Advertisement

The Game of Participation in Amsterdam East: An Alternative to the Neoliberal or a Neoliberal Alternative?

  • Zsuzsa Kovács
  • Peer Smets
  • Halleh Ghorashi
Chapter

Abstract

With a point of departure in a Bourdieusian framework, the chapter studies dynamics between participatory policymaking and the citizenry’s political agency in a gentrifying neighborhood in Amsterdam East. The analysis shows that gentrifiers, through their community building efforts and resourcefulness, are capable of creating political opportunities for the citizenry to become co-producers in the field of local policy implementation; this enabled social mobility and a creation of a civic democratic culture. At the same time, this alternative field of participation is not immune to reproducing effects related to gentrification and voluntarism.

Keywords

Gentrification Governance Participation Amsterdam Co-production Voluntarism 

References

  1. Azarhoosh, F., & Mehlkopf, P. (2009). Maatschap in de Buurt. Verslag van een expertmeeting. Een bewerking van de opbergsten. Amsterdam: Timorplein Community.Google Scholar
  2. Beitel, K. (2013). Local Protests, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State in San Francisco. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boersma, K., Langen, H., & Smets, P. (2013). Paradoxes of Studentification: Social Mix Versus Gentrification in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood in Amsterdam East. The Open Urban Studies Journal, 6 (Suppl. 1, M3), 40–49.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–248). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P., & Farage, S. (1994). Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopra, R. (2003). Neoliberalism as Doxa: Bourdieu’s Theory of the State and the Contemporary Indian Discourse on Globalization and Liberalization. Cultural Studies, 17(3–4), 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornwall, A. (2004). Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation. IDS Bulletin, 35(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwall, A., & Gaventa, J. (2000). From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers Repositioning Participation in Social Policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin, C. (1996). Bourdieu and Foucault on Power and Modernity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 22(6), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Wilde, M. (2015). Brave New Neighborhood: Affective Citizenship in Dutch Territorial Governance. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers.Google Scholar
  13. De Wilde, M., Hurenkamp, M., & Tonkens, E. (2014). Flexible Relations, Frail Contacts and Failing Demands: How Community Groups and Local Institutions Interact in Local Governance in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 51(16), 3365–3382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, J. (2010). The Uses of Neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(s1), 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisker, J. K. (2016, April). Reimagine the State to Remake the City. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Fung, A. (2009). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghorashi, H. (2014). Routed Connections in Late Modern Times. In U. Vieten (Ed.), Revisiting Iris Marion Young on Normalisation, Inclusion and Democracy (pp. 49–66). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Hochstenbach, C. (2015). Stakeholder Representations of Gentrification in Amsterdam and Berlin: A Marginal Process? Housing Studies, 30(6), 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holloway, J. (2005). Change the World without Taking Power. Capital & Class, 29(1), 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holloway, J. (2010). Cracks and the Crisis of Abstract Labour. Antipode, 42(4), 909–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemp, A., Lebuhn, H., & Rattner, G. (2015). Between Neoliberal Governance and the Right to the City: Participatory Politics in Berlin and Tel Aviv. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 704–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kokx, A., & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Dutch Urban Governance: Multi-level or Multi-scalar? European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, C. W., McQuarrie, M., & Walker, E. T. (2015). Realizing the Promise of Public Participation in an Age of Inequality. In C. W. Lee, M. McQuarrie, & E. T. Walker (Eds.), Democratizing Inequalities: Dilemmas of the New Public Participation (pp. 247–250). New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, M. (2003). The Onward Sweep of Social Capital: Causes and Consequences for Understanding Cities, Communities and Urban Movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGuirk, P., & O’Neill, P. (2012). Critical Geographies with the State: The Problem of Social Vulnerability and the Politics of Engaged Research. Antipode, 44(4), 1374–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muehlebach, A. (2012). The Moral Neoliberal: Welfare and Citizenship in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Municipality of Amsterdam. (2012). WMO Beleidsplan 2012–2016 [SSA Policy Plan 2012–2016]. Retrieved from https://wmoraadoost.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/wmo_beleidsplan_2012-2016_juli_2012def.pdf
  29. Municipality of Amsterdam. (2014). Visie op burgerparticipatie. Van bolwerk naar netwerk [Vision on Citizen Participation. From Stronghold to Network]. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/586270/visie_op_burgerparticipatie.pdf
  30. MVROM [The Hague Ministry of Housing, Planning and Environment]. (1997). Nota Stedelijke Vernieuwing [Policy Note Urban Renewal]. Retrieved from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/25427/kst-25427-2?resultIndex=23&sorttype=1&sortorder=4
  31. Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public Participation and Collaborative Governance. Journal of Social Policy, 33(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sassen, S. (2016). Expulsions and the Commons [Video]. In New Democracy Series. Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/180702010
  34. Silver, H., Scott, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2010). Participation in Urban Contention and Deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smets, P., & Den Uyl, M. (2008). The Complex Role of Ethnicity in Urban Mixing: A Study of Two Deprived Neighborhoods in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1439–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smets, P., & Sneep, K. (2017). Tenure Mix: Apart or Together? Home-Making Practices and Belonging in a Dutch Street. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smets, P., & Watt, P. (2017). Social Housing and Urban Renewal: A Cross-National Perspective. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Specht, M. (2012). De pragmatiek van burgerparticipatie: hoe burgers omgaan met complexe vraagstukken omtrent veiligheid, leefbaarheid en stedelijke ontwikkeling in drie Europese steden. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint B.V.Google Scholar
  39. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, M. (2007). Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thuesen, A. A., & Rasmussen, H. B. (2015). Danish Rural Areas’ Readiness for Joint Action as a Proxy for the Potential for Co-production. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(1), 32–55.Google Scholar
  42. Trommel, W. (2014). De maatschappij is sterker dan de decentralisatie, gelukkig. Socialisme & Democratie, 71(3), 75–85.Google Scholar
  43. Uitermark, J. (2003). ‘Social Mixing’ and the Management of Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: The Dutch Policy of Urban Restructuring Revisited. Urban Studies, 40(3), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uitermark, J. (2012). Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics: From Accommodation to Confrontation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uitermark, J., & Bosker, T. (2014). Wither the ‘Undivided City’? An Assessment of State-Sponsored Gentrification in Amsterdam. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 105(2), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J. W., & Kleinhans, R. (2007). Gentrification as a Governmental Strategy: Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Ankeren, M., Tonkens, E., & Verhoeven, I. (2010). Bewonersinitiatieven in de krachtwijken van Amsterdam: een verkennende studie. Hogeschool van Amsterdam/Universiteit van Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://www.evelientonkens.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bewonersinitiatieven_in_de_krachtwijken_van_Amster.pdf
  48. Van Gent, W. P., Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (2009). Disentangling Neighborhood Problems: Area-Based Interventions in Western European Cities. Urban Research & Practice, 2(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verhoeven, I., & Ham, M. (2010). Brave burgers gezocht. De grenzen van de activerende overheid. Amsterdam: van Gennep.Google Scholar
  50. Wacquant, L. (2012). Three Steps to a Historical Anthropology of Actually Existing Neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zwaan. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Decentralisation in Europe (J. M. Ruano & M. Profiroiu, Eds., pp. 219–252). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations