrepreneurialism, social capital and business leadership. It highlights the role of small shops in making and reinforcing social capital. The paper also examines Potts' proposal for a 'hybrid' model based on a partnership between a supermarket chain and community organisations and concludes that this approach has major flaws that undermine its usefulness.