Changing public space

(1989) defines as the transformation from ‘managerialism’ to ‘entrepreneurialism’. The Fordist
managerialist mode had largely pertained to extending the provision of public services and
welfare (Eisinger, 2000; DeFilippis, 2004). The post-Fordist entrepreneurial regime, on the
contrary, is “… essentially concerned with reviving the competitive position of urban economies,
especially through the ‘liberation’ of private enterprise and an associated demunicipalization
and recommodification of social and economic life…” (MacLeod, 2002: 604). Thus, the
local government had to transform its urban planning to include more proactive modes of
private-sector involvement to enable urban (re)development. Figure 4.1 combines the abovementioned
elements in a model explaining the increase of private-sector involvement in urban
redevelopment through the rise of urban entrepreneurialism.
The entrepreneurial city is characterised by two interconnected developments: the growing
responsibilities of the local government (in the wake of deregulation and the decentralization
of power resulting from the declining role of the nation state – Jessop, 1994) and the increased
involvement of the private sector. The two developments might seem contradictory, as the
general idea is that local governments are disempowered by entrepreneurial systems of urban
governance (M c Guirk & MacLaran, 2001). However, despite the growing role of the private
sector, the government still plays an important role in urban development processes. According
to Needham (2006), it is a common misconception that markets exist independently of the state.
The government (the ‘lawmaker’) creates rights and determines the rules about the way in which
they may be used and traded, and thus structures the market (Section 4.4.1).
Urban theories preceding the notion of the entrepreneurial city
Neo-Marxists theories that emerged in the US in the 1970s and 1980s already emphasised the
relation between the state and market (e.g., publications by Susan Fainstein and David Harvey).
The general idea was that the city within a capitalist society is the result of the accumulation of
investment. The private sector can generate the required investment and thus plays an important
role in the realisation of the urban landscape. However, the state remains responsible for two
essential elements of urban society: 1) the so-called accumulation function or ‘public goods’
that are required for the functioning of urban society, and 2) maintaining the public order
(O’Connor, 1973). According to Neo-Marxist thought, public space – being a public good in
which maintaining the public order is very important – would always continue to be the main
responsibility of the state (Fainstein, 2001).
The West-European variant of the Neo-Marxist approach was the local-state theory, which
was prevalent in the 1970s. The approach focused on the distribution of functions among different
governmental layers. The national government concentrates on economics, while the local state
compensates this economic preoccupation by offering ‘consumption-related issues’ (Pickvance,
1995: 269). This includes public goods and the provision of social services such as education
and housing but also public space. Because of this ‘division of labour’ among governmental
authorities, the national and local government are complementary. The local-state theory has
become slightly outdated over the years. Because of the declining role of the nation state, the
local government is increasingly preoccupied with urban economics:
This shift in urban governance has been characterised by the diminishing importance
of the local provision of welfare and services by city governments in favour of a more
outward orientated stance designed to foster local development and economic growth.
67