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Work in progress please do not quote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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
2/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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=5986767/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
3/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
4/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
5/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
6/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
7/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
8/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
9/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
10/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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=Submit7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
11/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
12/17
Work in progress please do not quote
12
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
13/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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.html7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
14/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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.html7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
15/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
16/17
7/30/2019 Ipsa Paperdelafuentevelasco
17/17
Work in progress please do not quote
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