Ismael Blanco’s research while affiliated with Autonomous University of Barcelona and other places

Crise des « subprimes » (2008), crise « des migrants » (2015), crise sanitaire (2020-2021)… Le début du XXIe siècle a été ébranlé de secousses majeures qui ont révélé les fragilités à l’œuvre et accéléré les mutations. Certains territoires, plus que d’autres, ont été particulièrement affectés par ces crises, à l’image des grandes villes d’Europe du Sud, touchées de plein fouet par l’austérité économique et la problématique migratoire, dans un contexte de blocage de la dynamique d’intégration européenne.Par une approche comparative et pluriscalaire, cet ouvrage propose une grille de lecture innovante des métropoles d’Europe du Sud comme observatoire privilégié de l’adaptation aux crises contemporaines. À travers de nombreuses études de cas portant sur des territoires variés (Athènes, Rome, Naples, Milan, Barcelone, Valence, Catane, Madrid…), il offre un point de vue utile pour aborder la notion de crise et les grandes thématiques contemporaines : politiques de régénération urbaine et culturelle, action publique et mobilisations citoyennes, logement et économie des plateformes touristiques, innovation sociale et vulnérabilité urbaines, migrations et accueil.Une synthèse richement illustrée qui vient contribuer au débat plus général sur les métropoles et le processus de métropolitisation.

In this chapter, we show how the study of scale is enlightening when trying to understand how austerity has functioned in our eight case study cities. In order to put forth a clear definition of how we use the concept, we also propose a definition of scale and promote a synthetic and multi-faceted definition such as the one suggested by Byron Miller (2009: 62; emphasis in the original): “a set of territorially nested, malleable relationships among territorially embedded or constituted agents and institutions, shaping their responsibilities, capacities, opportunities, and constraints through territory-specific rule regimes, resources, and identities”. The chapter explores several different dimensions of scale, as it pertains to neoliberalism, austerity and the struggle for social justice – which also takes the form of struggles over the definition and classification of scale and territory.

The 2008-2009 Global Economic Crisis (GEC) created an opportunity, eagerly seized by many national governments and international organisations, to impose a prolonged, and widespread period of austerity. Austerity is widely recognised to have done enormous damage to social, cultural, political and economic infrastructures in cities and larger urban areas across much of the globe. As the GEC was also the first such crisis in what is widely considered “the urban age”, (COVID-19 merely the latest and worst), austerity measures were chiefly administered through municipal and regional mechanisms. A great deal has been written since the crisis, about the way austerity was experienced, governed, resisted and urbanised. This volume considers these issues anew, by reflecting on the multi-faceted and shape-shifting concept of “collaboration”. It reflects on the theme of collaborative governance, considered from the perspective of resisting austerity, or otherwise finding ways to circumvent or move beyond it. The insights we draw about collaboration are directed towards locating agency found or created in urban arenas, for resisting or transcending austerity. The book draws on insights into austerity governance from comparative research conducted in Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Dublin, Greater Dandenong (Melbourne), Leicester, Montreal and Nantes.

The research shows that in some ways, the age of austerity vindicated critiques of “collaborative governance” as a medium of governmental control or “responsibilisation”. State-driven collaboration in the face of harsh austerity proved to be gestural, shallow and transient or reinforced the power of elites. However, in the wider sense of “who does politics with whom”, the concept of collaborative governance remains valuable for thinking about how to work against and build alternatives to austerity. In concluding, we therefore seek to draw positive messages about collaboration for those aiming to resist or otherwise overcome austerit

This chapter seeks to better understand how austerity governance has been experienced in the eight cities, from the perspective of the local state. The chapter is divided into three parts. First, we consider literature on the local state and governance to frame contemporary changes in structure and function. Second, returning to the economic crisis of 2008 and the concerns about social solidarity and welfare measures arising from it, we consider local state responses and adaptations. Third, drawing from our case studies, we consider how local states adapt to and manage demands linked to austerity struggles.

This chapter discusses the way that (neoliberal) austerity has impacted social, racial and cultural inequalities and the ability of collaboration to support more inclusive democratic cities or resist exclusions. The basic premise is that cities play a fundamental role in the dynamics of social inclusion or exclusion of economic migrants and other racial and ethnic minorities, and in the way that societies cope with the challenge of recognising and accommodating cultural diversity. The chapter argues that the social impacts of neoliberalisation and austerity have disproportionally injured cultural and racial minorities living in lower-income city areas. However, it also reveals the existence of signals of hope – signals that are intimately related with the new collaborative dynamics that have emerged in urban areas as a reaction to austerity conditions in some cities.

Chapter 1 focuses on how the eight cities encountered, worked with and against austerity in the period after the GEC. It begins by providing a flavour of the histories and traditions which contribute to explaining how austerity was experienced and mediated. It then turns to a discussion of Athens, Baltimore, Dublin, Leicester and Montréal, where more-or-less harsh forms of forms of austerity were implemented in the decade after GEC. It then looks at the three cities which, in different ways, provide a contrast with the story of austerity. These are Barcelona, Melbourne and Nantes.

From the basis of multiple definitions and mixed practices of collaborative governance, this chapter explores trends found through the comparative study of our eight cities, in the decade after the GEC. We aim to examine the impact of austerity on localised collaborative structures of policymaking. Specifically, the chapter elaborates three dimensions where interesting comparisons and contrasts were identified: in discourse, in agency and in the spaces utilised to facilitate alliance-building and joint working. Trends in discourse, agency, and spaces of collaboration after the GEC are linked to the historical events and traditions highlighted in the introductory chapter.