Supermarkets are a major threat to the objectives of our campaign (to keep our area of South Manchester interesting and unique, with a diverse range of vibrant, locally owned, small shops and businesses).  We worried that the City Council's development policy continues to encourage the rampant spread of super-market development (such as in the Chorlton Precinct).  We argue that development should not be dominated by the supermarkets, and that it should instead ensure that a vibrant and competitive market of independent retailers be allowed to prosper.  To quote the New Economics Foundation: "We can choose to take action that will lead to thriving, diverse, resilient local economies across the UK; or, we can do nothing and condemn ourselves to bland identikit towns dominated by a few bloated retail behemoths".

A common argument used to justify supermarkets is that people in areas without a supermarket will leave that area to shop elsewhere.  In the jargon, this is referred to as leakage.  Manchester City Council's perspective on development draws heavily on the notion of leakage as it is set out in GVA Grimley's 2006 Quantiative Retail Needs Assessment.  KCI are concerned that this study - and the leakage arugment it is based upon - doesn't tell the whole story.  Although we think that the study provides an important contribution to the debate, we urge people to interpret the evidence carefully.  This page explains some of our concerns.

1. Our first concern is that the study is inherently supermarket biased.  The method that is used is really designed to decide where to locate supermarkets.  It doesn't allow for the possibility that local independent stores (rather than national chains) could absorb the 'spare capacity' that has been identified.  It is little wonder, then, that the study identifies the need for a supermarket in Chorlton.  Critically, the study doesn't offer any advice on how to balance the trade-off between chains vs independents.
2. We worry that the study aims for 100% retention: this would be bad news.  As a driver of regional economic growth, Manchester has an obligation to nurture a symbiotic relationship with neighbouring economies rather than a competitive stance.  The cooperative approach is a vital component of a sustainable community.
3. Similarly the study ignores the potential attraction of trade to Chorlton.  People who work in Manchester but live elsewhere were not consulted.  It should be apparent to the reader that, if money can leak out from local residents to businesses outside the area then money can also be attracted in from residents outside the area to businesses within it.  We're convinced that the popularity of Chorlton's independent retailers is widespread enough that this counter-balance should not be ignored.
4. The study doesn't consider two other factors common to the jargon: displacement and multipliers.  Displacement happens when one trader forces another to close without bringing any additional benefits (this policy underpins many national chains who operate stores at a loss for a time in order to get rid of the competition).  The displacement effect is bad for the local economy.  New supermarkets are far more likely to displace trade than new independents (they have more market power and cover a wider range of products).  The multiplier is the name given to the process that happens when money circulates around the economy: you spend money in the shop, the shop-keeper takes this money andd then spends it in another shop, and so on.  The multplier effect is good for the local economy.   Supermarkets (and chains more broadly) tend to remove profit from the local to the (Inter)National-level, independent and locally-owned stores, by contras, are more likely to retain and recirculate money.
5. Furthermore, we have concerns about the fieldwork not being representative of the people in South Manchester: the study acknowledges that it didn't include after-work/ lunch-time trade nor students in the consultation.  We're also concerned that the research is out of date: since the study was conducted 4  yearsago we've seen a new Tesco built in Stretford and a global economic downturn (contrary to the study's explicit assumption of expenditure growth).

We'd love to know what you think.  Please use the comments section below or contact us here.

NB: While every care has been taken to ensure accuracy, we realise that there may be details about the study and/ or the Council's interpretation of which weren't not aware.  If you've any concerns please get in touch.