Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Australian Politics and Policy
process of making and implementing plans, or as part of an administrative,
managerial function of government, a critical approach to urban policy entails
understanding that (as with all forms of state intervention) it is inherently political.
Policy, planning and governance arrangements for the urban reflect political contestation
and conflict between actors and interest groups with different levels of
power and different stakes in the city. These actors and interest groups, comprising
the federal, state and local levels of government, corporate interests and landowners,
as well as social movements, residents and community-based organisations, shape
urban policy.
Urban policy requires understanding of the underlying rationales for state
interventions and how these are contested by different interests seeking to assert
their vision for a city and to create and implement policy agendas guided by this
vision. In other words, while urban policy is characterised by policy objectives that
purportedly seek to enhance the quality of life of those living in cities, it propagates
specific values and visions for the city. In turn, the social construction of ‘the
urban problem’ that policy makers are trying to address has implications for what
policies are developed and implemented. Two kinds of challenges remain constant:
enabling the social reproduction of urban residents (the ability to reproduce the
means for people to live) and managing growth (including planning, land use
and redevelopment). Much debate occurs around what should be the overriding
priority of urban policy: equity (social redistribution) or efficiency (economic
growth). 8 Equity goals suggest that everyone ought to be provided with equal
opportunity to access jobs, goods, services and amenities. Efficiency goals justify
urban policies that support urban economies by making the best use of land and
infrastructure to enhance productivity and wealth creation.
From 1945 until the late 1970s, equity concerns shaped policy in many Western
countries, with high levels of state intervention in the economy and society, including
provision of public housing, education, transport and infrastructure, along with
redistributive income support programs. But since the late 1970s, urban policy has
been primarily influenced by efficiency criteria, with a shift towards the pursuit
of private-sector-led strategies of wealth creation, or what David Harvey 9 terms
urban entrepreneurialism. Thus political commitment has shifted from government
investment in public infrastructure and public control of significant assets to the
sale of assets and their control and management by quasi-governmental and privatesector
agencies as well as the outsourcing of service delivery to private or thirdsector
providers. What some term a neoliberal political agenda, which aligns with
the practices of new public management, has promoted policies of privatisation,
fee-based services and a general rollback of government’s social welfare function.
For example, in terms of major urban redevelopment of former industrial areas, a
common approach is the creation of special purpose districts managed by arms-
8 Edwards and Imrie 2015.
9 Harvey 1989.
712