Between Neoliberal Governance and the Right to the City: Participatory politics in Berlin and Tel Aviv

Abstract

Based on a comparison of Berlin and Tel Aviv, this article investigates the ways in which ensembles of participatory instruments mediate between neoliberal urban regimes and political agency shaping differentially the meaning of participation and the types of claims that can be advanced. The article gives an overview of the recent history of both cities through the lens of participatory politics. Two in‐depth case studies further examine the relationship between participatory politics and claim making in each setting: the recent conflict over a social center in the district of Friedrichshain‐Kreuzberg in Berlin and the Levinsky tent city of 2011 in Tel Aviv. In the concluding section, the article suggests that, rather than assuming that participatory tools either co‐opt movements or can be appropriated by them, we need to rethink the relationship between participatory tools, rights and recognition, and ask how participatory structures and political agency constitute each other in interwoven dynamics.

‘There are Really Two Cities Here’: Fragmented Urban Citizenship In Tel Aviv

“…Menachem Begin's pledge to ameliorate social and physical conditions in overwhelmingly Mizrahi neighborhoods and development towns took shape as the state embarked on its ‘Neighborhood Renewal Project’. Both HaTikva and Shapira underwent a renewal process, which was successful especially in upgrading the physical infrastructure, though achieved little in improving the socio‐economic status of neighborhoods (Carmon, ; Kemp et al ., , this issue). In the following years the social and physical deterioration of southern neighborhoods resulted in large outflows of Israeli residents, following which the share of populated residential apartments in some of them fell below 50% (Schnell, ).…”

“…It was during this time that a lively foreign community was in place in southern Tel Aviv (Sabar, ; Fenster and Vizel, ). Its members were drawn to the area on account of its proximity to the central bus station and other transportation networks as well as the availability of low‐cost unoccupied apartments (Menachem, ; Schnell, ; Kemp et al ., , this issue). However, in 2001, a looming economic slowdown and mounting concerns over the loss of the state's Jewish identity prompted then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to seal the skies (Kemp and Raijman, ).…”

“… Thus, while Ehud Olmert's government (2006–09) vowed to ‘gradually reduce the number of foreign workers, documented and undocumented … [bringing it] at the end of the process to a rate of 3% or less of the Israeli labor market’ (authors’ translation: http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/heb/kaveiyesod2006.htm), it increased the number of work permits provided for new migrants in the agriculture, construction and nursing sectors such that at the end of its tenure there were 225,000 labor migrants in the country who constituted over 10% of the labor force (Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment, 2009). For the activity of municipal agencies in the area since the 1990s see Kemp et al, , this issue). …”

Urban Citizenship and Right to the City: The Fragmentation of Claims

“…Building on the concept of urban citizenship, Cohen and Margalit examine the ways in which residents define their identities against new and old ‘others', and how they claim a right to the city not only in competition with new migrants, but also in conflict with more affluent residents of Tel Aviv's northern neighborhoods. Using a comparative approach, Adriana Kemp, Henrik Lebuhn and Galia Rattner (, this issue) investigate the interplay between participatory instruments and different forms of participation and claim‐making in Berlin and Tel Aviv. Based on two in‐depth case studies, they explore the different settings and dynamics in both cities, and argue that, rather than assuming that participatory tools either co‐opt movements or can be appropriated by them, we need to rethink the relationship between participatory tools, rights and recognition, and ask how participatory structures and political agency constitute each other in interwoven dynamics.…”

“…While this explains the recent surge of local claims and the growing scholarly and political interest in questions of local or urban citizenship, it is less clear what the effects of these developments are on the actual provision of ‘rights in the city'. Indeed, the connection between urban mobilization and urban rights is far from obvious and, as Kemp, Lebuhn and Rattner (: 704) argue in their comparative analysis of Berlin and Tel Aviv, depends on ‘how participatory structures and political agency constitute each other, and how participatory and activating mechanisms mediate between particular urban structures and regimes on one hand, and particular modes of protest and participation on the other'.…”