Skip to main content
Book cover

Enabling Urban Alternatives pp 133–155Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

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

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-1531-2_7
  • Chapter length: 23 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-981-13-1531-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In particular, the governmentality perspective highlights the prevalence of the two simultaneous albeit contrasting processes of administrative decentralization and the recentralization of state control. The former is understood as the involvement of civil society and market actors in governance and/or devolving state functions to sub-national levels. The recentralization of political control manifests in the dominance of neoliberal discourse on appropriate individual and civic conduct and in the performance-driven institutionalized audit culture (see also Kokx & Van Kempen, 2010; Swyngedouw, 2005; Taylor, 2007).

  2. 2.

    Both respondents were extensively interviewed during the fieldwork. The names are pseudonyms.

References

  • Azarhoosh, F., & Mehlkopf, P. (2009). Maatschap in de Buurt. Verslag van een expertmeeting. Een bewerking van de opbergsten. Amsterdam: Timorplein Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitel, K. (2013). Local Protests, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State in San Francisco. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Farage, S. (1994). Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1–18.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A. (2004). Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation. IDS Bulletin, 35(2), 1–10.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., & Gaventa, J. (2000). From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers Repositioning Participation in Social Policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50–62.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, C. (1996). Bourdieu and Foucault on Power and Modernity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 22(6), 55–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • De Wilde, M. (2015). Brave New Neighborhood: Affective Citizenship in Dutch Territorial Governance. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (2010). The Uses of Neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(s1), 166–184.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fung, A. (2009). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hochstenbach, C. (2015). Stakeholder Representations of Gentrification in Amsterdam and Berlin: A Marginal Process? Housing Studies, 30(6), 817–838.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, J. (2005). Change the World without Taking Power. Capital & Class, 29(1), 39–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, J. (2010). Cracks and the Crisis of Abstract Labour. Antipode, 42(4), 909–923.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kokx, A., & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Dutch Urban Governance: Multi-level or Multi-scalar? European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(4), 355–369.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlebach, A. (2012). The Moral Neoliberal: Welfare and Citizenship in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public Participation and Collaborative Governance. Journal of Social Policy, 33(2), 203–223.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. London: Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. (2016). Expulsions and the Commons [Video]. In New Democracy Series. Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/180702010

  • Silver, H., Scott, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2010). Participation in Urban Contention and Deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 453–477.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smets, P., & Watt, P. (2017). Social Housing and Urban Renewal: A Cross-National Perspective. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2007). Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297–317.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Trommel, W. (2014). De maatschappij is sterker dan de decentralisatie, gelukkig. Socialisme & Democratie, 71(3), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uitermark, J. (2003). ‘Social Mixing’ and the Management of Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: The Dutch Policy of Urban Restructuring Revisited. Urban Studies, 40(3), 531–549.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Uitermark, J. (2012). Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics: From Accommodation to Confrontation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, I., & Ham, M. (2010). Brave burgers gezocht. De grenzen van de activerende overheid. Amsterdam: van Gennep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, L. (2012). Three Steps to a Historical Anthropology of Actually Existing Neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66–79.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Decentralisation in Europe (J. M. Ruano & M. Profiroiu, Eds., pp. 219–252). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Zsuzsa Kovács, Peer Smets & Halleh Ghorashi

Authors
  1. Zsuzsa Kovács
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peer Smets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Halleh Ghorashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsuzsa Kovács .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Danish Centre for Rural Research, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark

    Dr. Jens Kaae Fisker

  2. Urban Studies URBEUR, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Letizia Chiappini

  3. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

    Prof. Lee Pugalis

  4. Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Prof. Dr. Antonella Bruzzese

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kovács, Z., Smets, P., Ghorashi, H. (2019). The Game of Participation in Amsterdam East: An Alternative to the Neoliberal or a Neoliberal Alternative?. In: Fisker, J., Chiappini, L., Pugalis, L., Bruzzese, A. (eds) Enabling Urban Alternatives. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1531-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1531-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1530-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1531-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)