RGS-IBG Annual International Conference 2018

RGS-IBG Logo
Add to my calendar:    Outlook   Google   Hotmail/Outlook.com   iPhone/iPad   iCal (.ics)

Please note that some mobile devices may require third party apps to add appointments to your calendar


278 Extraverted urbanism versus introverted urbanism (1): City politics and the state
Affiliation Economic Geography Research Group
Convenor(s) Oleg Golubchikov (Cardiff University, UK)
Robert Huggins (Cardiff University, UK)
Chair(s) Robert Huggins (Cardiff University, UK)
Timetable Friday 31 August 2018, Session 1 (09:00 - 10:40)
Room Glamorgan Building - Seminar Room -1.61
Session abstract Contemporary modes of urban governance are strongly predicated on the notions of competitiveness and entrepreneurialism, which have become particularly dominant under the rise of neoliberalism. Harvey (1989) depicted a shift in urban governance from managerialism, with its emphasis on social welfare and redistribution, to an entrepreneurialism that is more preoccupied with economic growth, inter-urban competition and the attraction of flows of external investment and consumption.

The competitive modalities of urban governance appear to be explicitly extravert with regard to how cities position themselves nationally and internationally, but also how they are imagined, designed, lived and consumed. Cities compete against each other to attract high value added industries, the ‘right’ human capital and consumers. This may require extraverted, outwardly looking policies such as export-oriented industrial policies, city-regionalism and agglomeration development, city branding and marketing, urban regeneration, the hosting of hallmark events and other potentially speculative strategies. There are also indications that the relative economic performance of places has a strong relationship with the personality psychology of the people located in these places, including traits relating to extraversion and cosmopolitanism (Huggins and Thompson, 2017). Indeed, many cities try to attract particular ‘classes’ of individuals to foster a more ‘competitive’ socio-spatial culture. The nation states themselves promote the extroverted politics of city-centred competitiveness and internationalisation as part of their national economic strategies (Brenner, 2004). Furthermore, particular urban projects may convey the power of the state internationally or produce other forms of geopolitical externalities (Büdenbender and Golubchikov, 2017). All this cumulatively produces specific urban dynamics and outcomes, which can be called ‘extraverted urbanism’.

Elements of extraverted urbanism have been researched under, for example, the notions of the entrepreneurial city (Hall and Hubbard, 1998; Lauermann, 2016), the globalising city (Marcuse and van Kempen, 2000), new urban policy and the globalised city (Moulaert et al., 2003), new state spaces (Brenner, 2004), the creative city/class (Florida, 2002), world-city-entrepreneurialism (Golubchikov, 2010), policy boosterism and extrospective city (McCann, 2013), celebration capitalism (Boykoff, 2014), to name just a few.

Critiques of these modalities of urban governance highlight the possibilities of unequal social consequences and social and spatial exclusion, ‘zero-sum game’ and universal policy prescriptions that may not work effectively across the whole urban system and geography. One critical reaction, for example, evokes the vision of the ‘grounded city’, which focuses on the internal mobilisation of resources through the ‘foundational economy’ (Engelen et al., 2017). Across the world, there are examples of other sets of visions and practices that may suggest forms of ‘introverted urbanism’.

This session will explore the politics, dynamics and manifestations of extraverted urbanism and its (potential) alternative, i.e. introverted urbanism. Contributions, both conceptual and empirical, will reflect on these ideas and provide further insights into the relationship between city development, geographical unevenness, competiveness, spatial policies and geopolitics, including the evolution of these (multi-scalar) relationships over time and space.

References
Boykoff, J. (2014) Celebration Capitalism and the Olympic Games. London: Routledge.
Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Büdenbender, M. and Golubchikov, O. (2017) 'The geopolitics of real estate: assembling soft power via property markets', International Journal of Housing Policy 17 (1): 75-96.
Engelen, E., Froud, J., Johal, S., Salento, A. and Williams, K. (2017) 'The grounded city: from competitivity to the foundational economy', Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 10 (3): 407-423.
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Golubchikov, O. (2010) 'World-city-entrepreneurialism: globalist imaginaries, neoliberal geographies, and the production of new St Petersburg', Environment and Planning A 42 (3): 626-643.
Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (eds.) (1998) The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Harvey, D. (1989) 'From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism', Geografiska Annaler B 71: 3-17.
Huggins, R. and Thompson, P. (2017) Human Behaviour and Economic Development: Culture, Psychology and the Competitiveness of Britain’s Regions and Localities. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Lauermann, J. (2016) 'Municipal statecraft: Revisiting the geographies of the entrepreneurial city', Progress in Human Geography (doi: 10.1177/0309132516673240).
Marcuse, P. and van Kempen, R. (eds.) (2000) Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Oxford: Blackwell.
McCann, E. (2013) 'Policy Boosterism, Policy Mobilities, and the Extrospective City', Urban Geography 34 (1): 5-29.
Moulaert, F., Rodriguez, A. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds.) (2003) The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linked Sessions Extraverted urbanism versus introverted urbanism (2): Relationality, transnationalism and local culture
Contact the conference organisers to request a change to session or paper details: ac2018@rgs.org
Extraverted urbanism: competitiveness, entrepreneurialism and the state
Oleg Golubchikov (Cardiff University, UK)
The paper makes an introduction to the special session with conceptual reflections on “extraverted urbanism”. Contemporary modes of urban governance are strongly predicated on the notions of competitiveness and entrepreneurialism, which have become particularly dominant under the rise of neoliberalism. The competitive modalities of urban governance appear to be explicitly extravert with regard to how cities position themselves nationally and internationally, but also how they are imagined, designed, lived and consumed. Cities compete against each other to attract high value added industries, the ‘right’ human capital and consumers. This may require extraverted, outwardly looking policies such as export-oriented industrial policies, city-regionalism and agglomeration development, city branding and marketing, urban regeneration, the hosting of hallmark events and other potentially speculative strategies. The nation states themselves promote the extroverted politics of city-centred competitiveness and internationalisation as part of their economic strategies. Furthermore, particular urban projects may convey the power of the state internationally or produce other forms of geopolitical externalities. All this cumulatively produces specific urban dynamics and outcomes, which can be called ‘extraverted urbanism’. This concept bridges a host of related notions, such as the entrepreneurial city, the globalising city, new urban policy and the globalised city, new state spaces, world-city-entrepreneurialism, extrospective city and others that explore the relationship between city development, geographical unevenness, competiveness and spatial policies and the evolution of these (multi-scalar) relationships over time and space. This paper will particularly focus on the role of the state in the production of extraverted urbanism.
Scaling up/down the state: Understanding megaproject planning and governance in Indonesia
Delik Hudalah (Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia)
Tessa Talitha (Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia)
Seruni F Lestari (Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia)
Tubagus F. Sofhani (Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia)
Under Joko Widodo’s presidency, Indonesia becomes one of the Asian countries that massively promote megaproject in the forms of large-scale infrastructure development in order to stimulate economic growth and competitiveness. Megaproject serves as the political tool for rediscovering the role of the state in economic development. This paper presents the dynamic roles of the state in megaproject planning and development in the context of globalizing cities and regions in Indonesia. As an explorative study, this paper shows the complexity of megaproject policy arena and what underpinning its development and acceleration in Indonesia. The two cases in Java Island – Jakarta High-Speed Railway and the West Java International Airport – reveal forms of new institutional arrangements showing a state rescaling process. Through a comparative study, this paper analyzes how different politics and institutional arrangements in both cases eventually centered on similar issues, particularly with regards to land acquisition. Using institutional analysis, this paper examines the state rescaling in both cases and further identifies enabling and inhibiting factors for the land development process. It assesses the challenges of megaproject development through the identification of the policy and regulatory arena as well as the stakeholder analysis. It is found that the private sector has thus far played a dominant role in the realization of the megaprojects, whereas the state has scaled up/ down in order to better create an enabling environment for accelerating the development process.
Re-imagining Istanbul in the age of neoliberalism
Semra Akay (Durham University, UK)
This paper argues that the construction and reproduction of urban space are essential elements in the neoliberal development process through using Istanbul as a case study. The impact of neoliberalism, globalisation and the changing role of the state have been vital in urban spatial configurations. With entrepreneurial regimes, an elite partnership between private sector and public state institutions whether they are local or central administration, has become imperative to produce more affluent landscapes. Although many cities have embraced market-dominated governance since the 1980s, associated strategies and techniques have been deployed in a number of ways. The Turkish state, too, has been using different techniques and strategies to make Istanbul competitive with other global cities.

Although the idea of transforming Istanbul into a global city goes back to the 1980s, since the 2000s it has become more systematic and consistent thanks to the current government. The paper shows that to brand and market Istanbul, the idea of ‘labelling’ has become one of the key elements. It emphasises on how Istanbul’s new urban profile has been recreated by attracting investment and promoting a globalised vision for the city. Through construction of new ports, airports, shopping malls, skyscrapers, residential complexes and commercial and business fairs Istanbul has being prepared to be shown off as the Great Turkey’s global city. Consequently, this explores the ways in which the central and local states employ different techniques and technologies for Istanbul’s global imaginary.
Extraversion, future and positivity in urban discourses: bidding for 2025 World Expo
Elena Trubina (Ural Federal University, Russia)
Planners in Osaka, Baku and Ekaterinburg are increasingly drawing on narratives about “urban futures” and work hard to get a bid support from different countries and to influence the Bureau International des Expositions that will select the winner in November 2018. Attaining better future by means of constructing the Expo grounds and revitalizing city centers has been harshly criticized by scholars (Greenhalgh 1991, Flyvbjerg 2014) and this critique was one of the reasons behind the recent decision to withdraw Paris's candidacy. As a result, the Paris-based governing body will be deciding between the city in Japan, the country characterized as “uncommon democracy” (Pempel 1990), and two cities in the full-fledged neoauthoritarian countries - Azerbaijan and Russia. A similar tendency has been observed in the process of the mega-events’ allocation: it had shifted towards the authoritarian (from the 2008 Beijing Olympics to Qatar’s 2022 World Cup) countries. With the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, it can be argued that while historically the World Expos were organized to foster the development of international relations, they currently increasingly serve as soft power tools (Wallis and Balsamo 2016) helping to promote globally the neoauthoritarian nations. Drawing on mixed-methods fieldwork and media analysis, I illustrate how futuristic and positive narratives are mobilized together with nationalist tropes about modernizing subsequent countries and improving their international prestige. With a focus on recent efforts to increase localities’ global exposure through the host city’s intensive branding and place marketing campaigns related to the bids to host the Expo, this analysis sheds light on the political and commercial ‘selling’ of future events which combines probabilistic and securitized logic characteristic for finance capitalism and “leapfrogging” strategies which are discussed in the framework of economic growth of developing countries (based on Joseph Schumpeter' ideas of creative destruction).
Entrepreneurial Urbanism, Austerity and Economic Governance
Crispian Fuller (Cardiff University, UK)
Urban governance has long been characterised by the prevalence of ‘extroverted’ pro-growth economic development priorities, with more introverted forms of strategy and intervention typically lacking attention, or subordinated by dominant pro-market thinking. For Peck (2014), this is a governing landscape where ‘urban entrepreneurialism’ has been firmly internalised within urban governance, almost as ‘routine’ and ‘everyday’. While for Lauermann (2016), Le Gales (2016) and Storper (2016), urban governance cannot be completely reduced to pro-growth strategies. Austerity and the shrinking state are now raising questions on the extent to which extroverted forms are dominant, or whether introverted initiatives, focusing more on communities and social welfare, are gaining importance as cities struggle to cope with far less resources. There is an argument for pro-growth strategies increasingly being viewed as a mechanism in which to mediate the growing social inequalities arising from reduced state welfare support (LGA, 2012). At the same time economic development activities have been disproportionally effected by budget cuts since 2010, with fears raised around the actual ability of cities to foster economic development. This paper examines the relative importance of extroverted and introverted strategies within ‘austerity regimes’, how such actions are legitimised and deliberated by actors through ‘economic imaginaries’ and ‘sedimentation’ (Jessop, 2016), and the impact of austerity through an examination of institutional change. Using a case study analysis, the paper finds that austerity has contributed to pro-growth strategies dominating, involving city government seeking to legitimise, depoliticise and sediment their importance, and involving a ‘conversion’ of existing institutions.