Varieties of urban entrepreneurialism

Abstract

We revisit the concept of urban entrepreneurialism to highlight some of its variety. In particular, the present article refocuses discussion on: processes of innovation, bringing geography into dialogue with the literature on innovation in public services; normative questions surrounding the ends to which urban entrepreneurship is turned; and the need for analysis to go beyond the territorial traps of the nation and the city to consider how urban entrepreneurialism articulates with the national state and is projected internationally. We distinguish urban managerialism from the new urban managerialism, urban diplomacy, urban intrapreneurialism and urban speculation, drawing on international examples to highlight the mixed qualities and effects of these varieties of urban entrepreneurialism. In conclusion, we note the limitations of our framework and its relationship to the related ideas of neo-liberalization, financialization and accumulation by dispossession.

Changing geographies of the state: themes, challenges and futures

“…This is seen, for example, in the way that certain authoritarian states across Asia, from Qatar to Myanmar to Kazakhstan, ruling elites have built spectacular capital cities to secure a degree of loyalty from their populations -while also monopolizing the right to act in the name of the 'state' that allows them to exploit resource wealth for themselves (Koch 2016(Koch , 2018b. In these places and elsewhere, politicians and managers engage in various forms of urban diplomacy that enable cities to reach out far beyond national borders and access global flows of information, capital, resources and policy knowledge (Phelps and Miao 2020). To the extent that such internationalization agendas of states are aligning with those of cities, city-regions and mega-urban regions, it raises questions about how various urbanization strategies are used as geopolitical instruments for states and other actors working within capitalist circuit networks, supranational organizations and beyond.…”

Whatever happened to urban governance?

“…Symptomatic is, for instance, the reiteration of a quote by Warren Magnusson (2013) on the ‘questions of the governance of politics’, which brings up the issue but does not do much to deliver conceptually or empirically on it. Clearly, ‘political logics’ could feature in the much-cited table 1 (Phelps and Miao, 2020), alongside economics and innovation ones. So, where is governance in all of this narrative?…”

“…Much like the ‘global city’, the idea and ethos of ‘entrepreneurialism’ has become a commonplace driver of major urban development investments worldwide and has resisted thorough critique by a wide range of scholars. Phelps and Miao’s (2020) essay is, in this sense, as timely as urgent for urban scholarship to remain in touch with, critical of, and engaged in shaping the ways in which cities are being governed. The authors are concerned here with reappraising the term ‘urban entrepreneurialism’ and refocusing the discussion towards processes of innovation and invention that both underpin it as much allow us to offer a more nuanced appreciation of its ‘varieties’.…”

The new urban managerialism in geopolitical context

“…Notably, they identify four variations within urban entrepreneurialism: new urban managerialism (hereafter NUM); urban diplomacy; urban intrapreneurialism; and urban speculation. These are ‘overlapping yet qualitatively different forms of innovation in which local governments are engaged’ (Phelps and Miao, 2020). They further suggest that in his original thesis Harvey underplayed the role of the state in the politics of urban development.…”