打印

作者

Ross Beveridge

来源

URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW,Vol.59,Issue1,P.

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

摘要

IntroductionCan city governments be a force for progressive change? What resources do they draw upon to confront the inevitable obstacles they encounter, and how do these shape the scope and ambition of policy makers? Despite continued urban austerity (Peck 2012; Theodore 2020), urban entrepreneurialism (Beswick and Penny 2018; Fuller 2018), and the deep failures of liberal urban policy (Imbroscio 2019), the possibilities of urban government have become the focus of renewed interest in urban studies (Tonkiss 2020; Joy and Vogel 2021). Notions such as “Progressive City” (Clavel 2010), “Radical Cities” (Baiocchi and Gies 2019), “Progressive Localism” (Featherstone et al. 2012), and the “New Municipalism” (Thompson 2021), capture diverse political projects around the world aimed at democratizing local government, contesting inequalities, and promoting citizenship. Writing in this journal, Joy and Vogel (2021) proposed an agenda for progressive urban policy makers to move beyond the neoliberal paradigm and challenged urban scholars to catch up with the “burgeoning literature and practical possibilities in urban policy making” (27). This article takes up their challenge and shifts the focus to the contingencies of governing from the Left: the situated concerns, resources, and strategies apparent as progressive politicians envisage and encounter constraints and opportunities.This article aims to throw light on the scope of progressive urban government, engaging with generic and specific factors that shape gains, compromises, and retreats. It is assumed that by definition “progressive” projects always entail some kind of accommodation with the existing political context, a certain gradualism—unlike, an overtly radical project, for instance. The political potential and limits of progressive projects lie in the areas where accommodation with the status quo is, or is not, made. This paper probes these areas, accepting that the scope of progressive urbanism projects will always be context-specific; recognizing that the reasons for challenging or compromising and the lack of political capacity or will is contingent upon situated struggles. Nonetheless, through exploring these issues, we ask important questions about the political potential of the “urban” as a space within which new ways of thinking and new forms of political action emerge (Lefebvre 2003; Boudreau 2017).The academic and activist debate on progressive urban politics tends to be, understandably, drawn to the more dramatic cases of the capital cities and larger metropoles, such as Barcelona and Berlin, with their strong urban social movements and wide range of progressive projects. Smaller cities are sometimes discussed, but more so as political “models” of community wealth building in postindustrial contexts, such as in Preston (UK) and Cleveland (USA), and of co-operativism as a strategy for achieving economic and racial justice, such as in Jackson, Mississippi (USA) (Thompson 2021). Crucially, and in line with our objectives here, urban scholars have moved beyond declaratory or definitional work and have begun to reflect on the contingencies and achievements of these emancipatory political projects (Blanco, Salazar, and Bianchi 2020; Janoschka and Mota 2020; Davies 2021). Progressive urban scholars and activists alike are understandably keen to support promising ideas, policies, and projects, however, productive engagement must also be characterized by expansive and critical reflection. Hence, it is necessary to look beyond the well-known and inspiring cases and gain a sense of the potential of progressive projects developing outside of the limelight (Featherstone, Littler, and Davison 2020).Against this background, this article makes three main contributions. First, we develop a definition of progressive urbanism along three constituent dimensions that are seen to shape its political scope and potential: localism, urban movements, and municipal government. Second, we shift the analytical focus to small towns, which we define as a place with a population of up to around 50,000 residents. After a discussion that locates small towns in the debate on progressive urbanism, the article provides empirical insights on political projects of the Left Party (DIE LINKE) in small towns in the German state of Brandenburg, delineating key strategies and policies as well as highlighting constraints and opportunities seen by politicians at this scale. Third, we propose a means of considering the contingencies of progressive urbanism in small towns and consider the implications for the wider debate. Our general arguments and examples are drawn from, and directed mainly to, contexts in the Global North but are not exclusive to them. Progressive urbanism is apparent in diverse global contexts (Douglass, Garbaye, and Ho 2019), and the ideas present here may be relevant to some of them.Small towns rarely make an appearance in discussions on urban politics, let alone progressive variants of it. Indeed, there is a sense that small towns are a problem for progressive urban politics, at least in the Global North, where they have become associated with economic decline and the reactionary populist right, part of the so-called “revenge of the places that don't matter” (Rodríguez-Pose 2017). However, although there are examples of progressive politics in smaller urban places, there is a lack of research on the topic that reflects the wider neglect of small towns in urban studies, despite their continued prevalence as an urban form (Bell and Jayne 2009). As a result, we know comparatively little about the constraints on, and opportunities for, progressive politics at this scale, despite an abundance of work on the challenges of governing larger cities (e.g., see the vast urban regime literature).In shifting the analytical focus to small towns, it is important to avoid looking at them through the lens of the larger city—to not depart from a “center” of knowledge production, an essentialized or theorized superior (i.e., the metropole), and seek out difference and diversity in progressive politics. In this very specific context, progressive urbanism in the small-town context of Brandenburg departs from existing, sometimes failed projects and pivots away from formal politics and established parties, as well as more conventional societal organizations such as religious associations and sports clubs.The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 defines progressive urbanism drawing on debates from urban politics; Section 3 discusses the marginal presence of small towns in debates on progressive urbanism; section 4 details the findings from our interviews with small-town mayors from Brandenburg; Section 5 provides reflections on the contingencies of progressive urbanism in small towns; and Section 6 offers conclusions.