By Bart
Xia’s apt analogy of cities as having “two faces” captures the paradox of urban areas as both engines of economic growth and sites of extreme inequality and exclusion. While I think the three factors she mentions as drivers of expert-led development machines are important, I think there’s also a larger issue of a failure of political imaginary that constrains actions to a narrow window of what’s considered realistic, and in light of this we should perhaps reevaluate Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation.
Raco and Mike (2016) draws on a diverse group of political theorists including Jacques Ranciere, James Ferguson, Bruno Latour, and Erik Swyngedouw who have all articulated a similar critique of of contemporary governance as anti-political or “post-political” in the case of Swyngedouw (2009). The premise of such critiques is that governance and decision making has been stripped of the political—the larger ideological agonistic conflicts and movements of the past—and reduced to managerial politics centered on problem solving, a realm wherein experts (namely economists) have excess influence. As Swyngedouw describes it, “the consolidation of an urban postpolitical condition runs… parallel to the formation of a postdemocratic arrangement that has replaced debate, disagreement and dissensus with a series of technologies of governing that fuse around consensus, agreement, accountancy metrics and technocratic environmental management.”
This techno-managerial urban governance arrangement is linked to the rise of neoliberalism. According to Blyth (2002), the left (specifically in the American and British political systems) failed to offer a significant ideological alternative to a resurgence in what Polanyi (2001) called “disembedded liberalism.” Blyth notes that “the heirs of embedded liberalism, singularly failed to deploy any ideas to defend their legacy. By accepting the ideas of business that deficits caused inflation and taxation retarded growth, the Democrats found themselves devoid of any weapons to contest institutional changes.”
The resulting Third Way politics is one that allows for debate, but within a narrow window of what is considered realistic. Deliberation is not only tolerated, but celebrated as evidence of democratic inclusion, but deliberation stays within the confines of pre-determined conceptual discourse of the city as what Logan and Molotch (1987) refer to as a “growth machine,” wherein the ultimate goal is increased economic productivity.
Raco and Mike (2016) conclude on a slightly hopeful note by suggesting the Southbank case study can be seen as part of a local politics in which there is an accumulation of memories concerning changes” that could provide a way forward for collective opposition that “seeks to break free of the restrictive, institutionalized forms of ‘legitimate’ resistance set out in localist planning arrangements.” Such memories and collective opposition might be accelerated by the transnational global-local networks described by Sassen (2004) that allow for collaborative knowledge sharing and organizing.
While this might be cause for optimism on the future of urban politics, the present situation of managerialism should lead us to rethink Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation and consider the limitations of participation as a procedure. I would argue that the obstacle to achieving David Harvey’s “Right to the City” is not only a lack of participation, but a failure to provide citizens with the ideas and legitimacy to contest the rules of the game.
Outside References
SWYNGEDOUW, ERIK (2009), “The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production”
Polanyi, Karl (2001). The Great Transformation
Blyth, Mark (2002). Great Transformations
Xia’s apt analogy of cities as having “two faces” captures the paradox of urban areas as both engines of economic growth and sites of extreme inequality and exclusion. While I think the three factors she mentions as drivers of expert-led development machines are important, I think there’s also a larger issue of a failure of political imaginary that constrains actions to a narrow window of what’s considered realistic, and in light of this we should perhaps reevaluate Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation.
Raco and Mike (2016) draws on a diverse group of political theorists including Jacques Ranciere, James Ferguson, Bruno Latour, and Erik Swyngedouw who have all articulated a similar critique of of contemporary governance as anti-political or “post-political” in the case of Swyngedouw (2009). The premise of such critiques is that governance and decision making has been stripped of the political—the larger ideological agonistic conflicts and movements of the past—and reduced to managerial politics centered on problem solving, a realm wherein experts (namely economists) have excess influence. As Swyngedouw describes it, “the consolidation of an urban postpolitical condition runs… parallel to the formation of a postdemocratic arrangement that has replaced debate, disagreement and dissensus with a series of technologies of governing that fuse around consensus, agreement, accountancy metrics and technocratic environmental management.”
This techno-managerial urban governance arrangement is linked to the rise of neoliberalism. According to Blyth (2002), the left (specifically in the American and British political systems) failed to offer a significant ideological alternative to a resurgence in what Polanyi (2001) called “disembedded liberalism.” Blyth notes that “the heirs of embedded liberalism, singularly failed to deploy any ideas to defend their legacy. By accepting the ideas of business that deficits caused inflation and taxation retarded growth, the Democrats found themselves devoid of any weapons to contest institutional changes.”
The resulting Third Way politics is one that allows for debate, but within a narrow window of what is considered realistic. Deliberation is not only tolerated, but celebrated as evidence of democratic inclusion, but deliberation stays within the confines of pre-determined conceptual discourse of the city as what Logan and Molotch (1987) refer to as a “growth machine,” wherein the ultimate goal is increased economic productivity.
Raco and Mike (2016) conclude on a slightly hopeful note by suggesting the Southbank case study can be seen as part of a local politics in which there is an accumulation of memories concerning changes” that could provide a way forward for collective opposition that “seeks to break free of the restrictive, institutionalized forms of ‘legitimate’ resistance set out in localist planning arrangements.” Such memories and collective opposition might be accelerated by the transnational global-local networks described by Sassen (2004) that allow for collaborative knowledge sharing and organizing.
While this might be cause for optimism on the future of urban politics, the present situation of managerialism should lead us to rethink Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation and consider the limitations of participation as a procedure. I would argue that the obstacle to achieving David Harvey’s “Right to the City” is not only a lack of participation, but a failure to provide citizens with the ideas and legitimacy to contest the rules of the game.
Outside References
SWYNGEDOUW, ERIK (2009), “The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production”
Polanyi, Karl (2001). The Great Transformation
Blyth, Mark (2002). Great Transformations