Urban and Regional Development Trajectories in Contemporary Capitalism

Flavia Martinelli, Frank Moulaert, Andreas Novy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135119584
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This book re-evaluates a rich scientific heritage of space- and history-sensitive development theories and produces an integrated methodology for the comparative analysis of urban and regional trajectories within a globalized world. The main argument put forward is that current mainstream analyses of urban and regional development have forgotten this rich heritage and fail to address the connections between different dimensions of development, the role of history and the importance of place and scale relations.

The proposed methodology integrates elements from different theories – radical economic geography, regulation approach, cultural political economy, old and new institutionalism – that all share a strong concern with time and space dynamics. They are recombined into an interdisciplinary (meta)theoretical framework, capable of articulating the overall problem of socio-economic development and providing methodological anchors for comparative case-study analysis, while recognizing context specificities. The analytical methodology focuses on key dynamics and relations, such as strategic agency and collective action, institutions and structures, culture and discourse, as well as the tension between path-dependency and path-shaping.

The methodology is then applied to eight urban and regional cases, mostly from Western Europe, but also from the United States and China. The case studies confirm the relevance of time- and space-sensitive analysis, not only for understanding development trajectories, but also for policy making. They ultimately highlight that, while post-war institutions were able to address systemic contradictions and foster a relatively inclusive development model, the neoliberal turn has led to reductionist policies that not only have resulted in an increase in social and spatial inequalities, but have also undermined growth and democracy.

1 Introduction

Fighting amnesia and recovering the scientific heritage of urban and regional analysis

Frank Moulaert, Andreas Novy and Flavia Martinelli

Why this book?

The purpose of this book is to provide and apply a multidimensional methodology for the analysis of the socio-economic development trajectories of regions and cities across the world. This methodology is based on a ‘methodological synthesis’ that valorizes the epistemological and theoretical advances in spatial development analysis of the last 200–300 years. Thus, methodology in this book is understood in a comprehensive way, starting from the basic (development) themes to be addressed, discussing the theories that are relevant to problematize them, as well as the research tools needed to study them empirically. Alternatively, we could argue that the methodology or the ‘logic of method’ in this book covers the whole chain from problematization through theorization and empirical validation, while being self-reflexive at the same time.

We are convinced that there is a strong need for such a methodological synthesis, as current mainstream approaches reflect very poorly the long and methodologically robust history of socio- economic development analysis of regions and cities. Why is this the case? And why are methodologies which take into account this highly interesting scientific heritage often considered to be hopelessly outdated? In this book we propose a coherent analytical framework that can address the contemporary challenges of urban and regional development by valorizing the theoretical-methodological contributions from the past. This analytical framework was developed in the context of the FP6-funded DEMOLOGOS project¹ and applied to eight urban and regional case studies, mainly in Western, Southern and Central Europe (London, Brussels, Vienna, Rome, Reggio Calabria and the South of Italy, Newcastle and the North of England), but also in the United States (Chicago) and China (Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta).

The case studies were completed before the precipitation of the current economic crisis. They were carried out between 2005 and 2007, a period characterized by growing social and economic polarization and inequality (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010; Perrons and Plomien 2010) and by the enduring hegemony of the neoliberal pensée unique, which has dominated both socio- economic development analysis and political decision making since the 1980s. The precipitation of the crisis is having severe consequences for urban life in all cities of Europe, but especially in its periphery (García 2010). And, unfortunately, the European Union has remained a staunch champion of this pensée unique, sticking to market-fundamentalist economics and exclusionary austerity measures (Hadjimichalis 2011), which resonate the deflationary tunes of the 1920s in Europe and North America. Although dissenting opinions are voiced increasingly and calls for a new European growth plan and a unified European bond market are put forward, no efforts to revise mainstream thinking or learn from past development analysis, strategies and policies have been made.

Meanings of development

In social sciences, several different meanings have been given to the concept of development. Most of them boil down to one of two, outlined as follows, or combinations of these.

On the one hand, there is development as an analytical concept, meaning the development of productive forces within capitalist market societies. This analytical perspective addresses the economic and technological dimensions of development as it is occurring or has come through: economic growth, accumulation, technological progress, wealth increase, innovation, productivity and competitiveness. But, as Schumpeter already stressed, development must not be confused with growth, as it consists of contradictory processes of creation and destruction. Although ‘potentially limitless’ progress is associated with the ‘linear unfolding of the universal potential for human improvement’ (Cowen and Shenton 1996: 14), capitalist development is a ‘terrible and tragic convergence, sealed with victims’ blood’ (Berman 1988: 75). Development as a movement of ‘creative destruction’ (Schumpeter 1947: ch. 7), then, calls for theories that differ from the conceptualization of states of equilibrium as proposed by neoclassical economics. Influential economists in the field of spatial development, and especially in urban and regional policymaking, all too often reduce the problem of development to that of regional and urban economic growth. Fortunately, views of development have evolved (Pike et al. 2006). In contrast to this narrow economic growth- based approach, spatial development has to be understood as an ensemble of sociocultural, political and economic relations (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2008), i.e. as an ‘integral’ economy (Jessop and Sum 2006: 7). The analysis of socio- economic development must thus deal with multiple interrelated dynamics and involves interdisciplinary and different, sometimes even contradictory, strands of explanations. In the 1960s and 1970s, this kind of approach was mobilized in a number of scientific and policy circles, in relation for example to the formulation of postcolonial development strategies, as well as the elaboration of alternative local and regional development responses to economic restructuring and the generalized call for human emancipation in a diversity of social spheres and institutions (school, family, etc.). In those years socio- economic development was increasingly considered as a multidimensional process and claims as well as proposals for alternative development strategies were part of the intellectual, social and political movements feeding this process (Friedmann 1979; Oliveira 1987).

This leads us to the second meaning, development as an objective, i.e. as an integral individual and collective pursuit of self-realization. Development as a normative idea is an underlying concept of many contemporary theories of social and political intervention, deeply rooted in Western philosophy. Nussbaum (1999) goes back to Aristotle to elaborate a multidimensional concept of development as ‘a good life’. Ethical reflections also recover a conception of development as ‘freedom’, as elaborated by Sen (1999) in his ‘capability approach’, which is strongly related to concepts like emancipation, liberation (Freire 1996), empowerment (Friedmann 1992), social development (from the Summit of Copenhagen 1985 to the UNRISD approach, see www.unrisd.org), human development (especially the UNDP approach, see www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hdr/) and integrated area development (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2008). These ethical dimensions and emancipatory views of development have also enriched the methodologies for the study of socio- economic development. From these perspectives, socio-economic development is no longer to be read as accumulation and growth only, but as a process of human emancipation for everybody, involving the full mobilization of human potentials to achieve it. Such a process requires collective action, social movements and political forces, which must therefore be integrated as relevant categories into the analytical framework (Dean 2009).

The study of socio- economic development then involves taking on board the social, economic, political, ecological and cultural dimensions, not only of ongoing development, but also perceiving these as criteria for improvement. It must proceed from the study of the logic of capitalist accumulation and system reproduction to that of the complexity of culture, gender, ethnicity and socio- ecological metabolism. It has to address the spatial dimensions of economic relations in their context, integrating culture, education, social services, governance and identity relations in urban and regional communities as well. It has to consider economic activities as embedded within the institutional ensemble of the social dynamics of working, housing, living together, caring and learning. At the same time the analysis of socio-economic development must go beyond the imperatives of accumulation and profit and explore alternative development paths, together with types of collective agency capable of paving them. Economic growth must be seen just as a means, possibly necessary but certainly not sufficient, for the final objective of a good life for all. And this can only be the case if the ‘engines of growth’ are economic activities investing in the satisfaction of socially and ecologically durable needs, such as in the community ontology of the social region which is focused on collective need satisfaction through the reproduction of community social capital and the building of cooperative governance (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005).

And yet, mainstream economics continues to focus mainly on the supply- side of the economy and to believe in the power of increasingly deregulated market coordination to satisfy human needs. The paradox is that it considers growth, implicitly or explicitly, as a goal in itself. And yet, neoliberally inspired accumulation strategies in Western countries do not deliver growth rates comparable to those in other periods – e.g. post- Second World War (Brenner 2002) or other countries and (urban) regions (Fernandes and Novy 2010; Dunford and Yeung 2011). Thus, mainstream economics keeps overlooking development as an integral process. As it conveys the ruling classes’ ideology, it remains hegemonic in setting the analytical perspective and the instruments used to steer economic policy.

The shortcomings of the mainstream approaches to socio-economic development

This section gives a brief summary of the limitations of contemporary mainstream approaches, driven by neoliberal economic thought, to socio- economic development analysis in space, stressing how they have become not only increasingly out of tune with the ‘really existing’ socio- economic dynamics of structural unemployment, race- to-the- bottom competition and increasing social anxiety, but also how they suffer from their ignorance or denial of the past. The apotheosis of the present widespread collective amnesia of a centuries-long heritage in spatial development analysis hinders any possibility of formulating creative strategies to shape development, since ‘invention is helpless without tradition’ (Hodgson 2001: 355).

To start the reflection on such shortcomings, we must challenge neoliberal thinking with respect to its flawed understanding of development from an analytical as well as an ethical point of view. With respect to ethics, the functional hierarchy of needs set by economic and financial interest groups distorts the conception of development. All too often – and against a growing consensus in parts of the scientific community on the multidimensionality of socio-economic development – mainstream political discourse, economics and policy privilege GDP growth and its engines (investment, international trade, stock exchange, aggregate employment) as the prime indicators of development. This leads public action to privilege – for example – infrastructure investment in favour of the carbon economy, or subsidizing or bailing out the finance industry, to the detriment of investment in socially innovative initiatives in care, health and education, soft mobility or eco- cities. Development approaches meant to enhance the capabilities and freedom of the disadvantaged quickly bump into constraints of income and wealth distribution and selective access to the services of the state apparatus and public funds. But in reality, these limits are to a large extent ideologically reproduced and class-protective, as there are more than sufficient resources in the capitalist world economy to meet such needs. Pizzigati (2012) has recently pointed out the incongruous situation whereby there is always money to finance war-making, but rarely money to make up for poverty and exclusion from the increasingly elite worlds of culture and education. He contends that exaggerated wealth is a problem when poverty must be curbed and he evokes historical examples when super taxes on super incomes offered relief to pressing socio- economic problems.

But neoliberalism does not only pose an ethical-political problem. As a form of class struggle (Harvey 2005) and a driver of increasing inequalities (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010), neoliberalism is also deceptive in the way it analyses development, i.e. in its narrow...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: fighting amnesia and recovering the scientific heritage of urban and regional analysis
• 2 Theoretical foundations for the analysis of socio-economic development in space
• 3 The DEMOLOGOS methodology for analysing urban and regional trajectories
• 4 London between global narcissism and national responsibility: the globalization of a capital city at the expense of its nation
• 5 Brussels — the strange case of disarticulated socio-economic development and governance: about disjointed scales, institutional fridges and the follies of urban regime politics
• 6 Vienna between East and West: the construction of a new transborder Central European region
• 7 Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta in China: cross-border integration and sustainability
• 8 Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta as a cross-border region: the politics of repositioning and rescaling
• 9 Chicago beyond Fordism: between regulatory crisis and sustainable growth
• 10 Rome — a tale of two cities: the development of a capital city between discourse and reality
• 11 The Southern Question in Italy: regional development discourses and strategies from 'national' policy to 'Euro-local' programmes
• 12 Reggio Calabria, Southern Italy: a peripheral city between path-dependency and path-shaping
• 13 Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the 'Northern Way': neoliberal responses to uneven development in the North of England
• 14 Urban and regional trajectories between path-dependency and path-shaping: structures, institutions, discourses and agency in contemporary capitalism
• Index