Depoliticizing space: The politics of governing global finance

Copley, Jack; Giraudo, María Eugenia

doi:10.1177/2399654418786249

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, I want to conclude by arguing that there is also much to do in terms of developing approaches that aim to further spatialize the critique of political economy (see inter alia Alami 2018b,c; Gough 2004;Charnock 2010;Copley & Giraudo 2018). Indeed, the critique of political economy has been criticized for succumbing to highly formal, abstract, and aspatial forms of reasoning, and for relying upon ideal categories derived from the capitalist historical geographies of the West, at the expense of geographically uneven forms of accumulation, exploitation, dispossession, but also resistance and contestation outside of the core of the world economy (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marx's critique of political economy in economic geography

Alami

2019

Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marx's critique of political economy in economic geography

Alami

2019

Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, Streeck (2014) uses the concept of states ‘buying time’ through delaying measures in order to postpone the crisis that had undermined the post-war growth model. Furthermore, such deregulations should not be understood as resulting from fractions of capital – financial or industrial – ruling through the state, but rather as attempts by the state to reproduce general capital accumulation (Copley and Giraudo, 2018: 6).…”

Section: Rethinking Competition and Ideas In The British Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Why were capital controls abandoned? The case of Britain’s abolition of exchange controls, 1977–1979

Copley

2019

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result of these changes, the attention to analyzing the processes and strategies of depoliticization has also increased in research. There is no single specific subdisciplinary domain from which the analysis of depoliticization emerges but many, ranging from critical political economy (e.g., Berry & Lavery 2017;Burnham 2001Burnham , 2014Copley & Giraudo 2019;Dönmez 2019Dönmez , 2021Jessop 2014), governance (e.g., Bates et al 2014;Buller et al 2019;Fawcett & Marsh 2014;Fawcett et al 2017;Flinders & Wood 2014;Foster et al 2014;Hay 2007Hay , 2014Standring 2021), and environmental politics and governance (e.g., Anshelm & Haikola 2018;Hunter 2021;Takala et al 2020Takala et al , 2021 to name only a few. In the discipline of geography, depoliticization has been extensively discussed in the context of urban geography and politics (e.g., Beveridge & Naumann 2014;Beveridge & Featherstone 2021;Beveridge & Koch 2017a, 2017bDavidson & Iveson 2015;Dikeç & Swyngedouw 2017;MacLeod 2011;Marcuse 2015;Mössner 2016;Swyngedouw 2017) and the spatial restructuring of the state (e.g., Deas 2014;Etherington & Jones 2018;Luukkonen & Sirviö 2019;Sirviö & Luukkonen 2020).…”

Section: Oulu March 2023 1 Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spatial politics of depoliticization: Visionary planning, bioeconomy, and forest capital

Kellokumpu

2023

NGP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depoliticization is a pivotal political strategy that defines the contemporary governance of core capitalist democracies. This thesis asks how depoliticization manifests itself as a political strategy in the spatial restructuring of the Finnish state space. The spatial politics of depoliticization are examined by the three thesis articles, which focus on visionary planning in urban politics, the legitimation of the forest bioeconomy in the public sphere, and Finnish forest capital’s attempt to influence the state’s strategic direction. These perspectives provide a holistic view of the various depoliticizing and politicizing tendencies, as well as the political and economic contradictions affecting spatial change in Finland. The thesis examines the societal base of depoliticization by focusing on how capitalist social relations and the capitalist mode of production condition the constitution and differentiation of societal spheres. The differentiation of the economic and the political sphere and the resulting ecological dominance of “the economy” under capitalism provides a unique setting for depoliticization to appear in the form of economization. Acts of demarcation between the political and the economic spheres are based on ontological abstraction, which then faces humanity as a real and concrete product of social activity. The thesis applies strategic-relational state theory and the theories of uneven development to examine depoliticization. Depoliticization emerges in the context of competing growth models that have a diverging conception of the spatial division of labor in Finland. Amidst urbanization, the urban growth-focused city-regionalist model posits a “winner takes all” spatial structure in which a few select urban areas compete against their global counterparts to attract capital and investment. In contrast, the bioeconomy model seeks to halt the rural decline by transforming the resource-dependent regional economies into ostensibly more sustainable production models, thereby reinvigorating a dispersed spatial structure. Article I analyzes the depoliticization of visionary planning in the case of the Oulu City Center Vision 2040 project by observing and engaging with policy documentation, research reports, planning events, and the vision itself. Article II examines the depoliticization of the bioeconomy in the context of the 2019 parliamentary elections in Finland through a collection of newspaper articles and items between July 2018 and January 2020. Article III investigates the forest conglomerate UPM’s attempt to politicize the Kaipola paper mill shutdown in August 2020 by using statistical data, the public strategies of UPM, and the online and news media around the Kaipola debate. The cultural political economy (CPE) approach developed prominently by Jessop and Sum forms the overarching methodological framework of the thesis and focuses on the dialectics of materiality and discursivity in political-economic imaginaries. The thesis applies CPE-inspired critical discourse analysis to examine the spatial politics of depoliticization. The overall contribution of the thesis reveals how the material interdependence of the political sphere with other societal spheres and the social totality of capitalist society produces a specific place for politics that conditions its operational autonomy. The spatial politics of depoliticization are unfolded through the divergent political-economic imaginaries of state spatial development to which different capital fractions, political parties, and regional and class interests are attached. Conceptual stretching and expansive uses of depoliticization are recognized as key and very vexatious problems in the literature. To retain the analytical clarity of depoliticization, the thesis argues that depoliticization should be better grounded in the material developments of each context, evading pan-politicism with more exclusive notions of politics, and even radically decentering politics and the political in the analyses of depoliticization. The normative critique of depoliticization should move from the level of critiquing politics to a critique of the social totality which produces a specific place for politics.

show abstract

Depoliticizing space: The politics of governing global finance

Cited by 7 publications

References 40 publications

Marx's critique of political economy in economic geography

Marx's critique of political economy in economic geography

Why were capital controls abandoned? The case of Britain’s abolition of exchange controls, 1977–1979

The spatial politics of depoliticization: Visionary planning, bioeconomy, and forest capital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About