Evaluating inclusive policy: a comparative study of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Gothenburg

This research critically examines how inclusive policies are evaluated and to what extent these evaluations support goals of inclusion. Using a comparative case study of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Gothenburg, the study explores evaluation practices across three dimensions of policy success: process, programmatic and political success. It compares nine inclusive city initiatives based on 22 policy documents, 9 municipal website news, 17 open-ended interviews, 9 semi-structured interviews. While all three cities claim to pursue inclusive assessment, findings show that evaluations are often shaped by institutional and political agendas. In Antwerp, evaluations reflect multi-level governance and professional-led consultation; Rotterdam emphasizes performance and efficiency, often at the expense of deeper inclusion; and Gothenburg promotes participatory processes but faces challenges in translating them into institutional responsiveness. Institutional constraints, political priorities and methodological gaps continue to limit the potential of evaluation to promote inclusion. These findings highlight the need for more reflexive and inclusive evaluation frameworks to support the development of inclusive cities.