Neoliberalism and Urban Change: Stretching a Good Idea Too Far?

Abstract

Does neoliberalism matter for cities, urbanization processes, urban governance and policies? How and to what extent? What does this even mean? These questions are important as neoliberalism is a contentious and powerful political project and paradigm. This paper argues that: (1) it may be fruitful to be clearer about the meaning of neoliberalism rather than adopting an encompassing constructivist framework; and (2) that neoliberalism may not explain that much about the current transformation of urbanization processes and cities. Instead, these mechanisms need to be better specified and their limits defined: urban worlds and the urbanization processes of cities do not change all the time, in all ways. Rather than embracing the multiple, everchanging forms of neoliberalism and the contructivist framework underpinning this position , this paper identifies a set of central points to define neoliberalism by contrast to liberalism, as one possible working definition of neoliberalism. Secondly, it discusses the neoliberalization of cities and urban policies, recognizing that cities change for many reasons, of which neoliber-alism is just one. RÉSUMÉ : Le néolibéralisme, at -il une importance pour les grandes villes, les processus d'urbanisation, la gouvernance urbaine et la politique des villes? Comment et dans quelle mesure? Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Ces questions-là sont importantes parce que le néolibéralisme constitue un projet et un paradigme politiques à la fois controversés et puissants. Cet article affirme 1) qu' il pourrait s'avérer utile d'éclaircir le sens du néolibéralisme plutôt que d'adopter un cadre constructiviste global; et 2) qu'il se peut que le néolibéralisme ne dise pas grande chose à propos de la transformation actuelle des processus d'urbanisation et des grandes villes. En revanche, il faut que ces mécanismes-là soient mieux précisés et leur limites définies: le monde

The Neoliberal City – Theory, Evidence, Debates

“…However, the neoliberalization thesis has also clear limits, most of which are addressed in three of the articles gathered in this issue (see LE GALÈS, 2016;PINSON AND MOREL JOURNEL, 2016;STORPER, 2016). For the purpose of this short introduction, we will distinguish four types of limitations: definitional, descriptive, analytical and normative.…”

Autonomy, Erasure, and Persistence in the Urban Gardening Commons

“… In Southern Europe, urban neoliberalisation has been associated with changes in city‐state relations, as city leaders gain more autonomy when the central state loosens its grasp. Moreover, neoliberalism has been refracted through stronger commitments to liberalism as well as a vocal Left (le Galès ; Pinson and Journel ). …”

Neoliberalism(s) as a Guide to Post‐Wall Urban Change: Explanation Out of the Blue?

“…If so, it resonates with the critique that postcolonial scholars and others have directed at the Los Angeles school of urban studies and similar high profile bodies of research (e.g. Ong 2011;Parnell & Robinson 2012;Tang 2014;Le Galès 2016). Or can its origin be found elsewhere, perhaps in the wider body of research on developments following the collapse of the centrally planned one-party state?…”

“…Recent research into the significance of neoliberalism as a major force in urban management has increasingly come to focus on its real or imagined impact (Le Galès ; Pinson & Morel Journel , ; Storper ; Birch ). Following on the heels of observations by scholars who suggest that from a ‘non‐Western’ perspective neoliberalism as a prime driver of urban change is of limited relevance (e.g.…”