Author: abuaro01

Barcelona: Crisis Austerity and Socio-Political Change

abuaro01

GIF RGB 150 Pixels with Border

This post summarizes the main findings of the case study of Barcelona from the collaborative governance under austerity project, sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its Urban Transformations Network, and led by Prof. Jonathan Davies. The case study was led by Ismael Blanco with help from Helena Cruz and Yunailis Salazar (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona).

The case of Barcelona is particularly interesting in the context of a study that interrogates transformations in the forms of relationship between the local state and civil society during crises. The interest of this case study lies, on one hand, in the strength of the participatory and collaborative tradition of Barcelona, which dates back to the early years of democracy (1980s). In this sense, it is interesting to analyse the extent to which this tradition constrains and conditions the possibilities of institutional change in the politics of urban governance, neutralising the effects of a crisis that has been particularly severe. On the other hand, Barcelona has become particularly important  since the local elections of May 2015, which led to the formation of a new radical-left government led by the Mayor Ada Colau, former leader of the social movement against housing evictions in Spain. In this context, Barcelona illustrates the strength of social mobilisation against austerity in Spain and the strategy of a significant part of this movement to occupy the institutional arena, generating profound changes in local and national politics. Our future research will be particularly concerned with how far a radical government can alter the power relations between the public, the private and the community sectors, enlarging the opportunities for citizens’ direct participation and overcoming the injustices of austerity.

The impacts of the crisis in the city of Barcelona have been intense in terms of unemployment, poverty and foreclosures. Such impacts have been distributed unevenly between different groups and urban areas, creating a more polarized social and spatial structure. The socio-spatial inequalities in the city have grown significantly since the outbreak of the crisis, reversing a sustained trend of inequality reduction since the 1980s. The intensity of the socio-spatial crisis stands in stark contrast with the good health of municipal public finances. The last municipal budgets of 2015, for example, closed with a surplus of 100 million euros – the textbook neoliberal budgeting strategy.  As part of the national austerity drive, Spain has witnessed as strong tendency for the  re-centralization of political power with serious consequences for both local (and regional) autonomy – for example deficit budgeting was prohibited in 2011.  However, the institutional capacity of the City Council of Barcelona remains relatively high thanks to the strength of municipal finances and the special powers conceded by the Municipal Charter of 1999. Such Charter, for example, allows the City Council of Barcelona to intervene in policy fields like housing, education and health through public consortia composed of the regional and the local government.

In analysing the role of collaborative governance in addressing the socioeconomic crisis, we must recall that participation and public-private and public-community collaboration have had a very important role in Barcelona since the 1980s. Collaborative governance in Barcelona precedes the “collaborative moment” observed in different parts of the world during the economic boom of the 1990s and early 2000s. Apart from various forms of public-private partnership such as joint ventures, structures of participation and public-community collaboration in Barcelona have been gradually built up, first under the 1986 Rules of Functioning of Districts and Citizen Participation and later under the Rules of Citizen Participation of 2003. It has contributed to developing a strong culture of inter-sectoral collaboration and a wide range of formal rules and institutions consolidated by the passage of time and the interests and habits they have generated.

Institutional path dependency in the field of collaborative governance in Barcelona is strong, as could be observed during the only period of conservative government the city has known in recent times (2011-2015). While the new government tended to be very critical of the participation model established under the leadership of the Socialist Party of Catalonia, changes in the formal architecture of participation in the city were minimal. Informal changes were more subtle, encompassing strategies such as residualisation of existing mechanisms, institutional layering  by creating mechanisms that overlap pre-existing ones , and the adoption of a  narrative influenced by neoliberalism around notions such as open government, social co-responsibility and social innovation. Some of our respondents thought that under this government there was a deep, though subtle, weakening of participation and incremental social welfare privatisation.

The 2011-2015 mandate coincided with a period of resurgence of social movements and alternative social practices in the city (and across Spain) stimulated by the outbreak of the 15M indignados movement. The 15M movement emerged spontaneously in different cities in the spring of 2011, although its origins were linked to the activity of previous movements like Real Democracy Now!, Youth Without Future, and the Platform for People Affected by Mortgages. The 15M also overlapped with a set of sectoral mobilisations (Mareas) fighting austerity in areas such as education, health and culture. The anti-austerity movement has retained great vitality in Spain, and polls indicate strong growth in the levels of interest and political participation among citizens. The de-centralized and urbanized structure of the 15M amid the growing disaffection of citizens with political and dominant economic institutions has favoured the emergence of a multitude of alternative social practices such as time banks, agro-ecological consumption cooperatives, ethical banking and urban gardens. Such practices – which experienced a strong growth since 2011 – have been particularly strong in Barcelona, ​​connecting with the cooperative and self-management traditions that existed in the city throughout the twentieth century.  A key lesson from our study is that the national anti-austerity movement is an urban movement, built in cities and neighbourhoods and rooted in longstanding urban traditions of organising and cooperation.

Barcelona en Comú – previously called Guanyem Barcelona – is an electoral alliance born in 2014 out of the confluence of anti-austerity social movements, alternative social practices, left-wing parties (such as ICV and United Left) and emerging political forces (like Podemos and Equo). The formation of this coalition stimulated a multitude of alternative candidacies at the May 2015 elections in Spain. The so-called “change candidacies” took office in 4 of the 5 largest cities in Spain (Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Zaragoza and Valencia) – as well as in many other small and middle-size cities with regional importance such as La Coruna in Galicia and Cadiz in Andalusia. The case of Barcelona is especially significant, as the new Mayor Ada Colau is not only the first woman to govern this city, but had a significant political role as the leader of the main organization of the anti-housing evictions movement in Spain (La PAH).

Our exploratory research shows that the new government has a strong commitment to radical change in the model of participation and collaboration between the public, private and community sectors in the city. One of the key ideas that it intends to promote is a form of co-production linked to the ‘commons’ (that inspires the name of Barcelona en Comú) and social innovation. Under Colau, the meaning of “social innovation” has shifted from entrepreneurship and takes a more radical meaning, linked to the ambition of transforming power relationships through community action. The notion of co-production involves, according to some respondents, taking a step beyond citizen participation towards generating more horizontal relationships between public institutions and citizens, increasing citizen empowerment and enabling citizens to take over the management of goods and services.

It is still too early to assess the accomplishments and limitations of the new government, though the evidence collected in this exploratory phase points to a significant continuity in the formal structures of participation after one year – perhaps due to institutional path dependency (by which we mean the constraining influence of past decisions, practices and actions) and the minority position of the new government, which faces significant challenges in getting its agenda and financial proposals approved by the City Council.

During the next phase, we will focus on analysing changes in the relationships between local political institutions and civil society in four key areas: the formal structures of consultation and participation (like neighbourhood councils); spaces of deliberative democracy (like the participative process for the elaboration of the Municipal Action Plan); community management practices (such as community management of public urban plots and disused buildings); and policy co-production (covering both pre-existing and emerging practices). A key question is whether the new government is able to undertake radical institutional change, despite barriers such as “path dependency”, institutional resistance, corporate and neoliberal opposition and the lack of a formal majority in the council.

Dr Ismael Blanco is Lecturer at the Department of Political Science and Public Law and Research Fellow at the Institute of Government and Public Policy (IGOP) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)

 

Governing Austerity in Leicester

abuaro01

GIF RGB 150 Pixels with Border

This post outlines the main findings from the first round of research carried out by Prof. Jonathan Davies and Dr. Adrian Bua in Leicester as part of the collaborative governance under austerity project sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its Urban Transformations Network. It will be followed by a further seven publications relating to the comparator cities of Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Dublin, Melbourne, Montreal and Nantes.

Leicester has experienced several waves of industrial decline and restructuring over the past 40 years, leaving it with high long-term unemployment and income poverty. The crisis of 2008 and ensuing national austerity regime intensified these problems.  In 2013, ONS statistics suggested that gross disposable household income in Leicester was the lowest in the UK.  In-work poverty persists at very high levels with full-time workers earning less than 80% of the national average.  These conditions mean that many citizens rely on public welfare. However, our research suggests that benefit cuts, continuing policy reforms and the government’s sanctioning regime have hit the city very hard in the eight years since the crash, leaving many unable to meet their basic needs, and eroding the social fabric that people depend upon to participate effectively in social, political and economic life.

In this project, we are looking at different ways in which austerity is governed and contested.  Who gets to have a say and how?  The national context is that despite George Osborne’s “localism” agenda, English cities still have little financial room for manoeuvre – deficit budgeting has long been illegal and the power to levy taxes is minimal. Since the 1980s, UK authorities have largely avoided confrontation with government. One councillor quoted in the Leicester Mercury commented on the implications for austerity: “we are not happy making cuts but we cannot set an illegal deficit budget. If we do Eric Pickles will simply come in and take over the running of the council”.  This comment captures Leicester’s approach, which we call “austerity realism”.  By austerity realism, we mean that the city applies cuts regretfully, but diligently, because policy makers cannot see any alternative..

Leicester City Council estimated last year that by 2019, it would have lost some 50% of its budget over a decade. Its goal is to manage down demand for services and mitigate the impact of austerity for those worst affected, while trying to avoid dramatic headlines and conflicts with central government.  Anti-austerity activists have mixed views about this strategy. They mostly accept that it is impractical for local authorities to defy Westminster and set expansionary anti-austerity budgets, but argue that there is room for manoeuvre.  One commented on twitter in response to a CURA blog on localism, that Leicester City Council could agitate against austerity and plough reserves into sustaining services – ideally as part of a concerted national strategy of municipal resistance.

As we explained in the project overview blog, our exploratory research focused on the relevance of the “collaborative moment” for austerity governance, the idea that networks sustained through trust could be a new and exciting way of governing complex problems, ushering in a new era of empowered participatory democracy.  In Leicester, many respondents see working in partnership with others as good sense, but without any idealism.  As one VSO respondent put it, “the only way to compete is to collaborate”.  Collaboration was seen as a functional and practical tool for austerity management, and some respondents thought austerity had made collaborating easier by concentrating minds.  On the other hand, attitudes to collaboration were strongly influenced by austerity realism, lacking any optimism about the potential in networks for democratic revitalisation and social flourishing.  In practical terms, this means that while public engagement is a high priority for public authorities in Leicester, many of our respondents think that participatory governance is a pale shadow of the New Labour years – a period for which there was some nostalgia.

Within this broad ethos of austerity realism, we see four basic tactics and strategies: amelioration, rationalisation, co-production and development.  We explain each and highlight associated dangers and criticisms.  We conclude by looking at what the research suggests about the vexed problem of how to resist and exit austerity.

Amelioration: The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) exercises a formidable grip on the lives of benefit claimants in Leicester under a regime that regulates, disciplines and punishes – what academics call “workfare”.  Those who fail to meet stringent work-search targets receive a “sanction”, which means a punitive cut in benefits.  While sanctioning has eased in the past year, it has affected many thousands of people in Leicester. National research shows that the workfare regime causes widespread destitution.  In Leicester, agencies from the statutory and voluntary sectors aim to pick up the pieces.  The capacity of public and voluntary organisations to work in partnership is seen as vital for plugging the gaps through advice and emergency payments. One danger is that while these networks do good work, they are under the constant and growing stress of having to do more with less.  With further cuts ahead, a priority for us is to explore whether the system of advice, discretionary and emergency payments will remain sustainable without either further rationing or a dramatic improvement in the local jobs economy.

However, our research draws particular attention to the “invisible” effects of destitution.  We know anecdotally that the welfare regime drives some people “off grid”. Young claimants in particular are prone to giving up on the benefits system, at which point they disappear from official records.  The numbers are unknown, and nor is there much evidence of what happens to them beyond the demand for emergency payments and food parcels. Do they fall back on family; do they find formal or informal work of some kind, resort to crime, or migrate out of the city?  Respondents suggested that some affected groups find support in family and friendship networks, while others – particularly in traditional working class neighbourhoods – lack those resources and are disproportionately affected. The critical question moving forward is whether communities in Leicester and across the UK can continue absorbing the costs of destitution and disappearance. Or, will a breaking point come, making the crisis “visible” once more in the form of angry protests?

Rationalisation: some critics of austerity nevertheless concede that the public sector could be leaner and work “smarter”, as one respondent put it, even after decades of efficiency measures.  The view is that rationalising services and delivering them in partnership is a way of implementing austerity while minimising cuts to the front-line. However, we heard from front-line workers in both the statutory and voluntary sectors that restructuring reduces the time they have to work with communities. Moreover, some respondents were critical of the rationalisation discourse, pointing to the impact of cuts on the front-line.  Debate about the city’s approach to homelessness exemplified the difference between those who believe reorienting the service from provision to prevention can deliver services more effectively, and others who think it hits client groups hard.  The message is that efficiency savings do not absorb the full impact of austerity.

Co-production is the idea that citizens and community organisations can run public services, with support from public agencies. This agenda is popular with organisations wanting to promote the “commons” – the expansion of “social” goods beyond the state and the market.  Leicester recently agreed a first-wave of asset transfers under the Transforming Neighbourhood Services programme. Facilities are leased to community groups on condition that they continue to provide for all.  A danger is that community groups have little time or expertise for facilities management and that such arrangements will not prove sustainable. More broadly, cash-starved community organisations have fewer opportunities to win ever-bigger government contracts and grants are now exceptionally scarce. Local voluntary organisations must form consortia to stand any chance of competing with outside bodies – big charities and corporations often with little or no connection with Leicester.  The danger for advocates of “commoning” is that austerity erodes the fabric of local civil society and “co-production” becomes a figleaf for privatisation instead of a vehicle for empowerment.

Development and growth:  Most of our respondents see Leicester as a city “on the up”, buoyed by a cultural and sporting renaissance and the proud heritage of multi-culturalism.  The role of the Mayoral system adopted in 2011 and the leadership style of the Mayor himself, were often cited as explanations for the renewed focus on urban development.  As in many cities, growth, investment and job-creation are seen as the only viable solutions to Leicester’s poverty and unemployment. But, this is not a win-win option for everyone.  The concern among critics of the Mayor’s approach is that if the city does achieve an economic renaissance, those in deprived areas will not benefit and become further marginalised.  Moreover, getting the right kind of employer into the city will remain a huge challenge, even in an improved investment climate.  Leicester needs many thousands of good quality jobs. International literatures suggest that urban “boosterism” rarely delivers for those most severely hit by austerity and neoliberalism.  Building a socially just city through economic competitiveness would require Leicester to buck this powerful trend.

Viewed in an international context, especially our comparator cities of Athens and Barcelona, resistance to austerity has been very muted – certainly since the brief national upsurge of spring 2011.  There have been lively anti-austerity protests in Leicester, with unions playing an important role alongside local campaigns against national welfare reform and local cuts to hostels and community centres.  However, no durable anti-austerity movement has yet emerged on any scale in Leicester, or in the UK.  The research points to multiple inter-related explanations, including lost traditions of struggle linked to the legacies of industrial and trade union decline.  Another possibility is that low mortgage rates and low inflation afforded some protection against stagnating incomes for those in stable employment, muting protest and isolating people trapped in the workfare regime.

Austerity has a seemingly vice-like grip on England and it is not easy to see beyond it. At the same time, several respondents mentioned Jeremy Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership as a weathervane of change and foresaw potential tipping points ahead.  The next phase of our research will look in more depth at how different actors in cities govern and organise around crises and social change. In Leicester, we hope to extend our study to explore the impact of austerity on the governance of migration and multi-culturalism, neighbourhood services, local economic development and adult social care and health.

Professor Jonathan Davies is Director of CURA and principal investigator on the collaborative governance under austerity (CGA) project, Dr. Adrian Bua is a core member of CURA and research assistant on CGA.

How is Austerity Governed in Cities? Our First Reflections on International Findings

abuaro01

GIF RGB 150 Pixels with Border

We are pleased to launch a series of 8 further publications outlining the findings from exploratory research the 8 case study cities – Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Dublin, Leicester, Melbourne, Montreal, Nantes and Sydney – of the collaborative governance under austerity project, sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its Urban Transformations Network. In this initial post, Professor Jonathan Davies provides an overview of the emergent findings from exploratory research across the 8 cases.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, intellectuals, policy makers and activists all became enthused by networks.  They reasoned that at a time of greater prosperity than ever before, conflicts along the lines of class, race and gender could be broken down and a social consensus sustained through trust. Networking could coordinate a public sector fragmented by new public management and foster partnerships across state, market and civil society.  For the most idealistic thinkers, it could transcend social cleavages and usher in a revitalised participatory democracy, overcoming the limitations of market competition and government hierarchies. We use the term “collaborative moment” to capture this wave of excitement about networks, which emerged in the aftermath of communism and waves of neoliberal restructuring.

Is the collaborative moment still with us? The first phase of our research explored this question in eight cities – Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Dublin, Leicester, Melbourne, Montreal and Nantes.  We were particularly interested in whether it influences governing philosophies and practices after the 2008 crash, a conjuncture in which many cities face degrees of austerity budgeting with public service and welfare cuts, spiralling fees and charges, privatisation, foreclosures and severe unemployment and poverty. Over the next few weeks, we will post blogs from each of the research teams telling the story of their city, so far. The following paragraphs highlight some key messages.

First, it is clear that austerity bites very unevenly in time and place.  The perceived economic and political significance of the 2008 crisis varies widely. It has far greater impact in European cities than in Baltimore, Melbourne or Montreal. And, while 2008 was a crucial moment for Athens, Barcelona, Dublin and Leicester, it was not in Nantes.  Equally, some cities have been exposed to the full force of the economic crisis and turbo-charging of austerity urbanism, while a sense of business as usual persists in others, albeit with risks and threats on the horizon. Governing strategies differ too, depending for example on local political traditions and the powers and resources (or lack thereof) invested in public institutions at the urban scale. For example, where deficit budgeting has long been strictly prohibited in UK local authorities, it was commonplace in Spain until the austerity regime prohibited it in 2011 and it still is in France.

Concerning our core question about the resonance of the “collaborative moment”, the research shows that cooperation between government, business and civil society organisations remains very important, as has always been the case.  However, the politics of collaboration bear little resemblance to the idealised model of network governance.  It is not that the idealism of network governance has disappeared altogether – it is prominent among local elites in Nantes.  The problem is that even when the ideas retain some influence, they become subsumed in state-centred practices, enmeshed in realpolitik or overtaken by political activism against austerity. For example, we found instances where activists distance themselves from dialogue with the state, questioning its relevance and purpose – notably Barcelona, Dublin and Montreal. So far, our inquiries do not suggest that the “collaborative moment” is a critical theme in the urban politics of 2016.

In the second phase of our research between now and summer 2017, we will take a step back from the immediate questions of austerity and collaboration, developing a broader focus on the urban governance of rolling welfare state crises. We ask how different social actors organise around the multiple waves of dislocation and restructuring, experienced in different ways and at different times in all our cities, since the heyday of welfarism in the 1950s and 60s.  The research will endeavour to show how some strategies and alliances succeed and others fall by the wayside, and draw lessons about the future of urban and local politics.

Jonathan Davies is Principal Investigator on the Austerity and Collaborative Governance Project, as well as Director of CURA and Professor of Critical Policy Studies at De Montfort University

Impacts of the Global Financial Crisis on Cities in Europe: Chapter on the Social Investment Market

abuaro01

CURA Researcher Robert Ogman has published a chapter on the social investment market in a recently published book on Urban Austerity in Europe.

Robert’s chapter discusses the relationship between austerity policies and the social investment market, showing government’s turn towards Social Impact Bonds in the hope of offsetting public sector budget cuts by attracting private investment to social service provision. He first explains the historical emergence of SIBs in the financial crisis of 2007/8, and SIBs’ narrative of cost-savings, before turning to their implementation in a concrete case, where the city of Peterborough hoped to use investor dollars to fund probationary services to reduce prisoner reoffending. He identifies a set of contradictions between the promises of SIBs as a cost-cutting mechanism and the resulting expansion of public expenditure, challenging the idea that this new public-private partnership may provide an easy solution to social and fiscal problems created by austerity. This chapter is part of Robert’s doctoral research on SIBs and the social investment market as part of a “social neoliberal” strategy to manage the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. His analysis of the Peterborough SIB is part of an international comparison between SIB development in the US and UK.

You can buy the book either directly from the publishing house (http://www.theaterderzeit.de/buch/urban_austerity/) or, of course, at your favorite book store. An e-book will soon be available as well.

Description and details are below:

Schönig, Barbara; Schipper, Sebastian (Hg.) (2016): Urban Austerity: Impacts of the Global Financial Crisis on Cities in Europe. Berlin: Theater der Zeit. 296 pages. ISBN 978-3-95749-083-4. 22€

What started as a mortgage crisis in 2007 and became a global financial and economic crisis in 2008 has been transformed into a sovereign debt crisis since 2010. In all of these interwoven phases, cities have been, in multiple ways, at the heart of the turmoil as indebted home-owner have been evicted, masses of people impoverished, public budgets squeezed, municipal infrastructures privatized, public services downsized, and, above all, austerity measures implemented. In view of the above, this book puts an issue into the center that affects most people living in urban regions across Europe – the idea that fiscal austerity is an unavoidable necessity that politics cannot escape no matter how harsh the consequences might be. To bring the effects of austerity politics at the forefront, contributors to this book expose actual urban problems in their spatiotemporal dimensions, discuss regulatory restructurings under a new regime of austerity urbanism, and reflect on the role of urban social movements struggling for progressive alternatives. We hope that this collection of counter-hegemonic narratives to neoliberal policies can make a small contribution to inspire critical urban scholars, political activists, and social movements in their struggle for progressive social change in Europe and elsewhere.

Blazing the Neoliberal Trail: Review by Jonathan Davies

abuaro01

Professor Jonathan Davies continues our second installment of CURA’s book debates by share’s his thoughts on Tim Weaver’s recent book ‘Blazing the Neoliberal Trail‘. This post will be followed by a final reply from Tim int he forthcoming weeks.

It was a great honour to debate Tim’s new book at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association earlier this year.  The book announces Tim as an important new thinker in the field or urban political economy.  It was a pleasure to read a deeply learned piece of work presented with erudition and lightness of touch.  Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned from the book concerns the dynamics and temporalities of policy transfer.  We tend to assume that because the UK likes to borrow (ever more right wing) policies from the USA, that the USA was the main trailblazer in neo-liberal urban policy.  In fact, Tim shows that the UK was able to outpace the USA, because its centralized and hierarchical political traditions made this easier to accomplish.  More broadly, these differentiations show why an urban focus is so important for getting to grips with the epidemiology, variegation, hybridity and contestation of neoliberalism.

The main question I have about the book concerns the way different disciplinary perspectives open up different temporal understandings of neoliberalism.  I pick up on a striking phrase in Tim’s conclusion in relation to the class politics of neoliberalism. He argues that the “bourgeoisie was not knocking on doors”, demanding enterprise zones and urban development corporations.  These initiatives were driven politically, and hence Marxist conceptions of capital and class do not really help us understand them.  Tim accordingly emphasizes the role of policy ideas and entrepreneurs, and the way in which different configurations of institutions and traditions were more or less open to change.  These factors undoubtedly matter a great deal, but I do not think they are incompatible with a Marxist analysis, rooted in the ideas circulating and gathering force during the emerging social and economic crises of the 1960s.

From a sociological perspective, Boltanski and Chiapello argued in The New Spirit of Capitalism, that by the 1960s, the bourgeoisie was indeed clamouring for change, hankering to be free from the stultifying command structures associated with Fordist development and the Weberian political order.  But, it is notable that similar ideas were also incubating in the British Labour Party and US Democrats, through Harold Wilson’s “white heat of the technological revolution”, and John. F. Kennedy’s “new frontiers”. So, from the standpoint of ideas, the break with the post-war order was implicit in the emerging political and economic zeitgeist of 1960s for both left and right.  Ultimately, for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, the neoliberals succeeded in appropriating this spirit and translating it into the policy agendas Tim discusses at length in the book.  Two points follow.

First, governments and corporations were both influenced by proto-neoliberal ideas and sentiments well before the 1970s and 80s and sought to organize around them.  It is here that we find the roots of the crisis of the post-war order and of neoliberal transformation.  Tim might respond, correctly, that neoliberal ideas did not fully grip on the terrain of politics and policy until much later – and after many brutal struggles.  However, the second and crucial point is that looking at the 1960s shows that neoliberalism was indeed a class project and why a sharp analytical distinction between state and capital is problematic. There is a tacit pluralism in Tim’s approach, which does not sit easily with his general political orientation. If instead we treat capitalist states as part of the capitalist system, it is easier to see why “progressive” political leaders would be dazzled by a “new spirit of capitalism” promising social and economic renaissance – and for reasons that have little to do with political pressure from the bourgeoisie.  Of course corporations try to influence governments, but the absence of such lobbying does not mean class power is not central. Class operates in many more-or-less subtle ways.  My argument is that an appreciation of how different classes responded to the burgeoning crises of the 1960s is critical for understanding the ideas and policies of later trailblazers of neoliberalism, so deftly analysed in this important volume.

Workshop on Labour and Development: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue

abuaro01

Date and Venue: Wednesday 1st June, 9.30-5pm, Hugh Aston building, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Conveners: Dr Adam Fishwick and Dr Anita Hammer

Crisis of contemporary capitalism has put labour, development, class struggles and the state at the centre of analysis both in the Global North and the South. This research workshop brings together scholars across a wide range of academic disciplines, including Anthropology, International Political Economy, Industrial Relations, Labour/Economic Geography and Development Studies, and geographical interests including Latin America to South and South-East Asia to Africa.

Our aim is to explore the question: how can we engage across academic disciplines on existing methodological and theoretical limitations in understanding the role of labour in development?

The four interrelated themes around which the sessions and roundtable are organised include:

  • Conceptualising forms of resistance
  • Situating labour and the state
  • Social reproduction and the household
  • Informal economies and precarity

This workshop is a starting point for the establishment of a wider academic network for understanding labour and development with a plan to host a second workshop at the University of Sussex in January 2017.

For more information please contact Dr Adam Fishwick at adam.fishwick@dmu.ac.uk

Blazing the Neoliberal Trail: Timothy Weaver

abuaro01

In this post Timothy Weaver begins our second installment of our ‘book debates’ series, by outlining the main argument of his recent book ‘Blazing the Neo-liberal Trail‘, where he charts the development of neo-liberal hegemony in the UK and the US through urban politics and policy making perspective. In a forthcoming post Jonathan Davies will share his thoughts on this work, and Timothy will then publish a reply.

During the 1970s, the US and the UK grappled in strikingly similar ways with a set of economic problems that American liberalism and British social democracy failed to counter: stagflation, rising unemployment, and the corresponding erosion of elite consensus over economic policy. Out of this morass, neoliberalism emerged as an ideology and set of policy prescriptions that became adopted by a series of governments, beginning with the center-left administrations of Jimmy Carter and Jim Callaghan, and then in full force under governments of the right led by Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. In Blazing the Neoliberal Trail, I use urban politics and policymaking to chart the rise and effects of the neoliberal embrace both in the realm of national urban policymaking and through case studies of Philadelphia and London Docklands.

Blazing makes two key arguments. First, I focus on policies such as enterprise zones and urban development corporations to suggest that the timing, extent, and character of neoliberal urban policymaking was shaped by the manner in which national and subnational institutional structures mediated the influence of neoliberal ideas and the policy entrepreneurs who promoted them. To echo Robert Lieberman’s (2011) formulation, while ideas provided the “motive,” institutions offered the “opportunity” for neoliberalization of urban policy. Thus, in the U.K., the ideologically motivated Thatcher government was able to exploit its institutional advantages—unified and centralized governmental structures—to rapidly transform urban policy. Hence, the enterprise zone policy bore a strong resemblance to the neoliberal idea that people such as Sir Peter Hall and Lord (Geoffrey) Howe had in mind. By contrast, neoliberal policy entrepreneurs such as Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp encountered resistance as Democrats, initially hostile to urban neoliberalism, exploited the institutional advantages afforded to them by the system of separation of powers and divided government. As such, the enterprise zone policy was stymied in Congress and could only gain a foothold at state and local levels where the program was often watered-down thereby sometimes deviating from the original neoliberal design.

The second central argument of the book is that, in part due to differing institutional contexts, neoliberalization has occurred by two distinct logics. The first, which I term neoliberalism by design, refers to the process by which political actors exploit the power of state institutions to impose a neoliberal blueprint. The case of London Docklands reflects this pattern of development. By contrast, the Philadelphia example reveals a logic of neoliberalism by default. In this case, neoliberalization takes a more serpentine path. Due to federalism, neoliberal designs could not be forced on Philadelphia by actors in Washington D.C. Rather, fiscal constraints—of local and national origin—the challenges of coalition building, and ideological constriction pushed the city in a neoliberal direction despite the fact that many of the key policymakers were not ideologically committed to a neoliberal program.

Dr Timothy Weaver is Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Social exclusion and labour rights in the banlieues of Paris: Part II

abuaro01

In this blog, originally published by SPERI, CURAs Heather Connolly writes the second part of her blog series on social exclusion in Paris, and explains how trade union support for undocumented migrant workers is taking place in an atmosphere of growing stigmatisation and social tension.

Last month I returned to the banlieues of Paris on a research visit hosted by CRESPPA-CSU, four months after the November attacks, and during the week of the terrorist attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.  Whilst in Paris issues of social division and community cohesion inevitably dominated political debates and press headlines.

Anecdotally, reaction in the mainstream media in France in the days after the Brussels attacks suggested a lack of recognition of French immigration history and the citizenship status of ethnic minorities from the banlieues. Calls were made by some members of the public to send the terrorists, many of whom had French or Belgian nationality, ‘back home’. This sentiment has been somewhat fuelled by François Hollande’s proposals, as a direct response to the November 2015 attacks, to make controversial changes to the constitution to strip militants convicted of terror attacks of their French nationality (proposals which have now been dropped).

Other important contextualising factors feeding political debates and public perceptions around immigration and social exclusion include the current and emerging tensions surrounding the migrant and refugee crises in Europe, and restrictions of movement and increased police powers as a result of France’scontinuing ‘state of emergency’ (état d’urgence).

As was the case in the Paris attacks, the terrorists in Belgium grew up in the suburbs of Brussels, with high levels of unemployment, particularly amongst second and third generation youths of immigrant origin.

Immigration flows to France are often linked into debates on models of integration and patterns of social exclusion of migrants. France’s assimilationist model has in many ways failed in relation to the integration of past flows of immigrants. As a result second and third generations of immigrant origin find it difficult to access employment and often remain trapped in the banlieues of Paris.

I was in Paris to follow up on my research on trade union responses to immigrants and those known as thesans papiers (undocumented workers) (which Part I of this blog explored), and found a somewhat depressing picture emerging. Immigrants and especially the sans papiers are increasingly being stigmatised and placed under restrictions while trying to live and work in France.  This situation isn’t being helped by the current political debates mentioned above.

Signs initially looked better for the sans papiers when in 2012 the circulaire de regularisation, which sets out guidance and defined sets of conditions for administrators processing regularisation claims was introduced in response to growing unrest among sans papiers workers.  Trade unions, particularly the CGT, have been an important resource for the sans papiers in fighting for criteria for regularisation and in making sure they are applied, even though the circulaire has no legal status and doesn’t give automatic rights to work permits.  The strategy seems to be working and since 2010 the union has obtained some 10,000 regularisations of migrants.

At the same time there have been increasing sanctions on employers found to be employing undocumented migrants, with two circulaires in 2013 against illegal work and against irregular immigration.  Also, there are some who are critical of the circulaire de regularisation, claiming that there have been fewer regularisations per year since its introduction. During last month’s field work with my French colleague Dr Sylvie Contrepois, one undocumented Senegalese worker, who had found regular work in France for 24 years, suddenly found himself without work as a result of the greater restrictions on employers, and without recourse to any rights to unemployment benefit or state aid.

The CGT, one of the largest French trade unions has provided a ‘permanence’ (advice service) for the sans papiers in the banlieues of Paris since 2014.  The union has between 70 and 80 sans papiers attending the ‘permanence’ every week with the aim being to help the migrants to obtain work permits, and the immediate aim to protect them from having problems with employers and the police.

The advice given to the sans papiers demonstrates the uneasy nature of accessing labour rights as an undocumented worker in France.  One Senegalese union activist we spoke to (still a sans papier himself) explained that many of the migrants did not understand the process of accessing their rights in France.  There were heated exchanges between the sans papiers and the union activists advising the migrants, with some suggesting that it was particularly the Bangladeshi migrants who weren’t so aware of the process for obtaining papers.  In asking what the process was we discovered that it was important first to obtain fake papers, then find a job, stay in that job for a certain amount of time, collect some pay slips and then come to the union, who would then be able to help with their case for a work permit.  The union was able to draw on the conditions set out in circulaire de regularisation to make the case for regularisation, even where workers were working with fake papers.

By offering a service to undocumented workers, in spite of its service-based appearance, the union aims to identify and call out poor employer practices and force them to apply regulations. The broader political goal is to fight illegal work, prevent social dumping and to encourage self-organising and future mobilisations of sans papiers.  The union also hopes for the greater integration and involvement of thesans papiers within the wider union.  Whether trade unions are able to build and sustain this kind of solidarity and action remains a key challenge, but an important one in such uncertain times.

Dr Heather Connolly is Senior Lecturer in Leicester Business School at De Montfort University, and a member of CURA

Local Enterprise Partnerships, Skills Strategies and Austerity

abuaro01

In this post Jonathan Payne introduces a CURA-funded scoping study that he is carrying out with Phil Almond and Jonathan Davies into the role of local enterprise partnerships in developing skills strategies in a context of austerity

Many commentators on skills policy in England have long argued that the approach has been too narrowly focused on boosting the supply of skills without paying sufficient attention to employer demand for skill and the need to ensure that skills are put to productive use in the workplace.  The approach reached its height during the New Labour years when government set national skills targets and tried to use the power of the public purse to boost skills supply. By 2010, this approach was clearly running into problems, with major issues around ‘over-qualification’ and the ‘under-utilisation of skills’. Indeed, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills has argued that unless these problems are addressed, the UK will struggle to address its ‘productivity problem’.  Put simply, skills policies are likely to work better if ways can be found to integrate skills supply, demand and utilisation. This means linking skills supply with economic development and business improvement.

Progress has been very slow, and it might be argued that austerity only makes matters more difficult. However, the fact that government now has little money to throw at the ‘skills problem’ may open up opportunities for new thinking and approaches. The current government also wants to develop ‘employer ownership of skills’, which really means getting employers to pay more for training rather than relying on government support. Again, however, substantive progress is unlikely to be made unless ways can be found to raise employer ambition around skills. This essentially means impacting on local economic development as well as the way employers compete and design jobs which shape their actual skill requirements.

Enter local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), the new kid on the block when it comes to sub-regional economic development. LEPs bring together local councils and businesses around a wide ranging agenda, which includes economic development and skills, and occupy a complex institutional landscape involving Combined Authorities, City Deals, City-Regions, Enterprise Zones and more.

Amongst other things, LEPs are grappling with the challenge of developing more locally responsive, ‘demand-led’ skills strategies which feed into their strategic economic plans. However, they have courted controversy in terms of whether they are locally accountable, and whether they have sufficient powers and resources at their disposal to make a difference. What local actors understand by a ‘demand-led’ approach to skills is also unclear. Is it about responding to employer needs through better skills matching or is about raising employer demand for skill? How can ‘employer demand’ and ‘learner demand’ be combined, and does the current funding regime for skills help or hinder matters? For example, more adult funding is being routed through LEPs, while adult loans prioritise individual choice, with labour market intelligence and careers advice expected to square the circle. National targets and priorities also remain, in terms of the number of apprenticeships for example, while the new ‘apprenticeship levy’ is national rather than local in approach.

Policy has responded to criticisms around LEP capacity by boosting their core funding and is seemingly prepared to devolve more to ‘city-regions’ if they can make a strong case and satisfy certain government criteria. The question is whether this is a real step forward and if it goes far enough? Is central government serious about decentralisation and localism, or is it just handing local actors a set of problems without the means to really address them? Are we talking about the devolution of power or the offloading of responsibility? Local actors, with varying capacities, however, may try to run with this and see what can be done. An important question for research then is what progress can they make in developing an integrated, demand-led approach to skills which is long overdue, given the current policy dispensation?

Jonathan Payne, Jonathan Davies and Phil Almond are currently exploring these issues through a CURA-funded research project looking at the skills agenda for LEPs in the Midlands. Scoping interviews are currently being conducted with LEPs, local authorities, further education colleges and employer bodies with a view to understanding the issues on the ground, what progress is being made and the challenges local actors are coming up against.

On the 16th and 17th of May CURA will be hosting a workshop on Local Economic Development to discuss research agendas around local economic development and skills in England, if you are interested in attending please email Suzanne Walker swalker@dmu.ac.uk to register your place.

Jonathan Payne is a CURA member and Reader in employment studies at De Montfort University.

Taking Power Back: Response by Simon Parker

abuaro01

This post is the latest in the series debating Simon Parker’s recent book ‘Taking Power Back‘. The debate began with an outline by Simon of the main argument of his book, followed by a response by Jonathan Davies and Adrian Bua from CURA. In this post Simon highlights areas where our thoughts overlap and diverge. If you are interested in contributing to the debate further please email adrian.bua@dmu.ac.uk.

The striking thing about Jonathan and Adrian’s article is how much we agree on the fundamentals. We are clear that Britain’s mix of the big central state and free market economics has not delivered on its promises. And I think we broadly agree that a politics of commonism – the creation of a vastly expanded realm of self-help, mutual aid and social enterprise – represents a credible and desirable way to secure social progress in new times.

The challenge I have been posed is less about the ‘what’ and more about the ‘how’. Jonathan and Adrian are right to ask how we get from a world where power and assets are overwhelmingly enclosed by the state and market, to one in which commoning becomes, well, commonplace. They argue that far from encouraging mutual aid, the British state is more often engaged in expanding the reach of profitable activity while simultaneously choking off the social sector through austerity. Is my vision of the creative commons not pure idealism without some sort of struggle against the power of capital?

One of the challenges I face in answering this is that I am deeply suspicious of top down, structural change. I do not have some kind of Marxian revolution in my back pocket. They tend to end badly. Instead, I think commonism will emerge from decentralised trial and error in the real world. But I accept the charge that my bottom-up approach runs slap bang into some very big and ugly vested interests in both the state and the business world. The commons is not the strongest force in society, but where I differ from Jonathan and Adrian is that I think this might already be starting to change.

My first reason for hope is that commoning is already starting to grow in the midst of the very neoliberalism Jonathan and Adrian decry. Take, for instance, the 25% boom in the number of co-ops over the three years from 2010, or the 10% growth in community businesses over 2015. These organisations are generally not old-school charities funded by grants, but organisations which use their community roots and freedom from shareholder demands to develop innovative business models in response to local needs and demands.

My second reason for optimism is the fact that the economy is starting to change in ways which might favour commoning. I am hardly the first person to point to the rise of automation, which has the potential to destroy a vast number of jobs without replacing all of them. This reduction in paid labour is a horror for the old Labour movement, but when you think about it a world with fewer of what David Graeber calls ‘bullshit jobs’ is hardly a bad thing.  Imagine more people, with more free time and vastly cheaper goods and services, searching for more meaning in their lives.

My third reason for hope is that I can already see some of the institutional changes that might help to unlock a world of commonism. The first plank in my agenda is a universal basic income, both to manage the economic consequences of automation and to liberate people to pursue more meaning free from the demands of paid labour. This is the key policy change which would turn a dystopian world of mass unemployment into a world where work became more like play (and the commons is the perfect space to play in).

I think we need a new public service architecture which actively encourages commoning. This means city-level social investment funds which can support the early stages of commons-based organisations, governed by the public, private and commons sectors to ensure that the money flows towards their shared priorities. Local authorities and others need to direct their commissioning to spotting and scaling up the parts of the commons that work best.

My response to the question of how we grow the strength of the commons is to transform the role of government into growing and protecting the realm of mutual aid. This will help to grow a strong and independent domain of community ownership. My answer to austerity is that a smaller state might be a good thing as long as we also have a smaller private sector and much more social activity in-between them. Commonism is not a utopian project, but a practical route through which ordinary people can adapt their lives to a changing economic context.

Simon Parker is director of the New Local Government Network and a leading expert in public policy, public services and government.