Creative achievement and intelligence in student entrepreneurs
New Urban Movement Entrepreneurs Re-Negotiating the Public–Private Borderland: The Case of Polish...
16
New Urban Movement Entrepreneurs ReNego6a6ng the Public–Private Borderland: The Case of Polish Urban Poli6cs Anna Domaradzka, University of Warsaw Filip Wijkström, Stockholm School of Economics ISTR 11 th InternaDonal Conference Muenster, 2225 July 2014
Transcript of New Urban Movement Entrepreneurs Re-Negotiating the Public–Private Borderland: The Case of Polish...
New Urban Movement Entrepreneurs Re-‐Nego6a6ng the Public–Private Borderland:
The Case of Polish Urban Poli6cs
Anna Domaradzka, University of Warsaw
Filip Wijkström, Stockholm School of Economics
ISTR 11th InternaDonal Conference Muenster, 22-‐25 July 2014
Context
• Urbaniza6on and increased mobility –> urban influx of people
• Transforma6on/demographic shiH –> changing needs of residents • Since 1970s public authoriDes abandoned the role of investor –>
urban development increasingly governed by market actors/logics
• Lack of long-‐term urban development planning • “Welfare City” replaced by “Corporate City”: where city leadership
is looking for business deals to develop the city in cooperaDon with (global) corporate investors money. These changes result in experienced decline of the quality of life in many urban areas.
Empirical research & evidence
• QualitaDve data based on observaDons, content analysis and in-‐depth interviews with both local and internaDonal key urban acDvists, as well as expert interviews
• Press & web analysis • ParDcipaDon in various meeDngs devoted to urban issues
• 10 case studies from Warsaw
• Supplemented with quanDtaDve World Values Survey data
The emergence of a Polish urban movement
• Since 2008 we observe the emergence of vibrant grassroots neighborhood movement in Polish big and middle sized ciDes
• Popularizing “right to the city” slogan (Lefebvre 1968, Harvey 2012)
• Grassroot actor groups, calling themselves “new urban movement” iniDated the fierce discussion about city shape and ownership
• Urban movements are driven by specific local problems but also inspired by external influence through “norm entrepreneurs”, Finnemore & Sikkink 1998) translaDng global ideas to local context
Self-‐defini6on of Polish urban movement
Main concrete acDviDes of urban movement concentrate around:
• Lobbying for urban policy and the introducDon of legal changes in favor of democraDzaDon and sustainable urban development.
• Daily struggle for “every bush and tree, square, school and kindergarten, tram, municipal building, a street, as well as big investments – airports, housing, urban highways”.
• Intellectual and ideological discussions about urban issues (through publicaDons & meeDngs, annual Congresses)
• Running for city council posiDons in local elecDons (recent)
Phases of urban movement development
1. Spontaneous iniDaDves emerging as grassroots protests
2. First congress of urban movement in 2011 – networking and sharing the experiences
3. Second congress in 2012 – urban acDvist recognized as poli6cal power
4. New iniDaDves on na6onal level – urban policy workshops
5. Protests takes a new turn – referenda
6. New democraDc mechanisms introduced (par6cipatory budge6ng)
7. AcDvists running for local elec6ons & taking up jobs in the city hall
July 19th, 2011 – First Urban Movements Congress
July 8th, 2014 – Urban Movements Coali6on
Field Theory Approach: Polish Urban Poli6cs
• Field theory (Fligstein & McAdam 2012) helps to contextualize the phenomenon in a wider and more analyDcal way
• Using Fligstein & McAdam therminology we argue that the Polish urban poli6cs consDtutes a (re-‐negoDated) Strategic Ac6on Field
• Growing severity of urban problems as well as increased awareness leads to emergence of new actors (i.e., “angry residents groups”) at the urban scene – some of them acDng as “norm entrepreneurs”
• These entrepreneurs appear in the altered urban landscape, where the re-‐negoDated private–public borderland potenDally heralds a new phase of urban development (Finnemore & Sikkink 1998)
Re-‐nego6a6on of a “Polish urban poli6cs” field
• Polish urban poli6cs viewed as a disDnct field
• Involved actors interact around a common set of rules of the game, in a social landscape that has developed in the intersecDon of, as well as by tensions generated by, a number of parallel fields and actors
• Actors are “business” (developers as well as merchants), “local poli6cs” and “public administra6on” (“the city”)
• Process of field-‐transforma6on, with more well-‐established main actors (Internal Governance Units) but also emerging (new) actors challenging common defini6ons & norms, shaping the future of the city – norm entrepreneurs.
The emergence of urban movement field Stages of movement forma6ons according to field theory:
• Problems/needs on the local level as an impulse to form local simple acDon fields (mulDple localizaDons across the ciDes, countries) -‐> local goal
• Many of these acDon fields address local goals: independent acDon fields. Can connect and create small networks if located in geographical vicinity (e.g. city district network) -‐> generalized goal
• With the growing number of iniDaDves and/or dominant player entering the field, the phase transi6on takes place. Small players form a common ac6on field around generalized goal (urban movement) -‐> poli6cal goal
Three stages of the “Norm Life Cycle”
From Finnemore and Sikkink (1998, p. 895)
1. NORM EMERGENCE. Norm entrepreneurs appear, using organizaDonal plajorms to persuade others.
2. NORM CASCADE. Central actors, i.e., standardizing actors, network, or state insDtuDons adopt norms.
3. INTERNALIZATION. The law, professions, educaDon, central bureaucracies, regulators internalize norms.
Is there a special role for (new) civil society actors in the field of Polish Urban PoliDcs in the re-‐negoDaDons of the public–private borderland, shaping the version of the field and the games played and values contested?
Key empirical concepts • “right to the city” • “concrete narra6ve” – even a highly diverse group of people can
build the idea of common interests around certain concrete component of the common space. Focusing on a specific maner (protecDon of a square, cleaning of a dirty backyard, eliminaDon of a troublesome night club) allows for joint ac6on of persons represen6ng very different views and conflicDng interests
• central role of leaders & leadership – appearance of a leader/norm entrepreneur allows for mobilizaDon around a common problem to transform dissaDsfacDon or theoreDcal postulates into re-‐framing
