Responses from Urban Democratization to Global Neoliberalism

Abstract

Walking, feeling, breathing in, and getting lost in the streets are the best ways to get to know a city. When moving through a city in this way, we can see social imbalances, segregated spaces and neighborhoods, and changes in the landscape. Beneath what lies in plain sight lie mechanisms and regulatory apparatus. These include norms and socio-institutional structures that operate at different scales, from the local to the supranational. As we describe in this chapter, these influence urban dynamics beyond what our senses perceive directly. While we must take into account relationships between social agents, we must not overlook interactions between the agency itself and broader local, national, and international structures.Processes of capitalist globalization, until 1970, unfolded mainly within the framework of nationally organized state territorialities. More recently, these dynamics have changed and increased the importance of sub-national and supranational forms of territorial organization. This in turn has produced a process of rescaling and reterritorialization of capital and power. This is clearly reflected in the transfer of economic-policy authority and jurisdiction from states to the scales mentioned above. In this chapter, we show that both state territoriality and national governance are being redefined and deemphasized toward both wider and narrower scales. This makes up part of a neoliberal strategy to confront crises and be able to regulate capital accumulation more directly.We read the new role of local agency, as already signaled, on the basis of this diagnosis, and in a context of neoliberal rescaling. We recognize the value of forms of collective action, as well as that of the actors who, with a will toward transformation, have managed to reinvent their activity and delve into different forms of urban democratization.

Full text

Contributions to Political Science
JulenZabalo
IgorFilibi
LeireEscajedoSan-EpifanioEditors
Made-to-
Measure
Future(s)
forDemocracy?
Views fromtheBasque Atalaia

vii
Contents
Contemplating from the Basque Atalaia the Challenges Posed
by the Different Forms and Scales of Contemporary Democracy . . . . . . . 1
Igor Filibi, Julen Zabalo, and Leire Escajedo San-Epifanio
The Challenge of Finding a Cosmopolitan Democratic Model . . . . . . . . . . 15
Argimiro Rojo Salgado
Part I The Tensions Generated by the Neo-liberal Attempt
to Domesticate Democracy, at State and Global Level
The Neoliberal Commercialisation of Citizen Participation in Spain . . . . 37
Jone Martínez-Palacios, Andere Ormazabal Gaston,
and Igor Ahedo Gurrutxaga
Responses from Urban Democratization to Global Neoliberalism . . . . . . 59
Iago Lekue and Imanol Telleria
State Construction and Democratization: The Basque Union Majority
in the Face of Systemic Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Jon Azkune, Jule Goikoetxea, and Eneko A. Romero
Part II New Practices of Citizenship in Emerging Scales
and Frameworks of Western Democracy
Postpandemic Technopolitical Democracy: Algorithmic Nations,
Data Sovereignty, Digital Rights, and Data Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Igor Calzada
The City, Urbanization and Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Jordi Borja

viii
Democracy Beyond the Nation-State: From National Sovereignty
to Pluralist European Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Javier Uncetabarrenechea and Igor Filibi
The Construction of a Global Democracy Through Peoples’
Participation on the International Stage: The Case
of the International Peoples’ Assembly (IPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Leire Azkargorta Mintegi, Unai Vázquez Puente,
and Xabier Albizu Landa
Popular Power as Subject of Democratic Transformation:
A New Power for the Emergence of Communal Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Saúl Curto-López and Luis Miguel Uharte Pozas
Part III Deepening Democracy, Analysing Practical Strategies
for the Participation of Basque Society
Exploring the Right to Decide: From a Liberal Democratic Concept
to a Radical Democratic Tool Approaching the Basque Case . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Ander Vizán-Amorós, Julen Zabalo, and Amalur Álvarez
Exploring New Citizenship Practices: The Meaning of Young Activists’
Political Engagement in the Basque Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Ane Larrinaga, Onintza Odriozola, Mila Amurrio, and Iker Iraola
Considerations on the Democratic Challenge from the Perspective
of Social Services: Community, Participation and (In)equality . . . . . . . . . 241
Nerea Zubillaga-Herran and Noemi Bergantiños
Participation, Immigration and Subjective Perception of Integration
in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Arkaitz Fullaondo and Gorka Moreno
Part IV Critical Vision of the Epistemological Methodologies
and Frameworks from Which Contemporary Western
Democracy Is Analysed
Methodologies for Transductive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Tomás R. Villasante
Social Transformation Through Supervision in Participatory
Action Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Ainhoa Berasaluze, Maddalen Epelde-Juaristi, Miren Ariño-Altuna,
and Charo Ovejas-Lara
Contents

ix
Exploring Analytical Tools for Democratic Deepening:
Intersectionality in Our Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Uxue Zugaza Goienetxea, Idoia Del Hoyo Moreno,
and Miriam Ureta García
Rethinking Relationships Between Public Institutions
and Community Initiatives: The Cases of Astra (Gernika)
and Karmela (Santutxu, Bilbao) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Izaro Gorostidi and Zesar Martinez
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Contents

Part I
The Tensions Generated by the Neo-liberal
Attempt to Domesticate Democracy, at
State and Global Level

59
Responses fromUrban Democratization
toGlobal Neoliberalism
IagoLekue andImanolTelleria
Abstract Walking, feeling, breathing in, and getting lost in the streets are the best
ways to get to know a city. When moving through a city in this way, we can see
social imbalances, segregated spaces and neighborhoods, and changes in the land-
scape. Beneath what lies in plain sight lie mechanisms and regulatory apparatus.
These include norms and socio-institutional structures that operate at different
scales, from the local to the supranational. As we describe in this chapter, these
inuence urban dynamics beyond what our senses perceive directly. While we must
take into account relationships between social agents, we must not overlook interac-
tions between the agency itself and broader local, national, and international
structures.
Processes of capitalist globalization, until 1970, unfolded mainly within the
framework of nationally organized state territorialities. More recently, these dynam-
ics have changed and increased the importance of sub-national and supranational
forms of territorial organization. This in turn has produced a process of rescaling
and reterritorialization of capital and power. This is clearly reected in the transfer
of economic-policy authority and jurisdiction from states to the scales mentioned
above. In this chapter, we show that both state territoriality and national governance
are being redened and deemphasized toward both wider and narrower scales. This
makes up part of a neoliberal strategy to confront crises and be able to regulate capi-
tal accumulation more directly.
We read the new role of local agency, as already signaled, on the basis of this
diagnosis, and in a context of neoliberal rescaling. We recognize the value of forms
of collective action, as well as that of the actors who, with a will toward transforma-
tion, have managed to reinvent their activity and delve into different forms of urban
democratization.
I. Lekue (*) · I. Telleria
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of the Basque Country,
Bilbao, Spain
e-mail: iago.lekue@ehu.eus; imanol.telleria@ehu.eus
© The Author(s) 2023
J. Zabalo etal. (eds.), Made-to-Measure Future(s) for Democracy?,
Contributions to Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08608-3_4

60
Keywords Glocalization · Neoliberal urbanism · Right to the city · Critical urban
theory · Municipalism
1 Introduction: Critical Urban Theory
Cities have offered, over the last half century, attractive case studies for the social
sciences, and more specically for the analysis of ecological systems and statistical
data. However, it is with the appearance of critical urban theory that the problems,
challenges, and opportunities present in urban social reality have been conceptual-
ized and contextualized with greater rigor.
Far from seeing the city as a mere container for social processes, we must under-
stand that urban space is both an active part and result of disputes that have occurred
and continue to occur within it. Critical urban theory (CUT), inuenced by the
Frankfurt School, shares this school’s philosophical criticism of the commodica-
tion of political and social institutions but transfers its analysis to a local scale. This
is useful in terms of both interpreting and transforming society.
The radicality of this theory resides in the “right to the city” theorized by
Lefebvre (1996), through which is expressed an ambition to move toward social
justice (Fainstein, 2011). Marcuse (2007, 2012), within the framework of critical
urban theory, proposes three major action strategies: exposure, proposal, and politi-
cization. The rst emphasizes in-depth analysis of problems, so that they can then
be communicated to relevant social actors. In other words, this step involves diag-
nosing the causes of a problem and facilitating self-treatment. Second, through criti-
cal urban theory, strategies and real goals capable of addressing the fundamental
causes previously identied should be proposed. Finally, a third step is linked to the
politicization of the responses proposed to address the problem identied. This
involves focusing on the activating discourses and elements that can weave together
alternatives. Depending on the case, this can also involve mobilizing the media and
even academia.
As we will see as the chapter progresses, CUT is an appropriate tool with which
to understand the phenomena and dynamics that neoliberalism and capitalist urban-
ization produce in cities (Brenner, 2009a; Marcuse etal., 2014; Bossi, 2019). Below,
we analyze the economic and political context in which Western cities nd them-
selves. On the one hand, we see how the process of rescaling has brought cities to
the fore, turning them into an important terrain of ideological dispute. On the other
hand, we analyze the challenges and threats that neoliberalism and its global eco-
nomic dynamics pose for urban democracy. Finally, we gather alternatives and new
trends that are working toward the democratization of cities. Among these, from an
integral perspective, it is worth studying the contributions of urban movements and
participatory practices promoted by some local governments in the development of
contemporary urban policy.
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

61
2 Rescaling andHow Cities Became Central
As Brenner (1999) correctly points out, globalization is a process with a multiscale
and multitemporal evolution. However, it is not until 1970 that, in the global West,
new manifestations of statehood, including city networks, and the European Union
itself, take on greater relevance in the global economic panorama. It is for this very
reason that we afrm that globalization cannot be reduced exclusively to ows of
people, goods, or capital in the world market. The loss of sovereignty experienced
by national states through this process is undeniable (Wriston, 1992; Ohmae, 1995).
That said, we attribute this hollowing out process to the very political and economic
power of certain states. These states, through their state capacities and “selective”
relational conditions, have allowed their own relative weakening in favor of the
economic interests of capital (Jessop, 1990, 1994, 2016). We emphasize here the
idea of “strategic selectivity” proposed by Jessop (1990, 1994, 2016), which is
grounded in the Gramscian theory of the relational state. This is based on the fact
that the modern state, whether on a local or national scale, does not always select its
strategies rationally or according to an exclusively business logic. If we understand
the state as a set of relations between institutions and/or social organizations, which
have the function of dening and applying binding collective decisions in a specic
territory, we then also understand that, due to power asymmetries that run through
these, certain groups can access state authority more easily than others, thus favor-
ing the implementation of some public policies over others (Telleria & Lekue, 2020).
The idea of rescaling thus refers to the transformation, or the appearance of a
new balance of powers between different scales, which may be less stable, but prob-
ably more proportionate. Taking Europe as an example, we observe how states are
being immersed in a dual process of rescaling (Sevilla Buitrago, 2017). On the one
hand, we see how they have had to create new institutional frameworks and policies
in order to reposition themselves within new forms of supranational government.
On the other hand, they have granted new forms of governance at local levels, such
as public-private partnerships (Harmes, 2006; Franquesa, 2007; Ahedo & Telleria,
2020), and are offering greater autonomy in terms of economic planning. Through
this process, on the one hand, cities continue to agglomerate immobile infrastruc-
ture (energy sources, communication networks, business headquarters, etc.). On the
other, states, who during Keynesian-Fordism were in charge of currency regulation,
legislation, the provision of social welfare and the management of space on a large
scale (Lefebvre, 1978: 298) cede, to some extent, this power at the local level.
In accordance with this logic, Sassen (1991, 1993) identies cities as territorially
specic urban places, in which production and reproduction processes decisive for
globalization are carried out. Cities are nodes in the networks of the nancial ser-
vice industry and transnational companies.
Swyngedouw (1996, 1997), along the same lines, proposes the term “glocaliza-
tion” with reference to the manifestation of global economic trends on a local scale.
On the one hand, this implies a reconcentration of industry and population in urban
areas, which brings about a differentiation of zones and cities which are more
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

62
developed than others (even within a national territory). This is what Smith (1984)
would call “uneven spatial development.” As we will see in the next section, this
occurs as capitalist production processes develop in specic space-times. Capital
establishes itself in a specic place and begins to generate prot, until reaching a
point where, due to various issues– such as competitiveness– the rate of prot
begins to decline below acceptable levels. At this moment, capital moves on in
search of a more protable place. This produces an imbalance between cities and
territories. During the Fordist-Keynesian project, the state itself was in charge of
compensating for these imbalances (Dunford & Kafkalas 1992; Brenner, 2003a,
2009b; Jessop, 2009).
On the other hand, the management and governance of cities is subject to the
dominant economic policy, which implies a reduction of the welfare state, typically
managed and implemented at the national level, and increased deregulation of scal
responsibilities (Brenner, 2003a; Peck, 2012).
Thus, paradoxically, the aforementioned autonomy transferred from states to cit-
ies has a priori meant a reduction in autonomy overall. Soja (2000: 218) draws
attention to this dynamic as follows: “The practices of daily life, the public domain
of planning and governance, the formation of urban community and civil society,
the processes of urban and regional economic development and change, the arena
of urban politics, the constitution of the urban imaginary, and the way in which ‘the
city’ is represented, are all increasingly affected by global inuences and con-
straints, signicantly reducing what might be called the conceptual autonomy of
the urban.”
3 Scalar Instability: Neoliberalism inCities
The restructuring of scale is part of a set of neoliberal strategies that are “deeply and
indelibly shaped by diverse acts of institutional dissolution” (Brenner etal., 2011:
20). These regulatory phases are intrinsic to situationally specic processes of neo-
liberalism, that is, they are always specic to their place and time, as well as to dif-
ferent institutional structures inherited from local, national, or international states.
As stated by Brenner etal. (2010: 330), neoliberalism by denition “represents
an historically specic, unevenly developed, hybrid, patterned tendency of market-
disciplinary regulatory restructuring.” Peck and Tickell (1994: 322) also point out
that the neoliberal alternative built from the crisis of Keynesian Fordism is highly
unstable temporally and spatially: business cycles swing ever more violently, while
localized growth seems increasingly fragile and short-lived.
Within the framework of critical urban theory, Harvey (2003, 2006) takes the
Schumpeterian concept of Schöpferische Zerstörung or “creative destruction” to
explain these booms and economic crises. For Smith himself (1984), who explained
the phenomenon through “swing theory,” it is nothing more than the pendulum
effect of capitalist exploitation. We base our own analysis on the idea of the code-
pendency of capitalism on external markets identied by Luxemburg (1933).
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

63
Observing the nature of capital, we understand that it will move to wherever the rate
of prot is highest, developing those areas and underdeveloping those where the rate
of prot is lower, or in decline. Contradictorily, it is this very development that
reduces the high rate of prot. An increase in competitiveness, reduction of unem-
ployment, increase in wages, the appearance of trade union organizations, and, in
general, the regulation of production, reduce the return on capital (Jessop etal., 1999).
Capital, subsequently, moves on toward underdeveloped areas, exploiting the
opportunities and higher rates of prot available. Thus, a back-and-forth movement
takes place through the continuous migration of capital between developed and
underdeveloped areas. Capital shifts from xed to circulating capital and back again
to xed capital. This can happen at all spatial scales. However, Smith (1984) asserts
that it is on the urban scale that this pattern has gone the furthest.
Creative destruction, then, serves to describe the geographically unequal, socially
regressive, and politically volatile trajectory of institutional-spatial changes that
have crystallized in the profound transformation of the institutional infrastructures
on which Fordism-Keynesian was based, at all scales (Brenner & Theodore, 2002).
Following phases of socio-spatial destruction caused by deindustrialization and
neoliberal crises, which have been characterized by offensives against organized
labor, a reduction in and privatization of public services, and a criminalization of the
urban poor, we are currently at a moment of construction of a phase of neoliberal-
ism adapted to and guided by urban regeneration and business-oriented urban devel-
opment (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2015). In this context, the moments of creation identied
by Brenner and Theodore (2002) in relation to six areas of regulation around which
changes are orientated are interesting. These areas include: the wage relationship;
inter-capitalist competition; nancial and monetary regulation; forms of gover-
nance; international congurations and uneven spatial development. The moment of
destruction in the wage relationship, for example, can be understood as the continu-
ous attacks on organizations, union agreements, and collective bargaining agree-
ments, and its analogous moment of creation would take the form of competitive
deregulation, that is, the atomized renegotiation of working conditions.
At a global level, we do identify four categories of adaptations of neoliberaliza-
tion that have been implemented by states (Jessop, 2002): pure neoliberalism, neo-
corporatist, neo-statist, and neo-cumunitarianism. However, to approach the case of
cities, we favor a different framework. Specically, this is a temporal interpretation
of the aforementioned dynamic of creative destruction in three phases (Brenner &
Theodore, 2002): proto-neoliberalism, the neoliberalism of “cuts” (roll-back neo-
liberalism), and the neoliberalism of deployment (roll-out neoliberalism).
First of all, “proto-liberalism” refers to the emergence of the city as a battleeld.
In the midst of economic restructuring, a moment in which a decline in industry
provoked economic dislocations, the strategies adopted by cities promoted eco-
nomic growth through deregulation initiatives. This occurred despite the fact that
the sociopolitical agreements inherited from Fordism-Keynesian institutions based
on redistribution were maintained. This was a time of instability and dispute between
models, turning cities into battleelds. The refusal of the United States Federal
Government, in coordination with the nancial sector, to renegotiate NewYork
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

64
City’s debt in the 1970s economically stied an urban development model charac-
terized by public employment and the wide provision of services. Above all, how-
ever, this act fullled its deterrent function for other cities in the following decades
(Ahedo & Telleria, 2020).
Secondly, “cutbacks neoliberalism” makes reference to the withdrawal of states
from government control of resources and the destruction of the welfare state. It is
from 1980 onward that this begins to take shape inlocal administrations, through
spending reduction formulas, with the ultimate aim of reducing spending in state
administrations. In the same vein, scal austerity measures were also implemented,
including the reduction of social benets and wage cuts in the public sector. In many
cities, “good practice” manuals were approved with the intention of promoting
administrative efciency and a favorable climate for what we would today call
“business-oriented urbanism” or “entrepreneurial cities” (Harvey, 1989; Jessop,
1997). More recently, linked to the nancial crisis of 2008, austerity urbanism
(Peck, 2012) has become the most common way of managing the nancial restric-
tions affecting local governments.
In this context, a transition process in urban governance began. This process is
more concerned with promoting a place and economic growth through public-
private partnerships than with social welfare (Harvey, 1989; Hall & Hubbard, 1996).
In this phase, city councils began to take on megalomaniac policies for large events
and internationally competitive urban marketing emerged. Strategies connected the
local with the global, all within the framework of interscalar competition between
cities (Cox, 1993). On the other hand, cities also began to prioritize spaces within
their own territories, through spectacular and attractive urban projects (Swyngedouw
etal., 2002).
Thus, we arrive at a third phase: deployment neoliberalism. After the destructive
period of cut-back neoliberalism, the so-called roll-out neoliberalism strengthened
the patterns that urban entrepreneurship had experimented with. Once neoliberal
modes of management have been normalized, there is a move toward depoliticizing
the economy through technocrats. This is a reconstitution of the classical liberal
project through the facilitating intervention of public institutions (especially state
institutions). The truth is that local policies are made subservient to the interests of
private capital. We are, therefore, witnessing an institutionally created neoliberal
project (Jones & Ward, 2002).
Given these conditions, institutions, regardless of scale, have tried to regulate the
system through what Jessop (1992) would call “institutional xes.” Rejecting the
idea that these arrangements have favored the welfare state characteristic of
Keynesianism, Jessop points out that this has been replaced by the post-Fordist pat-
tern of a Schumpeterian work state. In this sense, the state– local or national–
strengthens its role in promoting competition (not only of national companies, but
at all levels and sectors of the system of production). Institutional xes, by means of
patches of questionable durability, focus their efforts on fostering institutional inno-
vation in order to promote the structural competitiveness of economies, by disman-
tling prior political frameworks through and for new models (Brenner & Theodore,
2002). This certainly results in maintaining and reproducing the new and old
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

65
patterns of creative destruction, achieving stability in one area at the cost of instabil-
ity in another (Jessop, 2016).
This said, it should be noted that institutional restructuring that occurs on an
urban scale is mutable according to the moment of crisis and can also present points
of weakness that can serve as windows of opportunity for the democratization of
cities.1
Given the above, we understand neoliberalism as a constant and emerging, as
well as contradictory (Harvey, 2014), state strategy, which through deregulation and
competition seeks to generate competitive advantages in specic places (Brenner &
Theodore, 2002). In other words, contrary to the strategies of pure neoliberalism
(Jessop, 2002) such as austerity policies, privatizations, reduction of direct taxes,
etc., current neoliberalism can be reinterpreted “as a contradictory practice of state
intervention, which attempts to lead state institutions to dismantle regulatory restric-
tions, promote market-mediated forms of governance, and protect the interests of
transnational corporations” (Brenner, 2003b).
4 The Democratizing Reform ofCities
At this point, it might seem that the discourse that there is no alternative has been
successfully imposed. However, there are numerous experiences and processes that
have aimed to reclaim the democratizing potential of cities in a global context. In
this respect, we can see how, on the one hand, rescaling has brought the site of
decision-making closer to cities. This does not mean that democratization has
occurred, but it does imply a certain reduction in institutional infrastructure, which
can facilitate a questioning of the urban neoliberal model, at least in a local context.
On the other hand, it remains to be seen if neoliberalism itself has, at some point,
opened a window of opportunity in which processes of transformation of reality can
gain strength.
In the above contextualization, we have tried to present the dynamics and trans-
formations that constitute the chaotic environment in which we nd ourselves today.
We believe that understanding this context is necessary in order to understand the
challenges posed and identify opportunities to propose, regardless, more democratic
alternatives in urban contexts.
First of all, we would like to bring to the fore a concept that, in a context where
governance is made up of various actors, interest groups, and networks, can serve us
1 Brenner and Theodore (2002) mention the following: “the establishment of cooperative networks
led by companies inlocal politics; the mobilization of new local economic development policies
that promote cooperation between companies and industrial groups; the deployment of commu-
nity-based programs to reduce social exclusion; the promotion of new forms of work in coordina-
tion and inter-organizational networks in previously independent spheres of local state intervention;
and the creation of new regional institutions to promote the marketing of place at the metropolitan
level, and intergovernmental coordination.”
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

66
as a control and coordination tool. “Colibration” is the term that Dunsire (1990,
1993) coined to refer to intervention in an existing balance between various gures.
It refers to the implementation of control measures to tip the balance between two
opposing positions and expressions. In this way, colibration as a tool of governance
can serve, on the one hand, to identify which antagonistic forces and actors exist in
a specic case and, on the other, to judge whether equilibrium or isostasy occurs in
line with specic public policies. In addition, if necessary, it can facilitate interven-
tion, not directed so much toward harmony, but rather to altering a possible imbal-
ance in favor of the side or interests that need the most support (Dunsire, 1990: 17).
Ultimately, it is about implementing control measures to tip the balance between
two opposing positions and expressions.
This tool is fundamental for the recovery of the local autonomy of governments,
since it tries to provide fundamental norms of governance, establishing some “rules
of the game” that aim to promote collectively agreed goals (Jessop, 2016). That is
to say, taking advantage of the privileged strategic position of the state or a local
administration,2 it aims to rearticulate both decision-making processes and the
power of the actors who take part in these, in order to guarantee the democratic
quality of governance. Ultimately, we return to a reection on the idea of strategic
selectivity mentioned above. Here, colibration can act as a barrier and rewall for
certain sectors and also promote less favored sectors in relationship systems.
This is not only about promoting good governance from institutions, nor about
monitoring it while disregarding the social fabric. It is about adjusting governance,
making use of the “collaborative advantage” (Font, 1997) and making the govern-
ment or local administrations vanguard actors that confront neoliberalization pro-
cesses as they are expressed in the fragmented set of actors that constitute local
governance. In short, we bring to the fore the idea that “colibration is a critique of
political economy, forms of domination, and ideology” (Jessop, 2016: 229).
Second, we must emphasize the opportunities that participatory processes offer.
In Western urban contexts, since the beginning of the millennium, participation,
guided and directed by institutions as a means to legitimize projects and even strate-
gies, has been an important topic of debate. Some perspectives reject it because of
its top-down logic, while others view it as a possible loophole through which to take
part in and nd ways to implement more inclusive alternatives (García-Espín &
Jimenez, 2017; Blanco etal., 2018).
Although colibration can function as a guarantor that the community fabric is
part of public policy-making processes, it is necessary to go a step further and estab-
lish stable mechanisms of participation (Telleria & Ahedo, 2015). The aim of this is,
on the one hand, to inuence the urban agenda and, on the other to investigate the
co-production of public policy.
2 We use the term “administration,” since we consider that it better captures and makes visible the
importance that bureaucracy can have. We refer here to the importance that Gramsci (1975, Q 15)
attached to this, as it performs technical and political functions. Furthermore, a Gramscian
approach considers the loyalty of the bureaucracy to the state to be indispensable, since it is the
bureaucracy that puts state ideology into practice.
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

67
This last concept of co-production (Parés, 2017; Arnanz etal., 2018; Osborne
etal., 2016) is evolving into a proposal that goes beyond the implementation of
participatory processes or mechanisms, and points toward a logic of “globally par-
ticipated public policies” (Subirats etal., 2009). Contrary to classic interpretations
(Rosentraub & Sharp, 1981), we consider that today co-production does not refer
only to the spontaneous and strategic appearance of individuals or interest groups in
relation to specic public services. Instead, it is better understood as a new tool– if
not a new model– of governance that proposes collective participation as a funda-
mental axis on which to make decisions (Sorrentino et al., 2018; Nabatchi
etal., 2017).
It is certainly an innovative tool, so far subject to little empirical study. However,
due to its adaptive capacity in response to changes in power relations, it shows great
potential. In fact, in recent years, facilitated by new municipalism, innovative expe-
riences and processes have been witnessed from the point of view of deepening
democracy in the following urban policies (Blanco & Subirats, 2012; Telleria,
2020): public space, housing, sustainability, and mobility. Despite the fact that these
issues are not novel, the way of addressing them generates a substrate necessary to
advance in the democratic reform of the cities. The so-called double legitimation is
still yet to be achieved. This legitimization must occur “downward,” by social and
popular sectors that defend this model (also at the polls), and upward. In this case,
this means overcoming impediments at other levels of government that act against
these processes of democratic deepening. These impediments include the imposi-
tion of spending ceilings and, as in the case of remunicipalization processes initi-
ated by different cities in the Spanish State, through judicial implements. The
judiciary fullls in this area, with speed and efciency, the function of protecting
the private interests of large economic corporations against municipal policies that
pursue the general interest, including the improvement of services, and even the
reduction of public spending.
On the other hand, one of the main assets in the struggle to democratize cities is
what Castells (1974) would call “urban social movements”3 and participation by
irruption, or spontaneous disruptive action from below.
When the master framework of urban movements changed (Telleria & Ahedo,
2016), these movements shifted, starting in the 1980s and 1990s, from demanding
greater representative democracy and social/identity related rights, to demanding to
be part of and embedded in institutional systems. After verifying the limits and
resistance to change that the representative model offered, the master framework
transformed, articulating discourses that vindicated participatory democracy and
3 We use the term “urban movements,” since we consider that this term is better adapted to the real-
ity of today’s cities. We believe that movements themselves must identify themselves as urban,
citizen, or consider themselves related to the city as a condition of understanding them as truly
urban movements (Castells, 1983). However, it is essential to return to the context of rescaling and
take into account the multiscalar relationship that urban movements have today with territory
(Swyngedouw, 2004). These are far removed from the organizational structures and mobilization
strategies that previously existed.
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

68
ultimately economic democracy, as the movements against evictions and the squat-
ting movement have demonstrated (Martínez, 2011; Bonet i Martí, 2012; González
García etal., 2019).
In this sense, the neoliberal instability that we have been discussing has meant
that the moments of greatest impact of urban movements on the urban agenda have
varied. Brenner etal. (2012: 18–19) claim that the transformative potential of col-
lective action depends on two basic factors: “the objective position, power, and
strategies of those currently established in positions of domination; and the objec-
tive position, power, and strategies of those who are mobilizing in opposition to
established forms of urbanism.”
5 Conclusions: Toward Counter-Neoliberalization
We understand that the democratizing reform of cities depends on the conjunction
of different forces and strategies that, from within and outside the state, are commit-
ted to supporting practices and projects that reinforce the participation of all sectors,
especially those furthest removed from power. Linked to this reection, we empha-
size the importance of not isolating scales of action. As has been demonstrated,
action oriented toward the same objective is essential. It is of little use to advocate
for the radical democratization of urban spaces if the contradiction with the princi-
ples of global neoliberalism is not brought to the fore. Based on the strategic logic
of critical urban theory, we have tried to illustrate the complex characteristics of
today’s cities, as well as their potential to generate processes of democratic deepen-
ing in the current context of neoliberal intensication. Although, quantitatively,
there have been many experiments in this area, contemporary reality is still very
volatile and disconnected. It can be safely be said that there is still a long way to go
before its consolidation, both in the social fabric and inlocal administrations, might
enable it to serve as an effective tool in processes of counter-neoliberalization.
The abovementioned points toward a need for collective action to be oriented
toward counter-liberalization, dismantling its inherited and rearticulated structures,
constraining the market and developing new alternative frameworks. This means a
move from disarticulated counter-liberalization based on local action, toward a
stage of deep socialization in which neoliberalized normative regimes are disman-
tled (Brenner etal., 2010).
In this sense, the wave of protests and mobilizations in the spring of 2011, regard-
less of their different roots across different urban centers, represented a turning
point from which to understand what Walliser and De la Fuente (2018) dene as
“new urban activisms.” This turning point for territorial collective action (it was a
turning point for collective action in general within and outside the borders of the
Spanish State), not only marked an increase or resurgence of mobilization, but it
was also qualitatively expressed in other parameters. These mobilizations culmi-
nated, in many cases, with the institutionalization of the movement and the appear-
ance of movement candidates and conuences in various cities. These have
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

69
undoubtedly inuenced and conditioned the urban agenda. Janoschka and Mota
(2018) summarize the new lines of action on the urban agenda proposed by “City
Councils for Change” as follows: (1) Stop predatory expansive urbanization. (2)
Re-municipalize services privatized during previous administrations. (3) Recover
public space. (4) Regenerate democracy through the implementation of new partici-
patory mechanisms. The momentum generated by municipalism in the Spanish
state has been able to raise issues and even carry out projects such as the remunici-
palization of water in Valladolid, the achievement of sovereignty for the direct man-
agement of cleaning and rescue services in Cádiz, and the process of negotiation
around and recovery of empty houses owned by banks for social housing, which
occurred in Barcelona (Roth etal., 2019).
It should also be noted that, simultaneously, urban movements less linked to ter-
ritory have resurfaced, including feminist or environmental movements.
Transcending different scales, they are reactivating the effectiveness lost by the
cycle of protests that made up the alterworld and global movements (Tarrow, 1998).
These urban movements of “glocalized urban protests” (Köhler & Wissen, 2003;
Martí i Costa & Bonet i Martí, 2008) continue to prosper and inuence the urban
and international agenda. They put very diverse issues on the table, including mobil-
ity, the reduction of harmful gas emissions at national and global levels, community
defense against evictions, and a gender perspective inlocal public policies. In this
sense, these movements can play an important role in a multi-scalar scenario such
as the one we have described. Finally, despite the high degree of uncertainty gener-
ated by the COVID pandemic at the present time, there is evidence that shows (Atlas
de la Pandemia en España4) that this dynamic of democratic deepening in urban
contexts has been maintained and even intensied, through collective action and
institutionalized mechanisms.
References
Ahedo, I., & Telleria, I. (2020). Neoliberalismo. In J.A. Mellón, X.Torrens, & J.Abellán (Eds.),
Ideologías y movimientos políticos contemporáneos. Tecnos.
Arnanz, L., Domínguez, M., & Rodríguez-Villasante, T. (2018). Metodologías de la democracia
participativa para la coproducción de políticas públicas locales: hacia un sistema de gestión
participativo. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Blanco, I., & Subirats, J. (2012). Políticas urbanas en España: dinámicas de transformación y
retos ante la crisis. Geopolítica(s), 3(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_GEOP.2012.
v3.n1.39304
4 Atlas de la Pandemia en España, a publication in process by the National Geographic Institute and
the Spanish Association of Geography, under the direction of José Francisco Sánchez, from the
University of Alcalá de Henares, and Jorge Olcina, from the University of Alicante. This publica-
tion is part of the SOLIVID Research Project, a collective project for the construction of a collab-
orative map and an online resource bank on solidarity initiatives confronting the COVID-19 crisis.
Enlace: https://www.solivid.org/?lang=es.
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

70
Blanco, I., Subirats, J., & Gomà, R. (2018). El nuevo municipalismo: derecho a la ciudad y
comunes urbanos. Nueva época, 20, 14–28.
Bonet i Martí, J. (2012). El territorio como espacio de radicalización democrática. Athenea Digital,
12(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/athenead/v12n1.914
Bossi, U. (2019). Critical urban theory. In A. Orum & R. Bognor (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
encyclopedia of urban and regional studies. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialization: The re-scaling of urban governance. The
European Union. Urban Studies, 36(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993466
Brenner, N. (2003a). ‘Glocalization’ as a state spatial strategy: Urban entrepreurialism and the new
politics of uneven development in Western Europe. In J.Peck & H.Yeung (Eds.), Remaking the
global economy: Economic-geographical perspectives (pp.197–216). Sage.
Brenner, N. (2003b). La formación de la ciudad global y el re-escalamiento del espacio del Estado
en la Europa Occidental post-fordista. EURE (Santiago), 29(86), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.4067/
S0250- 71612003008600001
Brenner, N. (2009a). What is critical urban theory? City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture,
Theory, policy, Action, 13(2–3), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902996466
Brenner, N. (2009b). A thousand leaves: Notes on the geographies of uneven development.
In R. Keil & R. Mahon (Eds.), Leviathan undone? Towards a political economy of scale
(pp.27–51). University of British Columbia Press.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in western
Europe and North America. Blackwell.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). After neoliberalization? Globalizations, 7(3),
327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731003669669
Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2011). Neoliberal urbanism: Cities and the rule of markets.
In G.Bridge & S.Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp.15–25). John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2012). Cities for people, not for prot. Critical urban
theory and the right to the city. Routledge.
Castells, M. (1974). Movimientos sociales urbanos. Siglo XXI.
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social move-
ments. University of California.
Cox, K. (1993). The local and the global in the new urban politics: A critical review. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 11, 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1068/d110433
Dunford, M., & Kafkalas, G. (1992). Cities and regions in the new Europe: The global-local inter-
play and spatial development strategies. Belhaven Press.
Dunsire, A. (1990). Holistic governance. Public Policy and Administration, 5(4), 4–19. https://doi.
org/10.1177/095207679000500102
Dunsire, A. (1993). Manipulating social tensions: Collibration as an alternative mode of gov-
ernment intervention (MPIfG discussion paper 93/7). Max Planck Institute for the Study of
Societies.
Fainstein, S. (2011). The just city. Cornell University Press.
Font, J. (1997). Civil society reinventing metropolitan administration: Recent Iberian and Latin
American experiences. IV Table Ronde de l’Institut International des Sciences Administratives.
Franquesa, J. (2007). Vaciar y llenar, o la lógica espacial de la neoliberalización. Revista Española
de Investigaciones Sociológicas (REIS), 118, 123–150.
García-Espín, P., & Jimenez, M. (2017). Los procesos participativos como potenciadores de la
democracia. Explorando los efectos, mecanismos y evidencias en la sociedad-civil. Revista de
Estudios Políticos, 177, 113–146.
González García, R., Cortina, I., Oriol, M., & Aguilera, T. (2019). Movimientos de okupación y
políticas públicas urbanas: los casos de Madrid, Barcelona y Bilbao. Revista Especializada en
Investigación Jurídica, 1, 8–38. https://doi.org/10.20983/reij.2019.2.1
Gramsci, A. (1975). [1929-1935]. Quaderni del carcere. Einaudi.
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

71
Hall, T., & Hubbard, P. (1996). The entrepreneurial city: New urban politics, new urban geographies?
Progress in Human Geography, 20(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000201
Harmes, A. (2006). Neoliberalism and multilevel governance. Review of International Political
Economy, 13(5), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290600950621
Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban gov-
ernance in late capitalism. Geograska Annaler, 71b(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/490503
Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of global capitalism. A theory of uneven geographic development. Verso.
Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Prole Books.
Janoschka, M., & Mota, F. (2018). De la protesta a la propuesta. Un diagnóstico sobre los
Ayuntamientos del Cambio. Working document: Contested Cities.
Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: Putting the capitalist state in its place. Polity Press.
Jessop, B. (1992). Fordism and post-Fordism: A critical reformulation. In A.J. Scott & M.Storper
(Eds.). Pathways to industrialization and regional development (pp. 46–69). New York:
Routledge.
Jessop, B. (1994). Post-Fordism and the state. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader
(pp.251–279). Blackwell.
Jessop, B. (1997). The entrepreneurial city: Re-imaging localities, redesigning economic gover-
nance, or restructuring capital? In N.Jewson & S.MacGregor (Eds.), Realising cities: New
spatial divisions and social transformation (pp.28–41). Routledge.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity Press.
Jessop, B. (2009). Avoiding traps, rescaling states, governing Europe. In R. Keil & R.Mahon
(Eds.), Leviathan undone? Towards a political economy of scale (pp.27–51). University of
British Columbia Press.
Jessop, B. (2016). The state: Past, present, future. Polity Press.
Jessop, B., Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1999). Retooling the machine: State restructuring, uneven devel-
opment, and urban politics. In A.E. G.Jonas & D.Wilson (Eds.), The urban growth machine:
Critical perspectives two decades later (pp.141–159). State University of NewYork Press.
Jones, M., & Ward, K. (2002). Excaving the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the ‘cri-
sis of crisis-management’. Antipode, 34(3), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8330.00251
Köhler, B., & Wissen, M. (2003). Glocalizing protest: Urban conicts and the global social move-
ments. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 942–951. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j..2003.00493.x
Lefebvre, H. (1978). De l’État: Les contradictions de l’État modern (Vol. 4). Union Générale
d’Éitions.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). [1967]. The right to the city. In E.Kofman & E.Lebas (Eds.), Writings on
cities (pp.63–184). Blackwell.
Luxemburg, R. (1933). La acumulación del capital. Estudio sobre la interpretación económica del
imperialismo. Cenit.
Marcuse, P. (2007). Social justice in New Orleans: Planning after Katrina. Progressive Planning,
172, 8–12.
Marcuse, P. (2012). Whose right(s) to what city? In N.Brenner, P.Marcuse, & M.Mayer (Eds.),
Cities for people, not for prot: Critical urban theory and the right to the city (pp.32–47).
Routledge.
Marcuse, P., Imbroscio, D., Parker, S., Davies, J., & Magnusson, W. (2014). Critical urban theory
versus critical urban studies: A review debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 38, 1904–1917. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2427.12151
Martí i Costa, M., & Bonet i Marti, J. (2008). Los movimientos urbanos: de la identidad a la glo-
calidad. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, 12, 270.
Martínez, M. (2011). Dimensiones múltiples de la participación ciudadana en la planicación
espacial. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas (REIS), 133, 21–42. https://doi.
org/10.5477/cis/reis.133.21
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism

72
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The
who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://
doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies. Free Press.
Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the Co-creation of value
in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
Parés, M. (2017). Repensar la participación de la ciudadanía en el mundo local. Diputación de
Barcelona.
Peck, J. (2012). Austerity urbanism. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy,
Action, 16(6), 626–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.734071
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1994). Jungle-law breaks out: Neoliberalism and global–local disorder.
Area, 26(4), 317–326.
Rosentraub, M., & Sharp, E.B. (1981). Consumers as producers of social services: Coproduction
and the level of social services. Southern Review of Public Administration, 4, 502–539.
Roth, L., Monterde, A., & Calleja López, A. (2019). Ciudades democráticas. La revuelta munici-
palista en el ciclo post 15-M. Icaria.
Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City. Princeton University Press.
Sassen, S. (1993). Cities in a world economy. Sage.
Sevilla Buitrago, Á. (2015). Capitalist formations of enclosure: Space and the extinction of the
commons. Antipode, 47(4), 999–1020.
Sevilla Buitrago, Á. (2017). Introducción a antología de textos. In Á. Sevilla Buitrago & N.Brenner
(Eds.), Neil Brenner: Teoría urbana crítica y políticas de escala (pp.7–63). Icaria.
Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development. Blackwell.
Soja, E.W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions. Blackwell.
Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, M., & Howlett, M. (2018). Understanding co-production as a new pub-
lic governance tool. Policy and Society, 37(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1449403
5.2018.1521676
Subirats, J., Parés, M., & Blanco, I. (2009). Calidad democrática y redes de gobernanza: evaluar
la participación desde el análisis de las políticas públicas. In M.Parés (Ed.), Evaluando las
nuevas formas de democracia participativa (pp.367–398). Ariel.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996). The city as a hybrid: On nature, society and cyborg urbanization.
Capitalism Nature Socialism, 7(2), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455759609358679
Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In
K.Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization (pp.137–166). Guildford Press.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation as a “glocalization”? Networks, territories and rescaling.
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 1(1), 25–48.
Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodríguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large–
scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34, 542–577. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467- 8330.00254
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge
University Press.
Telleria, I. (2020). Políticas urbanas. In X.Torrens (Ed.), Manual de Ciencia Política. (en proceso
de impresión).
Telleria, I., & Ahedo, I. (2015). ‘Sí se puede’. Modelos de democracia y profundización de los
espacios deliberativos. In P.Ibarra, M.Engelken-Jorge, I.Cortina, M.Oriol, N.Bergantiños,
& F.Letamendia (Eds.), Contextos Y Perspectivas De La Democracia: Ensayos En Honor A
Pedro Ibarra Güell (pp.155–181). Pamiela.
Telleria, I., & Ahedo, I. (2016). Movimientos urbanos y democratización en la ciudad: Una propu-
esta de análisis. Revista Española De Ciencia Política, 1(40), 91–115.
Telleria, I., & Lekue, I. (2020). Las ciudades en tiempos de re-escalamiento: movimientos urbanos,
participación y modos de gobernanza. In M.R. Alonso, S.De Gregorio, & M.González (Eds.),
I. Lekue and I. Telleria

73
Las agendas urbanas y el gobierno de las ciudades: transformaciones, desafíos e instrumentos
(pp.15–38). Reus.
Walliser, A., & De La Fuente, R. (2018). Los nuevos activismos urbanos y la institucionalización
del cambio en Madrid. In N. Baron & J. Romero (Eds.), Cultura territorial e innovación
social: ¿hacia un nuevo modelo metropolitano en Europa del Sur? (pp.97–115). Universitat
de València.
Wriston, W.B. (1992). The twilight of sovereignty: How the information revolution is transforming
our world. Scribner.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by- nc- nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modied the licensed
material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this
chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Responses fromUrban Democratization toGlobal Neoliberalism