Seceding from Responsibility? Secession Movements in Los Angeles

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand why secession movements gained momentum in Los Angeles and what their effect will be on regional governance. A brief discussion of liberal theories of secession demonstrates that they cannot explain secession movements at the urban scale, as they are exclusively focused on cases of nationalist secession from a nation-state. Furthermore, liberal theories of secession offer normative arguments on the right to secede. Following a change in California legislation granting municipalities the right to secede, the secessionist debate in Los Angeles is not so much concerned with normative issues, but more with devising an effective and revenue-neutral process for secession. Using a threefold theoretical approach based on theories of secession, regulation theory and theories of state rescaling, and theories of social movements, this paper argues that the 'political opportunity structures' provided by globalisation and the prevalent neo-conservatism, might explain how secession movements in Los Angeles were able to mobilise large efforts to their cause. We hold that globalisation has forced cities to re-open the debate on size and governance. Secession movements have been very successful in raising public awareness on the issue. Their strength lies mostly in their populism, well in tune with the prevalent wave of neo-conservatism. These movements use arguments well grounded in Southern California's complex history of regional fragmentation and consolidation. As a social project of the Right, they offer secession as a potential 'solution' to the problems of urban governance in the age of globalisation, in a context of simultaneous consolidation.

Multiscalarity and Neighbourhood Governance

“…This risk of 'capture' can perhaps be avoided, however, if the representatives are rooted in pre-existing social movements, service user struggles, community activism or other alternative public spaces (for an example of successful community activism, see Boudreau and Keil, 2001, on secession movements in Los Angeles).1 Barnes et al (2007: 202) note that where such people 'were invited to participate as stakeholders in a policy or service area, deliberation was more likely to produce challenges to the status quo and some element of transformation, at least in terms of attitudes and orientations of public officials'. For co-governance to be effective, therefore, there need to be thriving 'popular spaces' Coelho, 2004, 2006) or forums, which are autonomous public spaces, 'clearly bounded from official intervention' (Barnes et al, 2007: 190).…”

La democracia local: entre el espejismo neotocquevillista y la globalización

“…Por otra parte, es precisamente en nombre del respeto a la democracia local que ciertos procesos secesionistas conducen a algunos municipios a "separarse" por medio del referéndum de las instituciones metropolitanas. Estos procesos están actualmente en boga en Norteamérica y recientemente en Europa occidental (Boudreau et al, 2001;Keil, 2000).…”

Geography and social policy: spatial divisions of welfare

“…Thus, Cebulla (1999) and Sunley (2000) have explored growth in private insurance against unemployment, and pension provision respectively, while Taylor (2001) has updated Bradford's (1995) earlier work on the private-state continuum in British schooling. There are concerns that such processes may result in a 'secession of the successful' from the public sphere; Boudreau and Keil (2001) have considered the implications for suburban communities around Los Angeles, albeit without explicitly drawing out the implications for the welfare state. Burchardt et al (1998) have charted at a national level the segment of the British population which uses combinations of private welfare services (primarily health and education) and have concluded that this group does not represent a distinct 'overclass', but there remains scope for a geographically differentiated analysis of this topic.…”