Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco

7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco

1/17

Work in progress please do not quote

GLOBAL CITY IMAGINARY AND URBAN POLICIES IN MADRID

Mara Velasco Gonzlez y Rosa de la Fuente (UCM)

Introduction

After analyzing urban policies in Madrid, implemented since democratic

transition until nowadays (Alguacil et al.: 2011, de la Fuente & Velasco

2011), we have realized that:

We can clearly identify different chronological phases, through which we

find out mostly two different city models. These two different models have

been implemented during long stages, first since 1975 to 1985, and the

second one, since 1985 to nowadays.

The first model could be distinguished mainly because local

government considered Madrid as a local place, and therefore

urban policies were mainly used to pay attention to endogenous

urban problems, to try to solve local social actors and neighborhood

demands, and to ask national government for alternative ways to

develop solutions to critical economical problems linked to the crisis

of the industrial production and employment.

The second model started around the end of the last socialist

administration of the city (89s) when the city model started to be

though and designed from a different perspective. Local government

started to paying attention to the ways Madrid should be connected

to global context, specifically in order to explore how problems and

solutions where attached to outside places, mainly distant, global

and scarcely interconnected with some important places. In order to

become an important city place a new logic of global competition

started to be spread associated with the necessity of implement

neoliberal reforms to manage urban issues.

The Global imaginary as spatial reference was introduced symbolically and

progressively in the urban landscape of Madrid, mainly boost up by the

successful urban transformation implemented in its near rival, the city of

Barcelona, due to the new urban model designed to be elected for thecelebration of the Olympic Games (1992), but also, through the spatial

1


2/17


practices linked to initial effects of financial and monetary globalization

system. In that sense, while industrial districts of the city were losing their

urban productivity meaning, or functionality, other areas of the city were

being transformed with the arrival and localization of new international

affiliated companies and investment banks, in a small business area in the

centre of the city, but also outside it. In the metropolitan area, located in the

north and west periphery a new area of financial and business advisory and

consultancy started to arise. Those were the new spatial winners1 and

engines areas of a new model of the city.

Nevertheless, there are common and local characteristics able to be

identified through the political implementation of both two city models

comparing with those implemented in other cities in Spain:

a) The condition of being the capital of the Country (centrality of

communications, concentration of governmental institutions,

historical presence of tertiary activities, etc.)

b) The type of leadership of Mayors, two charismatic personalities,

one in each stage, Tierno Galvn (1977-1986) and Ruiz Gallardn

(2003-2011);

c) The existence of a Regional Autonomous Government institution2

which territorial jurisdiction was defined almost concurrent with the

metropolitan area of Madrid city and which political competences

(education, health, spatial and environmental planning, etc.) started

to be increasingly developed during the eighties and nineties,

affecting the context of urban political possibilities (multilevel

1 As Jessop pointed out, since competitiveness is always relational and dynamic, thecompetitive game always produces comparative losers as well as winners.(2000:82).

2

The Autonomous Community of Madrid was developed in 1983, when its first Statute wasapproved, although the definition of this territorial decentralization model was created by theSpanish Constitution in 1978.

2
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=598676http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=598676http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=598676http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=598676


3/17


governance)3. Therefore the effect of this condition was expressed

mainly during the implementation of the second model.

In this paper, we would like to explain the ways of implementation of this

second city model, the global one, paying attention to the diffusion of thisimaginary or representation of space developed through urban policy

narratives and practices. In fact, the question that has guided our

research is if the global city model and the urban policies are

exclusively linked to the category of neoliberal policies, or if by

contrary it is possible to identify some urban policies not included

under this category, although justified and designed pursuing a

political global imaginary or narrative.

This question arose during a previous analysis of the urban policies

implemented under the government of Alberto Ruiz Gallardn (2003-2011)

in Madrid City, since by one hand, he linked their global city model to a

great variety of urban policies that we could not clearly identify as

neoliberal ones, and by other hand, these range of urban policies could be

identify as widespread urban policies, since they have been implemented

in different cities as common recipes to imitate global city models,

although under different ideological local governments.

Therefore, we were wondering if we could label all urban global city

policies as neoliberal or if we could make a difference and consider some

of them in a different way, even as counter-hegemonic/neoliberals.

Under the first hypothesis, globalization and neoliberalism are

considered faces of the same coin, since the neoliberals project

has been totally connected with the process of globalization world

construction, as means to change the phase of capitalist

accumulation. In this conception, cities were elected as places to

pivot and leading this process, and therefore even if it is possible to

classify different types of implementation of those neoliberal urban

3 The governmental relation among the local and the regional government during last years itis a peculiar and a contingent element that we have to be take into account in order tounderstand which kind of policies are implemented in each level. Ruiz Gallardn was thepresident of the Autonomous Regional Government since 1995 until 2003, when he becamein Madrids Major until 2011. Esperanza Aguirre became Regional president in 2003 until now,

and although they are both members of the conservative party, Popular Party, they representdifferent wings positions inside the party, while Esperanza Aguirre is a declared liberal wing,Gallardn used to be identify closely with a more centered and social position.

3


4/17


policies, according with different moments of existing neoliberalism

(Brenner, Theodore, Peck 2002) all of them should be identified as

neoliberal actions.

Under the second hypothesis, there is a political margin to adaptcities to globalization through different policies, more or less or not

even inspired by neoliberalism ideology. Therefore, formal and

profound likeness in urban policies can not been interpreted always

as if they were neoliberal ones. Therefore, we should pay attention to

the contexts, the path dependence of political cultural environment,

the multilevel political geometries, and the typology of leadership and

its relation with other political leaders and the spread of urban

policies that can be implement with full implication or just apparently.

In order to rethink those hypotheses we would revisit recent literature which

tries to classify urban policies, and secondly, we would use Madrid study

case to illustrate both possible interpretation and theoretical debates.

Globalization and neoliberalism?

According to Henry Lefebvre (1991) and David Harvey (1985) the social

production of space is produced by a combination of three moments, the

spatial practises, the representation of space and the spaces of

representation, which allow us to understand the relation among spaces and

places with the social reproduction.

However, if we consider spatial practises- as the most relevant modes toproduce and modify social space, the economical activities and the spatial

practises linked to them should be analysed to understand the production

and transformation of urban social space. In that sense, most studies of

urban transformation pay attention to those spatial practises and their

effects in urban social space, being the first category to classify urban

phases.

But by other hand, we would also pay attention to the representation of

space, the city model and how it is developed through different instruments

4


5/17


of planning and political intervention by different levels of government

(local, regional, national and supranational levels (Healey 2007, Dike

2007). In that sense, we would consider the autonomous capacity of politics

to develop different policies, although finally they can be aligned with the

process of increasing capitalist accumulation and even to create the best

context for developing new spatial practises and sometime also for

controlling them.

And, lastly, some views could consider the way social actors are able to

claim against those other two moments, and translate their demands,

converting them in to policies. This process is also useful to understand

open ways to participate in urban issues and modify spatial practises linked

to capitalist employment and consumption conditions, but also, to interfereinto policies decision process (Gonzalez, Harvey; Castells) and to demand

alternative or counter-hegemonic practises and city models.

Opening those three elements, factors or moments in Lebrefvre terms, we

could design a socio-political spatial grid to wrap urban transformation,

policies and politics.

SpatialPractises

Representation of spaceSpatial

representation

Economicalactivities

leading urbaneconomy

Urban policies Actions Other visions

5


6/17


IndustrialPhase

50s 70s

Commercial,industrialactivities

Zoning,functionality,

wealth fare state,equity, compact

city model

Urban Planning ;Master Plan,

Tecno-politics ,Relevant of

national level

Neighbourhoodsocial

movements,housing claims,class demands

Post-industrial

Phase

70s -90s

Advancedtertiary sectors

activities:finance service,

newcommunication

technology

Management ofpublic services ,

Public-privatepartnership, Marketoriented, roll back

of state

Diagnosis andStrategic

planification

Governancepolitics

Roll back stateand privatization

Social movementsagainst

privatization andproductive adjustand regenerationpolicies , claims of

State orientedpolicies,

multiculturalclaims

Globalization

2000--

Connectedeconomy new

economycultural

industries,quality

economy,network

economy, highlevel tourism

Attractivenessurban image,

internationalizationregeneration,

competition, cityleadership, StateRoll Out Phase

Urbanmarketing ,fragmented

plans, big urbaninfrastructure

renewal , Urbancitizenship audit,

publicconsultation and

sectorparticipationState Roll Out

Phase

Local andcommunitarian

projects,endogenous city

models,fragmenteddemands

Partially inspired in Precedo, Orosa y Mguez (2010: 8)

Following this grid, globalization would be a world-economy system phase

the most inclusive structural context in which processes on other economic

scales could be identified and inter-related and/or as the broadest horizon of

action to which accumulation strategies and economic projects can be

directed (Jessop 2000: 83). A new cycle of capitalist accumulation which

arose in order to avoid the crisis of the fordist-phase and to create new

conditions of possibility for the economy through new spatial practises4:4 Jeesop includes much more elements to define globalization establishing relations withspatial practises: (a) the internationalization of national economic spaces through growingpenetration (inward flows) and extraversion (outward flows); (b) the formation of regionaleconomic blocs embracing several national economies; (c) the development of economic tiesbetween local and regional authorities in different national economies -- ties which often by-pass the national level but are sometimes sponsored by one or more national states; (d) themovement of multinational companies (MNCs) and transnational banks (TNBs) from limitedeconomic activities abroad to more comprehensive and worldwide strategies, sometimesextending to 'global localization' in and through which firms pursue a global strategy basedon exploiting local differences; (e) the opening of national borders through various

liberalization measures; (f) the widening and deepening of international regimes coveringeconomic and economically relevant issues; and (g) the emergence of globalization properthrough the introduction and acceptance of global norms and standards, the development of

6


7/17


a) De-location of economic activities (Jessop 2002: 454) and de-

nationalisation of state-territoriality

b) Re-centralization of economical activities in pheriferical countries

(World-economy) due to low wages

c) Generation of competition among attractive places to generate

better conditions for the location of financial flows, tertiary high

technology productive activities and the cultural and tourism

industries.

d) Reduction of physical and symbolic distances among winning

spaces using and spreading new technologies of information and

communication, as much as new transport infrastructure

This new phase has been attached to politics in two ways:

* by one hand, since neoliberal ideology was spread at the same time

those processes were implemented and was able to construct a

narrative to legitimate it, and,

* by other hand, since State deregulations have been central for this

restructuration, while at same time a space re-escalation (Brenner2003) was being produced.

In that sense, Brenner et al. underlined it is necessary to pay attention to

the different phases and performance of the roll of State in order to

analyse the existing neoliberalism in each context. Specifically, they

pointed out a first phase of neoliberal policy, in which a State Roll Back

was mostly extend and a later phase in which the State plays an active roll

in order to create a better competitiveness for some places, encouragingpublic initiatives but also generating participatory process to increase

political legitimization of interventions, creating networks and governance

methods of making politics (Peck et al., 2002, Gonzlez 2007).

In that sense, since local scale has been considered as the pivotal space of

globalization as other ones as mega-region or trans-border areas (Sassen

globally integrated markets together with globally oriented strategies, and 'deracinated' firms

with no evident national operational base. (2000: 82)

7


8/17


2007, Jessop 2002: 454, Jessop 2000) due to the political re-escalation

(Brenner 2003), cities are the laboratories to analyse policies and politics in

global context, not only to consider how they have been converted in global

or not, but on contrary, because analysing global urban policies we could

rethink the relation among globalization and neoliberalism.

Therefore, if by one hand we considered that there is a clear transition from

post-fordist phase to globalization one, during this transition, urban models

or imaginaries (representation of space) also changed and pursuit through

different political moments. According to Jessop and Brenner, Theodore and

Peck (2002, 2009) and Peck and Tickell (2002) in urban context, the

neoliberal roll back of State was translated to policies in this way:

- Local politics was subordinated to financial market and tertiary

economy ((Jessop 2002: 454)

- Efficiency, quality and effectiveness criteria were introduced in order

to evaluate public policies and services, as if they were private or

market services.

- Deregulation and new public-private management of public local

affaires were introduced, reducing the areas in which publicintervention was necessary

- Land use liberalization, applying strategic planning instead of master

plans which had more legal capabilities to adequate land uses to

necessities, therefore land changed its significance as exchange value

Latter, the roll of State changed but following those authors keeping its

neoliberal label, since the return of State (in urban contexts) has only the

duty of increase the conditions of local or urban competitiveness, in order to

become into a global city. The policies, after all, were mainly following this

global imaginary. City creative initiatives, fragmented spatial plans, big

urban infrastructure renewal, international networking, urban citizenship

audit, public consultation and segmental participation were used to assume

this new role.

However, those authors and specially Jessop (2000, 2002) have also paid

attention to the differences among existing neoliberalisms, underliningthe necessity of studying profoundly path dependence contexts, the balance

8


9/17


of forces, competing discourses, etc. (Jessop 2002: 457). In that sense,

Jessop indentify different alternatives to neoliberalism during the 90s, in

Germany, Sweden, the third way in Britain (Blair) and USA (Clinton). In that

sense, for the author: one not should conflagrate the global neoliberal turn

with the broader set of changes in economic, political and social life on

contrary the author underlined there is a great continuity in institutions and

modes of policymaking, even as distinctive national variants of a new mode

of regulation are emerging with a mix of neostatism, neocorporatis, and

some neoliberal features (Jessop 2002: 459).

So, instead of using only the concept of neoliberalism or globalization,

Jessop uses his own concept which tries to include the variations in the

modes of regulation of economy and social life. This concept isSchumpeterian Workfare National Regime (SWNR) opposed to the Keynesian

Welfare National State (or KWNS).

In that sense, he considered There are various forms of the SWPR, different

routes can be taken towards them, and there are significant path-dependent

as well as path-shaping aspects to trajectories and outcomes alike. A

neoliberal regime shift is only one of many possibilities () it is useful to

contrast neoliberalism with three other ideal-typical strategies that can leadfrom some form of the KWNS to some form of the SWPR: neocorporatism,

neostatism, and neocommunitarianism (2002:460)

In the next section, we would like to use those Jessops ideal categories in

order to show how the Schumpeterian Workfare Urban Regimen (SUWR)

in the global context in Madrid could be labelled just as a neoliberal path or

by contrary the sift in the urban policies in Madrid since 1989, but specially

since 2003 has followed different strategies. However those categories

created by Jessop are designed to understand mainly national competences

and not only urban or local ones, so we have to translate them in order to

with our analysis scale.

Analysing urban representation of space and neoliberalism

We consider that in order to analyse the representation of space, it is very

useful to pay attention to the urban policies discourses emanated from

public institutions and local governments. In that sense, State of the citydebates is the way, Major presents in front of local deputies their urban

9


10/17


models and political achievements, and opposition deputies are able to

discussing with the Major about the accomplish of main urban

transformation, but mostly around the city model.

Therefore, we have selected some of the last debates celebrated in Madrid(2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010) in order to classify policies and narratives in

terms of the diverse itineraries proposed by Jessop (2002) through which

Major (Ruiz Gallardn) has established what we would call Schumpeterian

Workfare Urban Regime (or SWUR).

In order to analyse them, first of all, we would pay attention to the

construction of cognitive frames and discursive strategies in those political

speeches, namely, the symbolic dimension of policy (Subirats and Gom

1998:389). The focal point will be to discover the rhetoric around Madrid as

global city, what Atkinson 2000 and Jezierski (2004) called the story of the

city, how problems and solutions are related while the city representations

of the space is projected. In doing that, we would like to illustrate two

principal ideas:

Describing his city model and telling the urban policies he design for

the city, the Major Ruz Gallardn is also constructing collective

reference frames. In that sense, he is always not only telling the story

of his way of doing things, as an extraordinary one, but also he is

recreating constantly the past, the present and the future of Madrid

(specially since 2003) and comparing us versus others, with a

positive connotation (to which we should follow) or with a negative

connotation, (which we are winning, the losers). Global city is

and end but also a means to legitimate the transformation of the city.

Some dominant narratives of Roll back State neoliberalism are

contested by the discourses of the Major, although he is a member of

the conservative party (Popular Party) and he is usually labelled and

contested as neoliberal. In that sense, we will try to understand this

point using Jessop interpretation when he said where both the

national and international levels are dominated by attempts to

promote a neoliberal regime shift, the urban level may be

characterized more by neocorporatism, neostatism and

neocommunitarianism. Indeed this last pattern is particularly linked to

10
http://csp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Rob+Atkinson&sortspec=date&submit=Submithttp://csp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Rob+Atkinson&sortspec=date&submit=Submit


11/17


attempts to manage issues of social exclusion and social cohesion at

urban level even in the most strongly neoliberal cases (2002:464)

In that sense, we would analyse those speeches trying to classify the

different scenes of the city making off using Jessop paths and idealcategories in order to find out if urban policies in Madrid are or not designed

as neoliberal ones, although they are clearly closed to the global city model,

and the Schumpeterian Workfare Urban Regime (or SWUR). Those are the

family codes we have already used to analyse those political speeches,

using the categories developed by Jessop, as Strategies to adapt to global

neoliberalism (Jessop 2002: 461)

Source: Adapted from Jessop 2002

11


12/17


12


13/17


The context of Global Madrid

The debates of the City State starts with the Major presentation -withoutlimit of time- of the general situation of the city, and the main urban policies

achievements, after which the opposition parties delegate ask some

questions to the Major, and finally he answers them.

The conditions of possibility or the new frame for local government and

politics in Spain were established by a conservative national Law 57/2003

named Actions for Local Government Modernization, under the Government

of Jos Mara Aznar (PP). In this year, Alberto Ruz Gallardn, theconservative politician who had been President of the Autonomous

13
http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l57-2003.htmlhttp://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l57-2003.html


14/17


Community of Madrid won local elections in Madrid City, replacing Jos

Mara Alvarez del Manzano (PP) who had been the leader of the local

government of Madrid since 1991. Under the new context for political local

government he was going to deeply develop the spirit of urban global

policies started during Manzano last political period, but changing the

neoliberal roll-back phase, to a more active roll-out way (Peck, Theodore

and Brenner 2002).

Reading the Debates of the City State we could see constantly how the

Major began the story of Madrid as the new modern city in 2003, when he

won the local elections, and started what he considered the most radical

modernization of the local government. Although the reform was possible

due to the new conditions created for all cities with more than 250.000inhabitants by the Law 57/2003, Gallardn usually underlined that

considered he and his government team were one of the most relevant

drivers of this reform (DCS 2006:4).

In order to adapt to those new conditions, since 2003 to 2004 in Madrid city

several new govern mechanisms were changed: Plenary Organic Regulation

(2004), Government and Administration Organic Regulation (2004), and

Civic Participation Organic Regulation (2004), while in 2006, the first Act onCapital Status and Special Regime of Madrid was approved by National

Parliament. Since then, after creating the institutional context he started to

develop his infrastructural megaproject: the modification of the first Madrid

Ring Road (M-30) and the buried of some sections constructing tunnels and

a complex by-pass in the South. The process of implementation was

complex, as much as it was in Boston, during the execution of the Big Dig

project, and the procedure to construct it was considered null by the Madrid

Superior Justice Tribunal since it had not obtained the necessaryEnvironmental Impact Assessment although it had any effect in the practise

since the project was already finished.

Global city as a collective frame reference to legitimate the local

government roll out and the transformation of the city

Through the analysis of the speeches we could find a constant reference to

those main issues:

14
http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l57-2003.htmlhttp://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l57-2003.html


15/17


a) Madrid as a collective identity has a past, a present and a projection

in the future. Creating the Madrid city myth the Mayor projects the

necessity of assuming a roll of being the leader of an imaginary

community with a common destiny. And, therefore he is just

accomplished the responsibility of running this urban place and

executing the changes the city deserves. This has two main

implications, first there is no way out of not assuming this

responsibility with the past and the future and the rest of the country

and by other hand only through the route of becoming a global city,

Madrid will be dealing with its potential following the past traces of

other main cities in the world. This main transformation started in

2003, and this is a constant reference in Major speeches at least until

2008.

b) Another constant in the Major interventions, which is constantly

underlined, is the permanent active roll of the City Council. In that

sense, he repeats persistently several times is each of the debates

that we as local public administration have never given up of

acting. And while in the last debates, this public action is mainly

highlighted comparing with the inaction of the National Government

during the Crisis context. For example, in 2006 , the Major said:

P 1: 2006 - 1:13 El equipo que encabezo ha querido que el

Ayuntamiento de Madrid sea un agente reformador e

impulsor de la ciudad y no un mero gestor de la misma, al

tiempo que un precursor de realidades que se adivinan

prximas, inminentes, en el contexto cambiante de la

globalizacin. Hemos querido que la Administracin cumpla

la misin que Rimbau asignaba a los intelectuales: serautnticos multiplicadores de progreso

P 1: 2006 - 1:20 No obstante, tambin estoy informado de

que la confianza que Keynes pona en la inversin pblica en

infraestructuras, como elemento reductor de las

desigualdades sociales, ha cado en desgracia ltimamente

en alguna parte del espectro poltico.

15


16/17


17/17


Precedo, Andrs; Orosa, Javier Jos; Mguez, Alberto (2010) Marketing de ciudadesy producto ciudad: una propuesta metodolgica, Urban Public Economics Review,nm. 12, 2010, pp. 13-39

Precedo, Andrs; Orosa, Javier Jos; Mguez, Alberto (2010) De la planificacinestratgica al marketing urbano: hacia la ciudad inmaterial. EURE Santiago, v. 36,

n. 108. [http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0250-71612010000200001&lng=es&nrm=iso, 06/2012]

Sassen, S. (2007) El reposicionamiento de las ciudades y regiones urbanas en unaeconoma global: ampliando las opciones de polticas y gobernanza Revista Eure(Vol. XXXIII, N 100), pp. 9-34.

Theodore, N., Peck, J. & Brenner, N. (2009) Urbanismo neoliberal: la ciudad y elimperio de los mercados, Revista Carajillo de la Ciudad, Revista Digital delPrograma en Gestin de la Ciudad, AO 1 - 17.[http://cafedelasciudades.com.ar/carajillo/2_art3.htm, 06/06/2012]

Wilson, D., 2004. Toward A Contingent Urban Neoliberalism,UrbanGeography,

25, 8, 771-783. Special Issue: New Developments in Anglo Urban Geography.Wilson, D. and J. Wouters, 2003. Spatiality and Growth Discourse: TheRestructuring Of Americas Rust Belt Cities,Journal of Urban Affairs, 25, 2, 123-139. Special Issue: Contemporary Geographical Perspectives On Urban Politics andPolicy.

17
http://cafedelasciudades.com.ar/carajillo/2_art3.htmhttp://cafedelasciudades.com.ar/carajillo/2_art3.htm

Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco

Documents

Transcript of Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco