Spain: Local Democracy and Citizen Participation - Taylor & Francis ...

Space and Polity, Vol. 10, No. 3, 263– 278, December 2006

Spain: Local Democracy and Citizen Participation

FERNANDO DIÁZ ORUETA [Paper first received, April 2006; in final form, September 2006]

Abstract. This article focuses its attention on the democratic practice of local governments, taking the Spanish experience within its European context as the main point of reference. The analysis of democratic practice in local governments takes into consideration not only the collective decision-making processes, but also the real possibilities of citizen participation, assessing the urban model they lead to in the medium to long term. Such an analysis could help to determine if cities are moving towards more democratic and egalitarian forms of social organisation. Large urban projects in Spain have not been debated and agreed upon previously despite the fact that such works have a transcendental impact of the lives of millions of citizens. Simultaneously, different local authorities have put into place new experiences of participative government since the late 1990s, arising from a shared diagnosis indicating the existence of a democratic deficit that should be overcome.

1. Introduction Reflections on the nature of democracy and the debate concerning the contents and scope of this concept have regained a central position in sociology and political science, coinciding with the processes of political transition in the various countries of southern Europe and Latin America and subsequently in eastern Europe. It is now common to refer to that historical moment as the one in which democratic forms of government became most widespread and stopped being a privilege reserved for just a few developed countries. Nevertheless, one of the main problems currently affecting democracy is the enormous distance that separates its principles and its empirically observed reality, including in the countries which are supposed to have a greater democratic tradition. This text focuses its attention on the democratic practice of local governments, taking the Spanish experience within its European context as the main point of Fernando Dıáz Orueta is Lecturer in Urban Sociology at the Department of Sociology II, University of Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, (03080) Alicante, Spain. Tel: 34 965903795. Fax: 34 965903860. E-mail: [email protected]. This article was written while the author was a Visiting Lecturer in the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent at Canterbury, academic year 2004/05. This stay was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Programa de estancias de profesores de Universidad en centros de ensenãnza superior y de investigacioń. Reference: PR2004-0374). The author wishes to thank Professor C. H. Pickvance and the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research for their helpful support on his research and warm treatment. 1356-2576 Print=1470-1235 Online/06=030263-16 # 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080=13562570601110666

264

Fernando Dıáz Orueta

reference. Appealing to the strategic nature of this tier of government in processes of democratic change has been constant. For instance, local decentralisation policies were promoted in both Spain and Latin America as early as the 1980s. One of their declared aims was to move forward towards democracy and strengthen it.1 The growing importance of cities in the international scene today has only worked to emphasise this trend. Cities have reinforced their role as economic and cultural driving forces, thereby increasing their ability to exert political influence. Nonetheless, this thoroughgoing redefinition of the past and future of cities is more a project set by certain e´lites than the end result of a democratic participation process debated by different social and economic groups. This is why the analysis of democratic practice in local governments should take into consideration collective decision-making processes, the real possibilities of citizens taking part, and should assess the urban model they lead to in the medium to long term. Such an analysis should determine at what point cities at this advanced stage are moving forward to more democratic and egalitarian forms of social organisation. The article starts by setting the main lines of recent debate on the resurgence of local government. The bibliography on this matter during the past few years has been very extensive. The text primarily centres its attention on the new ways local governments have of acting and the practices they have adopted when performing large urban works. Once the main ways of acting and the nature of new urban policies have been sketched out, an effort is subsequently made to ascertain at what point there really is a local political space open to participation by citizens that would allow them democratically to question and modify the actions that define the future of their cities. Large urban projects in Spain have not been debated and agreed upon previously despite the fact that such works have a transcendental impact on the lives of millions of citizens. Simultaneously, different local authorities have put into place new experiences of participative government since the late 1990s, arising from a shared diagnosis indicating the existence of a democratic deficit that should be overcome. Lastly, a brief approach is made to the relationship between these new urban policies and the widening of citizenship rights, as well as the movement towards more egalitarian urban spaces. The research conducted in Europe on social welfare systems at a local scale is of great interest from a comparative standpoint. The attention placed on Spanish cities in such studies has been very limited to date. 2. Local Governments in Europe and the Globalisation Process In their analysis on European cities, Bagnasco and Le Gale`s (2000, p. 22) highlight how tensions of a varied nature (competition among cities, deindustrialisation, etc.) produced by economic globalisation have led to a weakening of certain local societies. The risk entailed by subordinating local social formations to the requirements laid down by growing international competition among cities appears to be evident.2 The fragmentation of local socio-political fabrics or the at times irreconcilable contradictions between various social sectors are today more than just hypotheses to be confirmed. Without being an absolutely new process, the analyses of many cities’ historical evolution conducted during the past two decades have revealed a path plagued by ruptures and even of failed

Local Democracy in Spain

265

local projects or the breakdown of urban models that were previously characterised by a greater degree of balance. Now, does this mean that the search for a more favourable positioning vis-a`-vis the international economy implies that cities must be irreversibly disarticulated from a social standpoint? Looking into this question is today an important and urgent task. Bagnasco and Le Gale`s refer to the progressive organisation of cities as players, considering this to be an effective response to the threats from the market at this historical stage More precisely, this could be a reaction to the threat posed by a desregulated market which might stimulate and foster the ability of these actors to speculate on these markets, to organise and reinforce their ability to accept some territorial pact (Bagnasco and Le Gale`s, 2000, p. 22). This is doubtless a reality that must be considered, although it may be convenient to be prudent. This article does not maintain an a priori position that disparages the wide-ranging and varied experience accumulated in recent years. Nevertheless, it does not ignore the fact that actions designed to satisfy specific and clearly defined economic and political interests lie behind many of the projects publicly presented as very inclusive socioeconomic and political agreements that have reached a broad consensus to contribute towards reinforcing local societies. The development of the political unification process in Europe and the growing impact of economic globalisation are elements that have favoured the increasing interest in the study of cities. Some researchers feel they have demonstrated the appearance of new forms of urban government and the gradual transformation of cities into collective players. It is, however, difficult to reach conclusions that are generally applicable. European cities comprise a wide-ranging mosaic of situations and their differences are enormous (John, 2001). If that were not enough, the constraints on the comparative studies conducted to date are great. In any event, some studies containing results and hypotheses of great interest have recently been published. For instance, in an effort to analyse and systematise recent European urban experiences, Le Gale`s (2002) refers to the existence of original forms of commitment, aggregation and representation of varied interests and cultures. Despite the appearance of new forms of poverty and social exclusion, Le Gale`s highlights the structuring of new formulae for urban government in many medium-sized European cities in a positive light. From Le Gale`s’ viewpoint (Le Gale`s, 2002; Bagnasco and Le Gale`s, 2000), urban sociology should attempt to show how existing forms of regulation are structured and operate in European cities by considering the role played by the different groups, social movements, services companies and interests in constructing the city as a collective player. Along these lines, Bagnascho and Le Gale`s define the term governance as Governance is thus defined as a process of co-ordinating actors, social groups and institutions in order to reach objectives which have been collectively discussed and defined in fragmented, even nebulous environments (Bagnascho and Le Gale`s, 2000, p. 26). In this way, the predominant local system in the Third Italy—the so-called neolocalism—clearly reflects the meaning the authors give to the term governance. The division of work among the market, social structures and, to an increasing extent, political structures has adopted a particular form that, to their minds,

266


would allow economic flexibility to be increased by rapidly adjusting to changes in the market and redistributing costs and profits to local society. In other European cities or systems, the hegemony exerted by other market or political systems would impede the construction of local players and societies. The word governance has gradually been replacing government. As Bagnasco (1999) points out, the term government is circumscribed to the institutional sphere of politics and linked to the notion of an authority which holds legitimate power on an exclusive basis. Governance, on the other hand, attempts to capture the complexity of government in modern societies, where there is no centre of power with the capacity to control the negotiating mechanisms among the different groups and networks of players. A recently published text (Savitch and Kantor, 2004) studies the different responses given by local authorities to the globalisation process. This text analyses 10 European and American experiences and assesses how far cities are able to set useful strategies in a democratic manner to face growing competitiveness. In general terms, the changes put into place to adapt to the new situations do not respond to an established plan that has been meticulously set out. On the contrary, it is more a system of trial and error that moves forward in a contradictory manner and, in many cases, slowly. In any event, the authors feel that, at least for Europe, they have detected the existence of an option to co-ordinate the actions of local government with both regional and central governments Overlapping policy nets linking national, regional and local authorities have been effective in rebuilding European cities, and this technique could be perfected as well as applied cross-nationally (Savitch and Kantor, 2004, p. 357). The function of local governments will not be limited to managing the city by trying to take maximum advantage of its opportunities in an increasingly competitive scenario. From Savitch’s and Kantor’s viewpoint, local governments should obtain as much support from their citizens as possible in order to provide their actions with a solid degree of democratic legitimacy. Determining how much the important decisions taken by local governments truly obtain such support from citizens is an important issue we will look into again later. 3. Cities, Growth and Large Urban Projects For many Spanish cities, the hypothesis of the city as a growth machine continues to hold great explanatory power. Molotch (1976) spelled out the system of alliances established in cities in order to promote their growth and privately appropriate the profits generated socially. As a result of the debates held with Logan and other authors, Logan and Molotch (1987) subsequently wrote a new book. In spite of the time that has passed, the debate continues to receive new contributions (for a critical review of Molotch’s theses, see Jonas and Wilson, 1999; and Wood, 2004). Against the backdrop of existing tensions between the use values and exchange values in cities and regions, Logan and Molotch (1987) conducted a thorough examination of the political dynamics established in each urban space and the way inequalities were created and maintained resulting from the action arising from a consensus reached by alliances of interest. To sum up, local e´lites and their fight to capture investment going beyond the general interest and the


267

population’s needs, the consequences of concentrating capital in certain cities, intensive land use and the participation and implication of the public administration’s different tiers are all elements around which the thesis of a growth machine is built. As the authors themselves maintain, this growth distributes both its advantages and disadvantages in an unequal fashion among the population. Hence, what Logan and Molotch called growth coalitions are behind the growth of cities. These coalitions are made up of the groups working jointly to promote the growth of a certain city. Opinion-makers in the local mass media, real estate promoters, universities, trade unions, liberal professionals, retailers, important businessmen and even the city’s local professional sports teams take part in such coalitions. Finally, the balance of political, economic and social forces depends on the direction given to growth in each city. The aforementioned view of the city understood as a piece of merchandise and as a company began to converge increasingly with the central role cities began to play with regard to culture from the 1980s. Economics and culture came to be at the very heart of the urban political agenda, constituting a focal point around which a consensus could be reached on many of the new large urban projects. In most cases, this consensus is built, organised and administered by local social e´lites in a very subtle way and cultural players are taking an increasingly important role.3 It is therefore worthwhile stopping for a moment to take a closer look at the significance of the economic and cultural spheres in contemporary cities. In an analysis of the five dimensions of globalisation (the technological, political, cultural, economic and social dimensions) and their interrelationships, Jameson (2000) refers to the very close connection between the cultural and economic spheres as a distinguishing trait of post-modernity. As the same author affirms, the US has fought since the end of the Second World War to bring down existing barriers in other countries that stopped the entry of its cultural products in a clear strategy that brought together not only the economic and cultural spheres but also the political sphere. In this phase of late capitalism, both the production of goods as well as finances have been permeated by an aesthetic quality for consumption, so that the economic is also cultural and the cultural, economic. This is a quality that cities have been incorporating into many of their urban projects and development strategies.4 If, as Jameson (2000) maintains, advertising and the industrial design of goods have become true mediators between culture and the economy, then it would also be possible to uphold the notion that architecture and architectural projects likewise act as mediators between society and public and/or private capital for the promotion of the city or, to be more precise, the qualified city. This is happening, for instance, with the impact produced by the opening of new large museums. Think about the social and economic implications of the building of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which was the driving force behind a profound restructuring process in the city and its metropolitan area. The impact of urban architecture that promotes the city and seeks of increase tourism is an unequivocal example of the economic model’s logic at this historical stage. This development is fed by the middle class’ new consumption, which is increasingly geared towards this kind of cultural expression. The economic-cultural-political triad is developed fully in most of the new urban development strategies. In this regard, the changes introduced to the

268


traditional urban approach and the appearance of new ways of planning have been essential mechanisms to ensure the consolidation of the stimulus given to the cultural economy. Strategic plans play a decisive role as legitimating documents for the drive towards new urban projects.5 There are numerous examples of local governments that have left strategic decisions in the hands of the private sector with different degrees of willingness.6 This, naturally, has been guided by the logic of maximising economic profit. In a crucial way, planning serves the new model of urban management and has taken on the nature of a true ‘good practices’ manual for cities. Consequently, the physical and functional homogenisation of urban services is accentuated while spatial fragmentation increases internally. The proliferation of franchises, thematic leisure outlets, designer architectural works, etc. makes up a homogeneous urban landscape that can be clearly identified in very varied cities and countries, where the relationship between architecture and the public administration organised around these projects and directed at the sale of the revamped city take on an unheard-of importance and is mutually reinforcing. Gentrification, cultural innovation, the growing attention given to the city’s physical appearance, large attractions (sporting venues, shopping centres, convention centres, marinas, exotic food restaurants, etc.) and the different forms of entertainment (organising permanent or temporary urban shows) have become the essential elements of urban renewal (Harvey, 1989). In general terms, local governments in Spain—at times, together with regional governments—take on as their own the large projects of economic groups and present them to citizens in the most favourable light.7 Exceptions to planning regulations are introduced or blatantly breached with the local authorities’ blessing and enthusiasm. In some tourist resort towns, this phenomenon has taken on very worrying forms with the establishment of very dubious relationships between the political powers and certain economic sectors.8 The state continues to play an active role even in national scenarios in which the hegemonic ideological discourses of the main political forces would make one think otherwise. The example of the transformation of London’s Docklands, a flagship project of Thatcherite policy and one of the most spectacular urban regeneration projects in Europe, is very revealing. The London Dockland Development Corporation (LDDC) was the body given the responsibility for carrying out this work. Although it was to take place within the borders of London, local powers could, however, not exercise any control over the organisation.9 As Hammett (2003) points out, the same political right that defended granting all the advantages to the free market also simultaneously set up a very powerful public institution that openly intervened in the land market adjacent to the UK’s most important economic centre and one of the most important in the world. It was a large investment of public capital at the service of private economic interests If this meant the paradox of greater state intervention in order to strengthen the market and weaken the state (as with privatisation), so be it. In addition, Conservative policy to deregulate foreign exchange controls in 1979 and to deregulate the City of London in 1986 clearly set the framework for the expansion of the City in the mid-late 1980s to take place (Hamnett, 2003, p. 17). Thus, the building of projects reached by consensus that guide the practice of local governments turns out to be a key question. Are the actions of the local


269

administration generally characterised by favouring the participation of citizens in urban issues? Or, are their previously designed projects that are subsequently presented to citizens as inevitable and impossible to modify? 4. Local Government, Urban Development and Citizens’ Participation in Spain In Spain, representatives from the different political parties commonly state that citizens lack any kind interest in urban issues, making it almost appear to be true due to the fact that it is repeated so often. Both politicians and municipal technical officers refer to very low levels of public assistance in local authority plenary sessions, the weak response to calls for participation concerning some urban projects, etc. Spanish local governments have been endowed with a legal framework that formally recognises and promotes participation. Nevertheless, in general terms, it turns out to be very minor. Formal recognition of this right to participation came about as a result of a period of intense urban mobilisation during the last phase of Franco’s dictatorship and the democratic transition. Once democracy consolidated itself and the local authority framework was established, participation diminished and weakened one of the essential pillars of democracy. Democracy became increasingly limited to voting in elections held every four years.10 There is no doubt that this situation cannot be explained by a single cause. Responsibility lies not only in the general lack of interest shown by those holding local government posts in citizens exercising their rights of participation. The evolution of urban movements, their limitations and incapacities, the citizen’s new interests and sensibilities, as well as the appearance of new urban problems are also essential elements. All of these are linked to conditioning factors of a structural nature that affect not only the exercising of democratic rights in cities. However, we will now focus our attention on the actions of local governments, which is the main aim of this text. In a wide-ranging piece of research conducted in the second half of the 1990s, the political actions and values of local leaders in medium-sized Spanish cities were analysed.11 The research was conducted within the framework of a much broader project called ‘Democracy and Local Governance’, which included 28 countries from around the world. That study was aimed at analysing local democracy and considered participation by the community as an essential element. In this regard, local leaders, particularly those with governmental responsibilities, would have a great capacity to articulate responses to social problems, manage conflicting local interests, as well as structure participation practices and control the exercise of power. Although the research focused on local politicians, it nevertheless made an effort to give the notion of local leaders a much wider meaning. Hence, both leaders elected to local authorities as well as others who either exerted some sort of influence on decision-making or who were important people in local society were considered as local leaders. Without going into detail on the results obtained, it is nonetheless important to highlight that the exhaustive fieldwork carried out revealed an apparently very positive reality concerning the discourse of local leaders.12 Generally speaking, the local leaders showed that they held deep democratic convictions and were favourable to participation by citizens in local government despite the differences in the opinions they held as a result of belonging to different parties, areas, social classes, sexes, age-groups, etc. At the same time, it became obvious that they

270


were quite concerned about inequality and social welfare. Improving the quality and breadth of the services provided by the local administration were recognised as very necessary, but without losing sight of the regional, Spanish and international spheres (particularly the European Union). In this sense, the increasing assumption of varied competencies by local governments was seen as a great challenge within a context of tight budgets and an increasing need to improve the training of technical staff and administrative structures.13 Despite the fact that the local leaders showed they had deep democratic convictions through their responses, the truth of the matter is that the real possibilities of citizens participating then and subsequently were minimal, especially when compared with other European countries. The vote is understood to be a carte blanche given to politicians to do things and decide without the need to consult or cobble together broad social agreements around local projects. It is generally true that the nation-wide and nationalist progressive parties14 claim to be formally more in favour of developing certain kinds of participative government. Nonetheless, we can say we are facing a new form of illustrated despotism (all for the people, without the people) rather than thoroughgoing and open participative processes. In fact, if we take a look at the main urban renewal operations carried out since the end of the 1980s (Seville, Barcelona and Bilbao), the diagnoses of their results can be varied if we were to assess town planning or economic variables on an exclusive basis. Hence, there are differences of opinion based on solid arguments and each of the aforementioned examples would need a very exhaustive specific case-by-case analysis before we are in a position to issue a definitive assessment. Nonetheless, it turns out to be very evident that none of these operations has been promoted on the basis of participative processes. This is particularly worrying when we consider that these operations have redefined the future of whole cities. The appearance of important new developments coinciding with the beginning of the 21st century may also be having an effect on the democratic functioning of local authorities. The growing convergence among very varied social movements and objectives brought together by a thorough critique of current realities in the world could be a possible path towards a scenario that should be monitored with interest.15 The diversity of social sensibilities, groups and organisations that adopt very different viewpoints are showing a clear will to put together collectively new proposals for political and economic action, signalling a growing break with a previous stage characterised by a lack of social mobilisation. We are dealing with very fragmented players with very uneven territorial support and a wide variety of objectives. Nonetheless, they are showing an important capacity to mobilise youth, organise across national borders and incorporate new objectives and demands that are widely divergent. Such changes have also affected urban social movements. As Mayer (2000) points out, urban movements today are very different from those of past decades.16 They should be understood as part of a much wider social mobilisation aimed at focusing its attention on the effects on cities of some of the consequences arising from the process of economic globalisation. Some of their actions in the face of certain urban renewal processes, their claims for improving collective consumption and their autonomy from the main political parties should be understood in this way These transformations . . . may be interpreted in the context of recent urban restructuring and the transformation of the local state, because


271

these processes have generated structurally new conflict lines, with which most of the movements active today are engaging (Mayer, 2000, p. 142). The new urban social mobilisation faces the modalities of urban government examined above as a manifestation of the process of economic globalisation, which requires cities to adopt large urban restructuring projects in order to compete internationally. Some sectors of the old citizens’ movement are converging with the green movement, the squatters’ movement, community groups affected by specific urban works,17 etc. in this kind of opposition. Important mobilisations have also occurred in various Spanish cities. For instance, several have been organised in Valencia around a series of platforms carrying the name ‘Salvem’ (Torres, 2004). Salvem la Punta (refers to the defence of an old port neighbourhood brutally demolished by the local administration in order to enlarge the port), Salvem el Cabanyal (an organisation that defends a neighbourhood declared as a Site of Cultural Interest which the Town Hall wished to demolish partially to open up a new avenue), Salvem el Bota`nic (created in the face of the threat posed by the building of three high-rise buildings right next to the University of Valencia’s Botanical Gardens), etc. In Barcelona, the groups that fought against hosting the Barcelona Fo`rum 2004 carried out an important mobilisation campaign (http://barcelona.indymedia.org) before and during the time the event was being held. They opposed spirit of the operation and the enormous economic waste its organisation involved. In fact, some social organisations and individuals that had initially agreed to take part in Fo`rum 2004 finally declined to participate. Many citizens perceive that there are increasing difficulties when they attempt to exercise their rights of participation. Torres, an expert on urban movements and a grass-roots member of some of them, explains it in this way The difficulties encountered to establish a dialogue with the authorities are very great and a large disparity is produced between the importance of massive mobilisations and the fact the Administration is not very willing to hold a dialogue and the great efforts required to change decisions that have already been taken. We are talking about a lack of participative structures in our representative democracy, which aims to govern without giving explanations or accepting criticism going beyond ritualised parliamentary debates. . . . In addition, more and more people, however, feel unsatisfied by the social utility of institutional politics. They feel disenchanted by the priority given by parties to electoral politics, whose aims have little or nothing to do with social transformation, and they are approaching with interest-groups setting out new alternatives and projects. They are approaching not only the most critical or alternative sectors. Many proposals for ‘recovering the city’ and opposing speculative or destructive projects are shared by people belonging to different points of the political spectrum who would never make a commitment to parties whose ideology was different from their own. However, they are willing to give their support to campaigns carried out by such groups without any problems. We are dealing here with an effort to strengthen democracy, of making a more participative and hence more critical democracy possible (Torres, 2004, pp. 15– 16).

272


It is within this context that different kinds of municipal democratic participation experiences have arisen since the second half of the 1990s. Essentially inspired by the example given by Porto Alegre and other Brazilian cities concerning participatory budgets and even inspired by policies backed by the European Union—such as Agenda 21–, some Spanish local authorities have put into place new local government practices that aim to provide a response to the democratic deficit that has been detected. The adjective ‘participative’ linked to the term ‘democracy’ clearly signals the current lack suffered by local governments in Spain. To date, 10 Spanish local authorities have put participative budgets into practice, to a greater or lesser extent.18 As Pineda (2004) points out, using De Sousa’s approach, this community participation process is based on three principles as well as a whole set of decisions that channel participation in decision-making processes These three principles are (1) Open participation for all citizens without giving special consideration to community organisations. (2) The combination of direct and representative democracy, making citizens responsible for defining the internal rules of functioning. (3) Making resources for investments available in accordance with a combination of general and technical criteria. The limited nature of the Spanish experience and the huge differences detected among the various examples do not allow us to talk about a significant change of approach in the democratic practices of local authorities. At least, however, they do reveal the perception that it is increasingly necessary to provide a response to growing social unease. As the social fabric begins to organise itself and demand a greater capacity to intervene in decision-making processes, this change will be in a position to consolidate itself and widen its scope. 5. Some Notes on Local Democracy and the Welfare State Although the formal recognition of citizenship is not a matter that mainly depends on local governments, it is nevertheless true that, given the specific nature of this tier of government, it is precisely here that greater or less openness in this field is most clearly perceived. The closeness of the relationship between local authorities and citizens implies that many of the patterns that allow a more or less democratic government to function appear at this tier of government.19 We are not only dealing with the recognition of the right to vote, which is very important, and other forms of citizens’ participation, but with the real possibilities of exercising political and social rights. Hence, over and above their specific competencies, local authorities have the chance of developing many government policies that have a direct effect on citizens and their sense of belonging to a democratic society, including participation, social welfare, housing and immigration. However, it is necessary to remember that not all local governments are organised in the same way and hence their patterns of action may turn out to be very different. In this regard, Pickvance (1997, p. 130) sets out the need to differentiate between at least two main models of local government. In the first of these (the welfare state model), the whole government performs a large variety of functions, many of which are the responsibility of local government. In general terms, in this model a relative centralisation of finances co-exists with a decentralisation of


273

functions. In the second model (the self-government model), finances and their control are highly decentralised, but the functions are far fewer than in the former case. Local governments have the right to decide which services they provide to the public, how to do it and at what cost. The functioning of Spanish local authorities is much more akin to the first model, although the important nuance must be made that in Spain there is a very important regional tier of government holding a large part of the competencies that are held by local governments in other European countries. European local authorities have been gradually developing a whole network of social policies that interact with the policies implemented by the regional and central tiers of government. The convergence of such policies with the actions of other social players has generally jointly conformed to the so-called local welfare systems. From the standpoint adopted by this text, analysing them is of particular importance given that such an analysis would provide us with essential information in order to assess the functioning of local societies and their evolution towards more or less egalitarian and democratic forms based on the extent to which they recognise citizens’ rights. In general terms, we can assert that a constant process of tension and redefinition concerning welfare policies has occurred over the past two decades.20 This process is evident in cities, which have additionally been negatively affected by the appearance of new situations of poverty and social exclusion. Nevertheless, recent evolution has not been geared towards the same directions in all cities. For instance, the growing social polarisation seen in American cities appears to have been accompanied by the weakening of social welfare policies, when they existed. This has led to increasing levels of urban poverty, which is not so evident in many European cities. This, however, should not make us think that European cities are islands of welfare immune from the problems of social inequality and an increase in urban poverty. In any case But, this is not simply a result of the unmediated operation of market forces and privatisation. It is also an outcome of the historical legacy and also of political struggle to preserve welfare states against neoliberal economic pressures (Hamnett, 1998, p. 27) In other words, Hammett introduces historical and political variables into his analysis in an effort to come to grips with the reasons behind the different evolution evidenced by European and American cities in this field. In any event, making generalisations about the situation in Europe entails great risks, as has already been mentioned on various occasions throughout this article. This is due not only to the huge internal territorial differences within many European countries (Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.), but also to the fact that many state actions reinforce socio-territorial inequalities in cities States are by definition large driving forces for stratification, never much more so than at the base of socio-spatial order. They provide or impede access to adequate schooling and work training; they set the conditions for entering and leaving the labour market through administrative rules on hiring, firing and retirement; they distribute (or fail to distribute) basic goods such as housing and supplementary income; they actively support or hinder the formation of certain families or households; and they co-determine both the material intensity as well as the geographical

274

Fernando Dıáz Orueta exclusivity and density of poverty through a multitude of administrative and tax programmes (Wacquant, 2001, pp. 175 –176).

Despite the existence of social resistance and the wide diversity of policies, Europe has not moved forward towards more socially advanced policies. The European Union has consolidated itself as a space within which the welfare state is constantly redefining itself, thereby seriously eroding its foundations. This does not belie the fact that there are examples of cities where processes of change have arisen whose end-results can be assessed to be positive in overall terms under certain circumstances and with certain local government practices. However, even various official documents issued by the European Union admit that there is growing concern about situations of social exclusion in cities. The policies described here have resulted in deep-seated rifts in local socioeconomic fabrics and huge difficulties have been faced to maintain cohesive social structures in a large number of local authorities. It is therefore important conduct comparative research on the different strategies that have been adopted by European cities concerning the maintenance and development of welfare policies. Knowing their objectives, intensity, modalities, etc., turns out to be essential in order to draw up a complete picture of the evolution of local governments and their greater or lesser level of democratisation. The research conducted on such matters is still insufficient, although it is increasingly more relevant (see, for instance: Musterd and Ostendorf, 1998; Madanipour, 1998; Preteceille, 2000; Kazepov, 2004; and Murie and Musterd, 2004). Mingione and Oberti (2003) highlight the diversity of strategies adopted by local governments to face the problem of social exclusion.21 In any event, it is necessary to study more than just the actions of public institutions in such analyses. Attention should also be paid to intermediate organisations, family networks and local communities. The consideration of local societies takes on a central importance when studying poverty and inequality, as it is impossible to come to grips with their nature and the way they are reproduced without understanding the local conditions from which they arise.22

6. Conclusions Local authorities are becoming key players within the current context of increasing international competition among cities in which large urban intervention projects linked to strategies to develop the cultural economy have taken on a crucial importance. Their capacity to lead projects and co-ordinate different groups and institutions can be used for very different ends. Diversity is the key element. Over and above the enormous differences in the way local governments are organised, it is confirmed by a variety of sensibilities, political strategies and the mechanisms that make local society function. The concrete actions of local governments take place over a wide-ranging field of action, which ranges from passively ceding the city’s development to powerful economic groups, to choosing to play a determining role by establishing constant forums for debate and social mobilisation in order to articulate and organise the city in a democratic and egalitarian way. Concepts like governance make an effort to provide a response to the complexity of local government today. In this regard, it is very important not to confuse decentralisation with democratisation. Very different decentralisation models exist. Additionally, despite the fact


275

that the local tier of government potentially exercises its competencies in very close contact with citizens, not all the actions carried out at this level of government turn out to be intrinsically more democratic. For instance, some of the Spanish cities mentioned throughout this text have promoted or are promoting large urban restructuring programmes by doing away with the most minimal citizens’ participation processes. In addition, the new urban social movements that have arisen over the past 10 years have found scarcely an echo to their demands or even, at times, a very negative response. Even in the Europe of the welfare state, cities have been shaken by very traumatic processes of socioeconomic change that have led to an increase in poverty and social exclusion. Such processes are clearly linked to the different ways in which individuals enter the labour market, gender differences and ethnic inequalities. These are accompanied by other mechanisms of exclusion, such as the growing difficulty many citizens face to gain access to suitable housing. In general terms, we are witnessing a worsening of social fragmentation in many European cities and Spanish cities are no exception to this rule. There is a relationship between adopting certain urban development strategies and the increase in poverty and social exclusion levels in our cities. That is why studies that tackle an analysis of the policies used to combat social exclusion within a local context should try to go beyond merely considering such matters from a technical standpoint and should question the conditions favouring the appearance and reproduction of social exclusion. In any event, it is evident that there is a significant democratic deficit concerning both the way in which important strategic decisions are taken regarding the future of Spanish cities as well as the way welfare policies are put into practice at the local level. Generally speaking, the final definition of urban projects is very similar to the ideas and proposals put forward by growth coalitions, thereby leading to a growing disinterest by citizens given the little possibility they have of having a substantial say in the decision-making process. That is why the efforts made by some local authorities to move forward towards so-called participative democracy are a positive sign, in so far as they recognise the existence of a problem. The wager placed on strengthening democracy transcends the local tier of government. As Mouffe (1999) states, it is an effort to introduce the exercise of democracy in all social relationships. However, the possibility of truly taking part in the different social practices that comprise the network linking the state and civil society is necessary to achieve this. It would therefore be very important to build gradually a social focus that would serve as a meeting-point for the numerous movements that have recently appeared which attempt to extend democratic principles to the whole set of social relationships. More specifically, this could turn out to be a factor for positive change in cities given that it would provide a great deal of citizens’ energy by contributing towards broadening the democratic legitimacy of local authorities’ actions as well as multiplying the sensibilities having a voice and ability to exert an influence on the decisions affecting the future urban development of cities.

Notes 1. Democracy and decentralisation have frequently been identified as if both notions were necessarily tied together. This relationship, however, is not so immediate. As Pickvance asserts, local government is not inherently more democratic than central government: “to decentralise functions to local government is not necessarily to increase democracy. Deciding it does so or not depends on a detailed knowledge of the working of both levels of government” (Pickvance, 1997, p. 133).

276


2. Vainer (2000) highlights the changes in the debates concerning the so-called urban question. The main discussions previously centred around aspects such as disorderly growth, reproducing the workforce, collective consumption facilities, social movements and land use. Today, however, the new urban question would focus on urban competitiveness. 3. An analysis of the evolution of the city of Buenos Aires from this standpoint can be found in Dıáz Orueta and Loure´s (2003). 4. The very complexity of the urban sphere impedes an overall reading from this single viewpoint. Not everything in the city is a space for consumption, passivity or the predominance of the private sphere over the public sphere. 5. According to Vainer (2000, pp. 77–78), the discourse of strategic planning is organised around three main axes: the city –company, the city–merchandise and the city –fatherland. The author defines this three-fold dimension starting off from a systematic analysis of a significant number of strategic plans and the texts drafted by their main promoters, contrasting the efficacy of each of these analogies in the building of a city project. 6. It is not unknown that a plurality of interests may hide behind a term so vague as the ‘private sector’. For instance, specific representatives of the local private sector (small retailers, etc.) can play very different roles and even contrasting roles from those of large corporations or the most important companies involved in the real estate industry. 7. In the wake of the controversial results of the Barcelona Fo`rum of 2004, other events are being announced in different Spanish cities that serve to justify spectacular urban operations. This is the case for Valencia with the America’s Cup (2007) and Zaragoza with the 2008 World Expo. 8. For example, see Dıáz Orueta (2004) on the recent evolution of the Costa Blanca in Spain. 9. See Imrie and Thomas (1999) for urban policy in the UK and, more specifically, on the creation of the Urban Development Corporations. 10. The first democratic local elections after more than 40 years were held in 1979. Most of the large local authorities were won by centre-left or leftist parties (PSOE—Spanish Socialist Party, PCE— Spanish Communist Party, or both jointly). The 1991 local elections signalled a change of course given that conservative parties significantly increased their percentage of the vote and won important local governments. This trend was subsequently consolidated in the 1995 elections. Even after the last local elections held in 2003, the PP (Popular Party) maintained its hold over large cities like Madrid, Valencia and Malaga. 11. ‘Democracy and Local Governance in Spain’, directed by Professor Marisol Garcıá (Universidad de Barcelona), in which the author of this text took part as a researcher. This study was funded by the InterMinisterial Commission on Science and Technology (CICYT—Comisioń Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologıá). Reference: SEC95-1576. 12. In all, 450 local leaders in 30 Spanish towns and cities and 15 regions were interviewed. The cities chosen had a population of between 25 000 and 200 000 inhabitants. 13. On 21 November 2004, the Spanish newspaper El Paı´s commemorated 25 years of democratic local governments in Spain by publishing a debate among the mayors of Madrid (Alberto RuizGallardoń, PP), Barcelona (Joan Clos, PSC-PSOE—Catalan Socialist Party), Valencia (Rita Barbera´, PP), Co´rdoba (Rosa Aguilar, IU—United Left) and A Corunã (Francisco Va´zquez, PsdeG–PSOE—Galician Socialist Party). The latter was additionally the Chairman of the Spanish Federation of Local Authorities and Provinces (FEMP). Despite their different political affiliations, all the local politicians coincided in calling for an improvement in the mechanisms to finance budgets in order to deal satisfactorily with the management of the competencies that local authorities had taken on. In Spain in 2004, the central administration accounted for 53 per cent of public expenditure while the regions accounted for 33.9 per cent and local authorities for 13.1 per cent. 14. Especially in Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country. 15. Among the abundant recent Spanish bibliography analysing these new social movements, see for instance: Fernańdez Durań, Etxezarreta and Sae´z (2001); Fernańdez Buey (2004); and Grau and Ibarra (2004). 16. See Pickvance (2003) on the recent evolution of social urban movements. 17. Examples include the enlargement of large infrastructure (highways, airports, high-speed railways, etc.), the building of large shopping centres and the development of new real estate projects. 18. Pineda (2004) lists the following local authorities: Co´rdoba, Albacete, Rubı´, San Sebastiań, Getafe, Algete, Cabezas de San Juan, Puente Genil, Jerez de la Frontera and Seville.


277

19. This should not, however, lead us to think that the local tier of government is necessarily more democratic than central or regional tiers. 20. The nature of state intervention has changed. State actions are increasingly aimed at favouring the conditions that supposedly ensure more economic growth, leaving redistributive social policies in the background. As was indicated earlier when reflecting on experiences such as that of London’s Docklands, the state has declared a firm interest in reinforcing the actions of private investment. This supposes immediate economic profits for specific social groups that are closely linked to expanding sectors (managers, professionals, etc.) and the decline of sectors of the working class within a context of increasing precariousness in the labour market. 21. In the text quoted, the authors present the results of a comparative research project entitled ESOPO (Evaluation of Social Policies at the Local Urban Level: Income Support for the Ablebodied) led by C. Sarraceno. The results of this study can also be seen in Garcıá, 2004. Thirteen European cities and six countries were studied. Barcelona and Vitoria were analysed in Spain. These are very interesting examples that are, however, exceptional cases in Spain. Hence, the study’s results do not allow us to draw valid conclusions about the whole country. 22. Hence, the analysis and assessment of integrated research plans on specific neighbourhoods is an extremely interesting field of research. Said actions, which are present under different action modalities in most European countries, represent an attempt to intervene on the territory on an overall basis (Loure´s, 2003).

References BAGNASCO , A. (1999) Tracce di comunita. Bologna: Il Mulino. BAGNASCO , A. and LE GALE` S , P. (2000) European cities: local societies and collective actors?, in: A. BAGNASCO and P. LE GALE` S (Eds) Cities in a Contemporary Europe, pp. 1 –32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DI´ AZ ORUETA , F. (2004) Turismo, urbanizacioń y cambio social, Revista Argentina de Sociologıá, 2, pp. 115–127. DI´ AZ ORUETA , F. and LOURE´ S , M. L. (2003) La ciudad posfordista: economıá cultural y recualificacioń urbana, Revista de Economıá Crı´tica, 2, pp. 105 –121. DI´ AZ ORUETA , F., LOURE´ S , M. L., RODRI´ GUEZ , C. and DEVALLE , V. (2003) Ciudad, territorio y exclusioń social: las polı´ticas de recualificacioń urbana en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, Revista Espanõla de Investigaciones Sociolo´gicas, 103, pp. 159–185. FERNA´ NDEZ BUEY, F. (2004) Guıá Para Una Globalizacioń Alternativa: Otro Mundo es Posible. Barcelona: Ediciones B. FERNA´ NDEZ DURA´ N , R., ETXEZARRETA , M. and SA´ EZ , M. (2001) Globalizacioń Capitalista: Luchas y Resistencias. Madrid: Virus. GARCI´ A , M. (2004) Minimum income policies to combat poverty: local practices and social justice in the ‘European social model’, in: Y. KAZEPOV (Ed.) Cities of Europe, pp. 301 –324. Oxford: Blackwell. GOTTDIENNER , M. and BUDD , L. (2005) Key Concepts in Urban Studies. London: Sage. GRAU , E. and IBARRA , P. (2004) La Red en la Calle: Cambios en la Cultura de Movilizacioń? Barcelona: Icaria and Betiko Fundazioa. HAMNETT, C. H. (1998) Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes, in: S. MUSTERD and W. OSTENDORF (Eds) Urban Segregation and the Welfare State, pp. 15–27. London: Routledge. HAMNETT, C. H. (2003) Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. London: Routledge. HARVEY, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. IMRIE , R. and THOMAS , H. (Eds) (1999) British Urban Policy. London: Sage. JAMESON , F. (2000) Globalization and political strategy, New Left Review, 4, pp. 49 –68. JOHN , P. (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe. London: Sage. JONAS , A. and WILSON , D. (1999) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. KAZEPOV, Y. (2004) Cities of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. LE GALE` S , P. (2002) European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LOGAN , J. and MOLOTCH , H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. LOURE´ S , M. L. (2003) Recualificacioń urbana y desigualdad social: los barrios en crisis en Europa, in: Pobreza urbana. Perspectivas globales, nacionales y locales, pp. 89–106. Me´xico: Centro de Estudios sobreè` Marginacioń y Pobreza. MADANIPOUR , A. (1998) Social exclusion and space, in: A. MADANIPOUR , C. GO¨ RAN and J. ALLEN (Eds) Social Exclusion in European Cities: Processes, Experiences and Responses, pp. 75 –89. London: Jessica Kingsley.

278


MAYER , M. (2000) Urban social movements in an era of globalisation, in: P. HAMEL , H. LUSTIGER -THALER and M. MAYER (Eds) Urban Movements in a Globalising World, pp. 141 –157. London: Routledge. MINGIONE , E. and OBERTI , M. (2003) The struggle against social exclusion at the local level: diversity and convergence in European cities, European Journal of Spatial Development (http://www.nordregio.se/ EJSD/), Refereed Articles, 1 January. MOLOTCH , H. (1976) The city as a growth machine, American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 309–330. MOUFFE , C. H. (1999) El Retorno de lo Polı´tico. Barcelona: Paido´s. MURIE , A. and MUSTERD , S. (2004) Social exclusion and opportunity structures in European cities and neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 41(8), pp. 1441–1459. MUSTERD , S. and OSTENDORF, W. (Eds) (1998) Urban Segregation and the Welfare State. London: Routledge. PICKVANCE , C. H. (1997) Decentralization and democracy in eastern Europe: a sceptical approach, Environment and Planning C, 15, pp. 129 –142. PICKVANCE , C. H. (2003) Symposium on urban movements, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), pp. 102– 109. PINEDA , C. (2004) Los presupuestos participativos en Espanã: un balance provisional. Actas del VIII Congreso Espanõl de Sociologıá, Alicante. PRETECEILLE , E. (2000) Segregation, class and politics in large cities, in: A. BAGNASCO and P. LE GALE` S (Eds) Cities in a Contemporary Europe, pp. 74– 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SAVITCH , H. and KANTOR , P. (2004) Cities in the International Marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. TORRES , V. (2004) Viejos y nuevos movimientos ciudadanos en el Paı´s Valenciano. Congreso: Movimientos Sociales Hoy: Avanzando Hacia una Democracia Transformadora, Alicante. VAINER , C. V. (2000) Pa´tria, empresa e mercadoria, in: O. ARANTES , C. V. VAINER and E. MARICATO (Eds) ´ nico: Desmanchando Consensos, pp. 75–103. Petro´polis: Editora Vozes. A Cidade do Pensamento U WACQUANT, L. (2001) Parias Urbanos: Marginalidad en la Ciudad a Comienzos del Milenio. Buenos Aires: Manantial. WOOD , A. M. (2004) Domesticating urban theory? US concepts, British cities and the limits of crossnational applications, Urban Studies, 41(11), pp. 2103– 2118.