Suchergebnisse

Many of the academic analyses calling Medellín's development an "urban miracle" fall short with regard to discussion of the political economic implications of institutional shifts. An emerging transnational capitalist class promoted 'good governance' reforms and the embedding of neoliberalism in the urban context. Medellín's neoliberal development agenda is not only a market-led strategy but also a particular form of hierarchic rule and distribution of power. Increased economic activities in the tertiary sector, the promotion of flexible labor markets, and the incorporation of the city into the global economy at the lower end of the value chain have not served as sustainable growth escalators for Medellín's economy. The city continues to have high rates of un- and underemployment and is still the country's most unequal city. These developments can by no means be described as miraculous.Muchos de los análisis académicos que describen el desarrollo de Medellín como un "milagro urbano" se quedan cortos en cuanto a la discusión de las implicaciones político-económicas de los cambios institucionales. Una nueva clase capitalista transnacional promovió las reformas de buena gobernanza y la incorporación del neoliberalismo en el contexto urbano. El plan de desarrollo neoliberal de Medellín no es sólo una estrategia orientada al mercado sino que también es una forma jerárquica de gobierno y distribución del poder. El aumento de las actividades económicas en el sector sectario, la promoción de un mercado laboral flexible y la incorporación de la ciudad en la economía global en el nivel más bajo de la cadena de valor no han servido como palancas para el crecimiento económico sustentable de Medellín. La ciudad sigue teniendo las tasas de desempleo y subempleo más altas de Colombia y todavía es la ciudad más desigual del país. Estos desarrollos no pueden ser descritos en modo alguno como milagrosos.

This article considers the role of ideas in New Labour's approach to the governance of urban regeneration and characterizes this approach as 'embryonic associationalism'. This approach contrasts with the economic rationalism of previous Conservative governments and leads to a more determined effort to empower local community groups within the policy process. We analyse the effects of this shift in approach in practice through a comparative case study of changing patterns of governance in different areas of the English city of Sheffield over a ten‐year period. We conclude that while other factors are important in shaping the nature of community empowerment, New Labour's approach has promoted a political environment in which it is increasingly difficult for local state actors to ignore the voice of local communities. However, while we refer to this as 'New Labour's approach', we are clear that this relates to a tradition of ideas that is far from new in Labour thought.

This article examines New Labour's approach to joined-up government within UK urban policy. In particular, it analyses the government's success in achieving greater degrees of integration in urban governance. It suggests that the growth in the number of multi-sectoral partnership schemes and area-based urban policies under Labour produced tensions with key elements of its joined-up government agenda. The article examines the rationale underpinning the government's approach to 'joined-up governance' and explores the processes by which the government sought to encourage the reorganization of urban governance through the institutional development of strategic and single-purpose partnership bodies. It also highlights the effects of these processes on the ground through an examination of developments in the city of Sheffield. It explores changes in the structure of urban governance in the city in response to national restructuring and local agendas, highlighting the importance of local leadership in providing coherence to urban governance and indicates some democratic tensions that have arisen.

Since 1979, housing reforms in China have been seen as successive state efforts to improve urban governance. The idea is that the state has all along failed to deliver housing efficiently and equitably through the work units and that it is believed that only through the recommodification of housing could the housing problem be ultimately resolved. The housing monetarization policy (HMP) was thus launched in 1998 to replace the long-standing in-kind housing subsidy under the old welfare housing system. The policy aims at providing workers with cash subsidies as part of their wage package to enable them to buy or rent their homes from the market. The purpose of this paper is to explain the implications of the HMP through a neoliberal urbanization perspective. Through the case study of Guiyang, it is argued that while the HMP is successful in improving certain historical housing inequalities, it does not primarily aim at eradicating housing inequalities. HMP has in fact led to more rather than less horizontal inequities. In addition, it is argued here that a market housing system is leading towards increasing urban poverty, greater social polarization and spatial segregation. To improve governance, China needs to keep neoliberal urbanization in check and pay serious attention to its adverse consequences during economic transformation. (Pac Rev/GIGA)