Local Governance and Participation under Neoliberalism: Comparative Perspectives

Abstract

Two broad and interlinking themes have dominated much of the recent literature on local governance1 and participation: the dynamics, spatialities and temporalities of the ‘neoliberalization’ of local governance; and the relationship between local governance and democracy, especially the ‘meanings, potentials and pitfalls of “participation” ’ (Melo and Baiocchi, 2006: 596). Taking the latter first, Beaumont and Nicholls (2008) in identifying new research issues emerging from a symposium have highlighted a range of questions: frictions between representative and participative local democracy; distinctions and overlaps between participation, democratization and social movements in cities; and the tools for deepening democratic engagement with impoverished and marginalized communities in cities of the global North and South. Purcell (2007) argues that there is a need for more and more sustained work on the political as well as the economic dynamics of city regions, and that this means engaging with questions of democracy as well as of citizenship. Melo and Baiocchi suggest there are two key questions: whether deliberative, ‘horizontal’ governance structures favour middle-class and elite interests; and what are the conditions under which participatory arrangements can be both democratic and governance-enhancing. A related issue is the potentially problematic power relationship between elite forms of local governance — for example the influence of unelected local notables in institutions such as local partnerships — and participatory practices (Geddes, 2006). The abundant literature on decentralization initiatives in many Southern states frequently questions the extent to which such initiatives have been able to embed effective and democratically accountable institutions at the subnational level (Stren, 2004; Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). These issues of the politics of local governance — the interplay of participation and partnership, social movements and the representative democracy of political parties and leaders — are central to this symposium. Many, if not all, of the contributors to the above debates position issues of democracy and participation in the context of processes of neoliberalization, and the ‘market democracy’ or ‘market citizenship’ associated with neoliberalism (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). The concept of neoliberalism is complex, diverse and contested, and works on a number of levels. These range from institutionalized cognitive principles —‘a deep, taken-for-granted belief in neoclassical economics’, through consequent normative principles favouring free market solutions to economic problems, to a set of policies implemented during the 1980s and 1990s to promote a lean welfare state, low taxation and flexible labour markets (Dumenil and Levy, 2001: 5). In an important recent contribution, Harvey (2005: 19) argues that neoliberalism should not be understood as a bundle of characteristics, but as a political project, a process of neoliberalization ‘to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites’, and specifically to disembed capital from the constraints of the ‘embedded liberalism’ of social democracy and the Keynesian welfare state (ibid.: 11). When theoretical neoliberal principles clash with the need to restore or sustain capitalist class power, or when such principles lead to tensions and contradictions, ‘then the principles are either abandoned or become so twisted as to be unrecognisable’ (ibid.: 19). He cites the rhetorical commitment of neoconservatives to democracy as an example. Harvey reflects on the important role of urban crisis — such as the New York fiscal crisis of the 1970s — in paving the way for neoliberalism, and also points to neoliberal forms of elite, closed governance such as partnership, which circumscribe both ‘old’ representative and ‘new’ participatory democratic processes (Fuller and Geddes, 2008). In this vein, other key contributions have resonated widely in the recent literature. Jessop (2002: 466) noted how key global neoliberal strategies envisage a growing ‘role for cities in managing the interface between the local economy and global flows, between the potentially conflicting demands of local sustainability and local wellbeing and those of international competitiveness, and between the challenges of social exclusion and global polarization and the continuing demands for liberalization, deregulation, [and] privatization’. Along similar lines, Brenner and Theodore (2002: 369–72) referred to the ‘neoliberalization of urban space’ (or ‘neoliberal localization’) as one of destructive creation in which the old local state apparatus is replaced by new forms of local governance — including ‘networked’ forms of governance based upon public–private partnerships; ‘new public management’ strategies; privatization and competitive contracting of municipal services. In a widely cited formulation, Peck and Tickell (2007) distinguished two phases of neoliberalism in the UK context: roll-back (when a primary objective was to roll back the pre-existing political economy of the social democratic welfare state, via deregulation and public expenditure cuts) and roll-out (the extension and deepening of neoliberal forms such as networked governance, fiscal responsibility and reregulation). Cerny (2008), emphasizing the importance of place in the global evolution of neoliberalism, identifies a ‘social neoliberalism’ in which welfare is not rolled back but restructured and marketized in highly complex ways. Thus: the neoliberal ascendancy of the past three decades has been associated with a series of paradoxical and contradictory ‘double movements’ . . . neoliberalism involves the simultaneous and iterative roll-back of institutional and social forms (especially those associated with Keynesianism) together with the roll-out of restructured institutional and state forms (Peck and Tickell, 2007). While this literature initially focused primarily on the changes encountered by urban institutions across countries and regions in Europe and North America, there is now increasing recognition that the neoliberalization of local governance is a global phenomenon (Leitner et al., 2007). An insistent skein in the increasingly globalized literature has been the call to recognize the diversity of ‘actually existing neoliberalisms’. Larner (2005: 17), for example, is concerned to move beyond neoliberalism as a monolithic hegemonic entity in order to understand its uneven, contested and contingent nature, and recognizes that institutional landscapes are characterized by diverse, ‘contradictory spatialities, socialities and subjectivities’, operating through divergent political, institutional and regulatory strategies that are characterized by contradiction and contestation. It is also important to recognize that policy change can involve a degree of the ‘pragmatic and opportunistic’ (Peck and Tickell, 2007: 30). There are, though, important differences between perspectives which essentially identify variants of neoliberalism, and others which talk in terms of hybrids between neoliberalism and other political projects. In this perspective, many rationalities and approaches are prioritized by the state, which come to form a ‘hybridity of approaches and rationalities’ (Purcell and Nevins, 2005; Raco, 2005: 325), in which there is no assumption of the dominance of neoliberalism (Barnett, 2005). Exploring both the temporal and spatial dynamics of neoliberalization, Geddes (2005) suggests that the transition to a neoliberalized local governance remains highly differentiated. Beyond a neoliberal heartland (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand) there are marked differences between a ‘new Europe’ eager to embrace neoliberalism, a social Europe still as yet with a markedly different vision, and a transitional Europe, itself divided into several trajectories. Beyond Europe, there can be not just mimicry of European/US models, but also very different local governance initiatives, some of which challenge neoliberal prescriptions. Summarizing a symposium on the geographies of neoliberalism in Latin America, Martin (2005: that spatial and . . . processes of state and the of neoliberal landscapes and a but also that is a as well as destructive . . . which for or social emphasizing that such of are at the by neoliberal In Latin and neoliberalization has been associated with the deepening and of market the role of the state and its relationship with its in order to and and 2005; and Farthing, 2006). In no a local been on the social its role has been in with the neoliberal by recent 2008). The spatial and temporal dynamics of neoliberalization can a contested and (Leitner et al., in which of neoliberalism can itself a not as a to neoliberalism, but also of the of neoliberalism by and practices and with (ibid.: 5). that to in terms of neoliberalism are (2005: for example, argues that of neoliberalism to of which are not to neoliberalism and from the not how this While that not is to neoliberalism, in that neoliberalism has the to with such which in the context of phases of symposium with debates local governance, and especially participatory in global from the UK and this to and this and (Geddes, this While and the cities on which of the not of more a of global to issues in a set of very different — including the and different past the global and countries and with both and very different governance and this of by to the literature. In this with the issue of what to the of ‘actually forms of local governance under suggest that such an to two of both of the upon which the process of neoliberalization and other to that of neoliberalization, which are also on local latter in to local governance are processes of with a in contradictory relationship to neoliberalism, as Harvey is one of with in which are in both and in formulation, . . . . . . the of across and when and are In the of this primarily on which to of in local also reflects the that the contributors to the symposium different the extent to which neoliberalization of and the of a of The in the symposium primarily on neoliberalism — that is to in one on the extent to which processes in local governance in very different local not understand a to and the in which both tensions and neoliberalism, and forms of in complex of local governance both and now under — the social and political and and the process — which are in different in the of the The of the state, including the extent — or — of democratic political institutions is a primary local noted Jessop and Brenner and Theodore to the process of the local neoliberal Harvey the neoliberal state is a contested political form a number of and tensions to the between and democracy; in the of the existing social order which neoliberal and extension of between and In to the of and forms of The countries and cities in this symposium such tensions and the local of both and Southern and and and in which the extension of democratic forms markedly different The of the states which the cities are are important in of local governance in at three which are the of the state, the of the local state and its In the UK the countries in the the social democratic state a form of ‘embedded liberalism’ 2005: which the neoliberal has to the extent of this the of the UK state, to the of neoliberalism to on the of social democracy and its in have for neoliberal local state forms and In in the other states — and — the transition neoliberalism has place or state there are also important differences between The states in and very of political in the state to its the was and still is characterized by a level of political and and 2006: The characterized by social that in local political and in the of the of and the of local et al., In in the can be that when with neoliberal to have complex of participation urban In forms of have in the important on local state policy in movements have participatory local institutions by the neoliberal In both and the of neoliberal state forms with the transition from has been a in this still be to In the of argues that in the the transition to a neoliberal urban governance was as was the to be to a new state the of economic and In the of the transition from of its with the of has also with with and as and and is is In neoliberalism in the 1980s in the crisis of an and but the neoliberal with local participatory to its was to the changes of which the neoliberal to the of democratic processes the The a of from those neoliberalism characterized by an of political and has been able to a degree of from its with the transition to democracy, to those its with democracy is and its more It is also as for similar to from political strategies by states with different and in social democratic and have similar participation as of and similar competitive economic The to are in at to the influence of the state in the form of the in neoliberal urban economic and social different social democratic of the countries and cities in the degree of decentralization of political power to the local level governance and in terms of is for example, with the of and based on from across Latin America, of the complex between neoliberalism, democratization and and the that decentralization is associated with either neoliberalism or there is a between the decentralization of power in which has more for local in to the position in the urban has been to with and this local governance in both and is well and In the of local is into the but the to local in in to the of means that the of local governance arrangements is more contested in cities local state is of or are complex and of are much In (Geddes, this local across the in the and constraints have been especially The in the the and of the state at both and local levels. It is also important to recognize the role of state institutions and now an increasingly important role in policy and such as the and its the the of Europe, and international have been important in the of and neoliberal policies different global regions example under the of the which from the neoliberal in and Latin The of governance principles by is for many countries to of the which and to is upon with the neoliberal economic principles which 2007). the key points of have in of what is between and the and in and more participatory forms of democracy and political emphasizing the principles of and local democracy similar with forms of participation, to promote of participation 2007). there is growing recognition of the which frequently between the of participatory institutions and and 2005). The some contributions to for more to how democratically local are and to the issues by Beaumont and Nicholls frictions and distinctions between participation and democratization and the need for deepening democratic engagement of marginalized movements and have been key in local governance, as was the with the in during the and the in one perspective, the of social movements in more recent is a to the of social movements have the political of the by neoliberalism to of the neoliberal state and politics et al., 2007). the of neoliberalism, local strategies have been and social capital to be as a to state and in which and are are in neoliberal local (2005: the is the extent to which social movements have become into a of neoliberal state argues — with many others — that participatory processes such as those in and well more as for the of social as means of that much of the governance literature on a of power an in the power of a in state power, argues that engagement with the literature is the of power beyond a and emphasizing the continuing of in governance is at to that such for participation, be what was on The latter a neoliberal forms of engagement well more social democratic local is also is to such local participatory initiatives the of neoliberalism and neoliberal local In for example, on such initiatives is with that on economic In the context of the UK, the New for across by the New have no on the economic context of economic in one such participatory processes can be as one in a ‘social neoliberalism’ primarily class to social be more to the of state policy in with on the of the neoliberal state, in to which such participatory social are of be from and In this the of the latter for a local state are The of and are also of the way in which social can be local state which are to and by the central state, in a relationship as et is . . . are to to of but are to to neoliberal A very different is in the local social movements of the and are in and at from the assumption that is by the state, to influence local state policy is in a context of social and at the of the local and (2007) the of of and engagement in as to both and the These very different be the for local social movements of a position which is both and the state — in a position in which can influence the state in The challenge to social movements has (2007) to that should to participation in institutions such as local which that such an engagement is — such as participatory in — to have on the of local social movements with a local to and with or in the of from in countries the UK, social demands to be into a and increasingly by the local state there are still important — such as in and — of participation in a range of forms of across local and global which or by the In the of many social movements both in communities and in urban both with a of to the state, has not social movements to but has to form the for of the neoliberal and 2007). governance has the on social movements to to the of partnerships and forms of neoliberal participation, and in so has to the participation of the 1980s in countries such as and beyond 2005; 2007). others 2005; and Farthing, and the not but to forms of and to forms of political participation by the not an neoliberal practices of the of neoliberal institutions by in very different by different or local governance has increasingly the of the has been the of the power and of local and political The of and political parties via local has been by and has been with participative and forms of local democratic The of partnerships has to local to the of one many the primary in local political leaders have been on the one to become more and on the other to new based on the of political and more on or in a In countries such as the UK, local political is increasingly concerned with in the of the different a the and of local political has been as important in and to from of and 2005). local is not to the political leaders in cities in Latin and have also this to power et al., with as and The of and in Latin have local and public to with the creation of new forms of and such as and participation There is much though, of by political leaders in the by and the of which have the of also local of is the local of the literature on local suggests in the context of a neoliberal local politics of governance, should be or the contributions of local leaders from and In some Latin countries has been that local political has to from a to a range of different in a more democratic (Melo and Baiocchi, can also be the that and of old have of in many of Latin America, the of leaders still remains In for example, the of as has the of and that remains between the of political and of a politics in which and in some countries such as the UK, policies have to promote the importance of in one as a way to local democratic and and 2005). the which is one in which local and parties — of both and and in countries — have to of the new of local governance, but in the process different and to governance such as the by of political parties of partnerships in which theoretical of and the and competitive of local this through the example of the in which in the 1980s a more for the of the the city the and as the the that has been to the city and the urban the political of the by the in In Latin America, both and parties have been concerned with and effective While is the that the of has been more in including and social and the that neoliberal can local participatory structures which new to local not be The of the and policies in and how the process of a between the of a a social and the social as well as across and can have for the of local the of a policy or either the or to a different can also a in the of governance of the political in The of the participatory process from to other but also to many cities is the example of how local can the of a governance et al., 2008). and the global urban the important spatial of the economic and social across the by the neoliberal a set of that local that by the the urban of In that the of Europe, North and Latin and the be the and be with Latin and the and the regions the in between and 2007). In the of and These are local governance in an increasingly and has been with urban governance an of the extension and of urban as a of and with the of in strategies to a global competitive are a more competitive and local have to place and new forms of local but have also for new strategies of social and place policies have been by the creation of and and with other cities the and the Southern et al., 2006). cities are the international and are not at the of the global urban but are cities at the level of the that is a dominated by the city of the and important at a level the power of of the global and the initiatives which have been are a continuing of local governance In and in a context of strategies have the a city and of old the for the of 2006). the urban influence the extent to which different cities strategies the local governance in terms of the of institutions and from and beyond and the of and across different the of local governance institutions to to is also by the of the other three which cities have example, of of between the and levels. the of and have as much in with the of as with the in to global changes in and which of and that level cities have and social and are highly in and and have governance the of in and is much in the of urban governance to such is more and some strategies of social by the state — such as participatory participation, partnerships and social — have become to urban social 2004; and many of have been by social movements and forms of other more and also the of the and in Latin cities and of in the the of communities in Latin and 2004; 2004; and increasing in the North are other such as in the UK, which have and spatial on marginalized 2004; this is a that has been associated with and the economic and social The has the role of as a to the of the at the as the has to policies in political in have to institutions and of as a way of a democratic and and this In and political of both and have in the of based on to partnerships and in this symposium are emphasizing the urban is also important to recognize the of In the between the and many of the social movements of should that the is not with social The of movements in in the 1990s and of this have been central to to neoliberalism, and have in structures in urban as a of (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). the of as well as urban local governance the importance of of the of the of has been to a in which very different and urban have been to to a political that and have become of ‘new and the processes change in both how and to local governance in city in and ways. The key between the two cities was the political context in by the transition from the to a democratic that of urban governance, characterized by decentralization and a of participation, was from The on of to two the governance that a of state and and across to a of not a of state that an in participation not an in on and the for local governance of a at the urban those related to issues such as or urban which call and to the on the of the for the urban and the of neoliberalism in the to with the state, a more especially for cities in to a more for In this the importance of as the of public at the subnational and the central place of or in the urban and for In the Geddes suggests that is to the of two of local governance — neoliberal and is not to or the diversity of existing but to to the terms of He reflects on local governance in in the 1980s and 1990s a for the new neoliberal but now a of as a of the recent of the the of the neoliberal on He suggests a of and of neoliberalism is in the tensions and complex temporalities of the between neoliberalism and to in and