Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 11, 2007–2021, October 2005

Social and in Urban : Strategies for an Inclusive City

Julia Gerometta, Hartmut Ha¨ussermann and Giulia Longo

[Paper first received, June 2004; in final form, June 2005]

Summary. Processes of socioeconomic polarisation and mark contemporary cities. In many countries, welfare states are in crisis, suffering from post-Fordist transformations. In cities, new ways of governance are needed to overcome the consequences of economic, social and political restructuring. This article seeks to explore the role of civil society in new urban governance arrangements that will hopefully contribute to counter the trends towards social exclusion. While aware of the ambiguity of civil society’s role in rebuilding governance relationships, it is argued that, under certain conditions, civil society is found to be a valuable contributor towards more cohesive cities and governance arrangements that promote them. Such conditions involve the existence of a multiscalar democratic governance regime that favours public deliberation and social initiatives.

1. Introduction development of new social integration strat- egies. We use the social exclusion dimensions European cities exhibit rising levels of social outlined in the third section of this paper to exclusion. This article seeks to contribute to operationalise these three core dimensions a conceptualisation of ‘social innovation’ in into the role of civil society and its impact urban development, which focuses in particu- on institutional change, governance dynamics lar on the processes aimed at countering social 1 and empowerment. exclusion. The term ‘social innovation’ is We are concerned mainly with two spatial introduced in this Special Topic (see Moulaert scales: the city and the smaller localities or et al.) with three core dimensions: the satisfac- neighbourhoods within it; but we also include tion of human needs (content dimension); urban conurbations. The city, not primarily changes in social relations especially with the countryside, was the spatial focus and regard to governance (process dimension); engine of the Industrial Revolution, of social and an increase in the socio-political capabi- struggle against capitalist exploitation and lity and access to resources (empowerment the emergence of socioeconomic life as we dimension). Social innovation is understood know it today, with its regulated labour as both a normative and analytical concept markets and welfare systems. Large families in the formation and analysis of solutions to with a subsistence economy gave way to social exclusion problems in European cities smaller families and an increasing individuali- and one with an eventual input into the sation of social and economic life. Under these

Julia Gerometta, Hartmut Ha¨ussermann and Giulia Longo are in the Department of Urban and Regional Sociology, Humboldt Uni- versity , Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. Fax: 49 30 2093 4213. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected].þ The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for inspiring discussions, comments and hints to earlier versions of this paper and the research it is embedded in: Erik Swyngedouw, , Patsy Healey, Steve Graham, Matthew Gandi, Sara Gonzales, Lena Schulz zur Wiesch, Katrin Luise La¨zer and Christian Bru¨tt. 0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=05=112007–15 # 2005 The Editors of Urban Studies DOI: 10.1080=00420980500279851 2008 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL. conditions, insurance against unemployment governance of urban localities. We also was more urgent in the city than in the country- address the critical aspects found in the litera- side. The current crisis within the welfare state ture. Finally, we use a Hegelian approach to is greater within cities because, in the case of philosophy and to the concept of civil social exclusion, there is a greater erosion society, to deduce aspects which are crucial here of the conditions for the replacement of for social innovation under conditions of welfare services. In general, family ties are social exclusion. limited and weak, providing little support; According to our analysis, civil society is the availability of land for cultivation and and always will be supplementary to the other means of reproduction is very restricted. local state and will never replace it. The Individualisation fosters social fragmentation, rights and legal guarantees which only a emphasises the fault lines between different state can grant are a pre-condition for an social groups and thus limits possibilities for inclusive civil society, as we show in sections integration. At the same time, cities as places 4 and 5. Where crisis develops as a response to of crisis are also places of innovation in gov- new and changing social conditions and inter- ernance relations and institutions and are the ests, civil society can alternatively take the primary arenas of social movements and role of reproducing as well as amending other civil society social experiments. the state’s vision and the embodiment of In this article, we highlight the role of civil the general interest it represents. This role, society in social innovation initiatives and supplementary to those of local states, and organisation. Efficiency-oriented governance located between an innovatory sphere and a relationships within the New Urban Policy, sphere of production of welfare, is analysed such as large project-oriented public–private in greater detail in this article. Furthermore, partnerships often result in more exclusionary we show that certain conditions need to institutions (Moulaert et al., 2002, 2003). apply for local social innovation, driven by Beyond doubt, in the sphere of the reproduc- civil society, to occur: different spatial scales tion of public interests, civil society has and their welfare regimes need to be inter- been found to have potential for innovation mediated in a way that prevents putting local towards needs-satisfaction, with institutional social innovation at risk through develop- change allowing more effective action and ments and actions at higher spatial scales; the development of other socially innovative the deliberation of issues needs to be anti- processes (see the literature on welfare state exclusionary, and thus truly public, and local restructuring, for example: Offe, 2002; social economy experiences need welfare Jessop, 2002) as well as the local development state support. literature (see, for example, Taylor, 2000). We attempt to analyse civil society by examining 2. The Crisis of the Welfare State and the local governance dynamics in order to identify Rise of Aspirations towards Civil Society in factors critical to social integration. We begin Urban Governance with a description of the crisis in the modern welfare state and subsequent new develop- The present crisis facing the welfare state has ments, especially in local welfare regimes. endogenous as well as exogenous causes. Then we model the dynamics of social Exogenous to the actual welfare state are the exclusion in urban societies drawing on the internationalisation of national , approaches of the French sociologist and the increase in international competition philosopher Robert Castel (1995) and the which puts pressure on cost structures, curtail- German sociologist Martin Kronauer (1999, ment of national economic and fiscal policy 2002). Next, we present current ideas for autonomy through regu- welfare state restructuring of civil society, lations and the general conception of the thereby highlighting the potential inherent in opposing effects of levelled wages on this sphere of social organisation for the one side and production sites’ positions in SOCIAL INNOVATION 2009 the geography of competition on the other. entrepreneurs and their representations are Endogenous causes are the lower productivity the driving forces of the global neo-liberal rises in large sections of the service economy regime, which Jessop also calls a “successful and consequent lower or more slowly growing hegemonic project” (p. 455), which is the state income and tax revenues, the erosion of outcome of “successful exercise of political, ‘normal’ employment regimes and the pro- intellectual, and moral leadership” (p. 455). liferation of maturing welfare states as a At the same time, the Keynesian welfare result of demographic change (for example, national state is in severe crisis and is being an ageing population as well as the increasing transformed following the end of Atlantic role of women in the labour market), with its Fordism. The associated mixed economy is demands for new welfare measures (Lu¨tz, also undergoing crises, as shown by the deve- 2004). Alongside the crisis in state financial lopments in east , the collapse of the foundations lies the erosion of the moral Soviet bloc and the rise of new social move- basis for redistributional politics. This is due ments in response to economic, political and to the on-going process of social individuali- social changes. sation (work responsibility, financial indepen- Liberalism according to Jessop (2002) can dence) and neo-liberal orientations fostering be seen as a ‘spontaneous philosophy’ in capi- individualist ethics. Since its foundation, the talist societies. It corresponds with four of its welfare state has relied on traditional forms features: private property, free choice of of welfare production and social care. It has consumption, the institutional separation and remained ‘incomplete’ in this subsidiarity; operational autonomy of state and economy, this ‘incompleteness’ has become more tangi- and the institutional separation of civil ble against the background of the recent society and state. At the same time, ‘spon- decline in domestic and informal production. taneous criticism’ of liberalism is likely to Possible solutions for the crises affecting the emerge. It takes the shape of a growing socia- welfare system can be found in the recomposi- lisation of the production forces, the dialectics tion of institutions, actors and responsibilities between shared producer interests in maxi- to enhance social inclusion. When the family mising revenues and conflicts over the distri- and other cohesive milieux, often based on bution of revenues, flanked by regulations to working-class culture and religious organis- balance co-operation and conflict and the gap ation, do not provide for the reproduction of between civil society’s particular interests altruistic motivations and social embedding, versus the state’s embodiment of universal new and different institutions must take over interests. These tensions are evocative of exist- the caring tasks (Muenkler, 2001). These can ing neo-liberal regimes oscillating between lib- come from either the community sphere, eralist, statist and corporatist models and, in self-organisation, the third sector or other particular, local neo-communitarian regimes. components of civil society. The traditional Neo-communitarianism, the condition left of the political spectrum, fixated as it is under which social innovation is most likely on the traditional welfare roles of the state, to occur, lays a strong focus on the third must recognise these problems; it is no sector for economic development and social longer possible to overlook the social and cohesion and grassroots mobilisation in eco- demographic changes undermining traditional nomic strategies. It also encourages the link welfare arrangements and moral convictions. between economic and community develop- ment and decentralised partnerships inclusive of community organisations and local stake- 2.1 New Welfare Regimes holders, on the one hand, and state and In his radical, regulation theory analysis, the market interests on the other. It focuses on British economist, Bob Jessop (2002) outlines less competitive economic spaces, such as the development of a global neo-liberal inner cities, deindustrialising cities or those political-economic regime. In general, active at the lower end of urban hierarchies, where 2010 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL.

“against the logic of a globalizing capitalism, partitioning, social exclusion and so forth. the social economy prioritizes social use- Social divisions in society are not new, yet value” (Jessop, 2002, p. 464). the character of social divisions has changed. The conflicts in neo-liberalism appear Social exclusion has become a preferred mainly in cities. These provide the main term in current debate, because it appears to areas of operation for the economic and be a broader and more dynamic concept than social tensions accompanying neo-liberalism, the notion of poverty. The notion of poverty as well as for civic action. Taken together focuses primarily on distributional issues, with aspirations, this may result the lack of resources at the disposal of an indi- in neo-communitarian local regimes within a vidual or a household. In contrast, social global neo-liberal turn. Civil society in this exclusion focuses primarily on relational context is the main focus in the discussion on issues: inadequate social participation, triggers for social innovation within various limited social integration and lack of power strands of debate, as will be laid out in the (Room, 1995; Ha¨ussermann et al., 2004). fifth section of the paper. The Marxist critique Social exclusion can be defined, on the one of this development is that neo-liberalism hand, as ‘disaffiliation’ (Castel, 1995) or seeks to transform completely civil society non-integration into social and labour “as a flanking, compensatory mechanism for relations, that we understand as the absence the inadequacies of the market mechanism” of interdependence, and, on the other hand, (Jessop, 2002, p. 455). In the ‘republican as the absence of participation in various model’, civil society is seen as a necessary sup- dimensions of social life. The standard given plement to the welfare state, even a permanent to certain levels of affiliation and participation pre-condition, but never a substitute for it. in order to live a life as a respectable citizen is Civil society can be socially innovative due understood as given externally. This is a two- to its strong social affiliation dimension—and dimensional approach to social exclusion, it remains the one and only resource for the built on lack of ‘participation’ as well as reproduction of moral values, on which the lack of ‘interdependence’. support of the welfare state must rely As Table 1 indicates, inclusion in social (Mu¨nkler, 2001). A crucial condition for the relations is characterised by interdependence overcoming of social exclusion is a public and formal co-operation within the formal sphere, where socially innovative social, econ- division of labour, and reciprocal obligations, omic, cultural and political experiences can acceptance, acknowledgement and solidarity develop, interact and find entry into urban gov- in private relations. Exclusion, on the other ernance relations. In the course of this inter- hand, means the abandonment and subsequent action, they form a place of intermediation break of these relations. Looking at the dimen- between the involved actor groups. It seems sion of participation, exclusion can take place most likely under Jessop’s neo-communitarian in different spheres of society: shortage of conditions that such approaches create a com- money (as a means to participate in everyday munity-oriented place of intermediation consumption), powerlessness, educational between state, market and citizens tending towards the general welfare of the place. Table 1. Forms of inclusion

3. Social Exclusion Dynamics in Interdependence Participation Contemporary Cities Inclusion in the social Material participation Contemporary discourse on social divisions division of labour (ability to consume) Inclusion in social Political-institutional within urban society, resulting from regime networks participation changes after the end of the Fordist era, Cultural participation uses a growing number of concepts: fragment- ation, segregation, polarisation, dualisation, Source: Kronauer (2002). SOCIAL INNOVATION 2011 disadvantages stemming from limited cultural suburbanisation may lead to a decreasing capital, housing insecurity and feelings of heterogeneity of the networks and environ- rejection and alienation as well as a lack of ments of the urban population. The strongest options to join decision-making processes segregation takes place among the rich and (Kronauer, 1999). influential parts of urban society. This is One of the main transformations of Western segregation by choice. Also strongly segre- societies has been, and still is, the shifting gated are low-income households and ethnic employment base: the declining importance minorities at the lower end of the social of manufacturing and the increasing signifi- scale. These forced concentrations can have cance of services. Structural constraints on negative as well as positive effects: they the labour market for large segments of the may provide a shelter for the poor or ethnic population have resulted from these develop- minorities, and enable socialisation into their ments. Depending on the social welfare own social group. If this process is not tem- system and wage policy used, this leads—for porary, they may also function as places of example, to rising structural unemployment social exclusion (Ha¨ussermann et al., 2004). in Germany, or the development of a ‘new’ In the course of industrialisation, market class, referred to as the ‘working poor’ in and state have become the central modes of the UK or the US. In addition, flexible jobs social and economic inclusion. Households are becoming increasingly important: indivi- have reached a high degree of dependency duals are more or less forced to be flexible on markets and public services for their sub- with regard to their place of work and living sistence and for the protection of their position arrangements. The trend towards greater flexi- in society as most forms of reproduction bility leads to new divisions in the labour outside markets and state provision have vani- market and the risk of social exclusion for shed (Polanyi, 1944/1995). In the modern those who cannot adapt to the new demands period, various forms of welfare state inter- (see van Kempen, 2001). These macro- vention have offset market failure. Welfare economic and macro-political developments state interventions made great progress affect local actors’ capacities for challenging towards reducing social inequality, spatial existing modes of governance and institutions segregation and social exclusion in the in that they shape the resources available to period up until the 1970s, based on the actors from different social groups. Further- ‘Fordist’ compromise between capital and more, in cities, processes of individualisation labour organisations. But since then, sharpen- are very advanced and thus social segregation ing social and cultural differentiation has and social polarisation are met with a lack of begun to undermine the large ‘industrialist’, resources for family-based reproduction and homogeneous social organisations and basic needs satisfaction. milieux, which had underpinned the develop- In recent years, large migration flows have ment of the welfare state. Progressive political had a wide-ranging impact on the cities of majorities have become harder to achieve western . Illegal migration flows add because of greater social heterogeneity and to the number of immigrants, often resulting new forms of political fragmentation. Pro- in disproportionate effects in specific cities cesses of social polarisation and segregation and neighbourhoods because of chain have been exacerbated by tendencies within migration and cheap housing opportunities. national and urban welfare regimes to shift The direct effects of these migration processes from larger social-democratic agreements are not easily identified, but some possible towards cohesive societies and cities in the consequences for social exclusion can be direction of a focus on competitiveness in mentioned. First, immigration increases many places. In the post-Fordist era, a competition for scarce resources, such as certain vacuum is emerging that leaves certain kinds of jobs and housing. Secondly, behind those who are the losers in the the combined processes of immigration and present changes. This involves risks for 2012 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL. individuals and society. For individuals, this Formal institutions can only marginally means the loss of possibilities to participate provide inclusion within social networks and in social life (corresponding to common cultural participation. The breakdown of standards of usefulness, consumption, secur- social relations and processes of fragmenta- ity, influence on public affairs and social tion, isolation and deprivation cannot be appreciation or acceptance); for society, this regulated by state agencies even if sufficient corresponds to the loss of its ability to transfer payments are available. Administra- secure the social foundations of tive authorities cannot manage the problem as a universal mode of participation and of social embedding or inclusion. New and governance. different actors and new resources are needed. Coinciding with changes in the labour Social innovation is key to countering market and economic restructuring on a trends of social exclusion and to fostering global scale, urban transformation has led to social inclusion processes. In the next sec- rising levels of segregation of vulnerable tions, we examine the role of civil society groups in cities. Declining incomes directly in local social innovation as a means of pro- influence the housing market opportunities viding answers to some of the social exclusion of individuals and households because they processes. are relegated to the market segments they can afford. Different social groups are separ- 4. Debate Issues on Civil Society in Social ated not only spatially, but according to Innovation living standards, life experiences and expec- tations as well. Marginalised groups are Within the lively debate in Germany since concentrated in large ‘sink estates’ in poor- 1989 around the term civil society (Zivil- quality housing, in certain inner-city areas or gesellschaft and Bu¨rgergesellschaft), the use at the edge of the city. They are increasingly of the term has been detached from the isolated from other social groups. Neighbour- context of radical democratic actors (Klein, hood effects may, although also having shelter 2002). A Commission of Inquiry had effects, lead to a worsening situation of collec- even been formed by the German Federal tive social downward mobility, depending on Parliament to explore the potential of civil the available bridging or bonding social society (see Enque`te-Kommission, 2001). capital (Putnam, 2002; Kearns and Parkinson, This allowed for its generalisation as a politi- 2001; Moulaert and Nussbaumer, in this cal project, put into the context of the recon- issue). Housing policies increasingly rely on struction of the welfare state. But this market processes, so that the ability of muni- process carries the danger of using the cipalities to control the socio-spatial distri- concept in an undifferentiated, affirmative bution of households is decreasing. Social manner, uncritical of societal structures. segregation disturbs stabilisation of positions Important changes in social engagements of in lower areas of urban social space for the citizens for the common good have preceded inhabitants of poor quarters. This in turn this debate. Empirical research has shown affects the political representation of these that, in addition to the growing interest in areas negatively. For problems of spatial civil society following the peaceful, civil inequality, the problem-solving capacity of revolution in eastern European countries, the state is evidently deficient. there have been diminishing participation Social embedding and networks for social and interest in political thematic movements caring have been weakened by the secular and parties. There is a tendency to self- process of individualisation. Individualisation organisation and civic engagement: citizens is also part of the context for secular demo- increasingly take matters into their own graphic changes, such as the general ageing hands in areas where the direct effects of of the population and sinking birth rates, their efforts can be seen and thereby redraw which affect redistribution in welfare states. the boundaries between the political and the SOCIAL INNOVATION 2013 private. At the same time, large uniform and parliamentary action—i.e. the minority civil bureaucratic organisations, such as trade societies—in democratic decision-making, unions and the traditional Christian churches, relating to their potential impact on the lose their attractiveness. New ties are built decision-making process and outcome up that refer to the Gemeinwesen [common (Cohen and Rogers, 1992). In the least civil good] instead of private interests and bring it society accepting ‘neo-liberal constitutionalist alive again and again within social networks. model’, those associations are perceived as A political culture, a sense of community, rent-seeking, encouraged by the states’ grant- seems to develop beyond the traditional ing of those rents, therefore obstructing the institutional framework. This ambience is political process. The solution is to deny seen as necessary for a lively democracy as secondary associations’ access to the political well as for a welfare society based on societal process. In the ‘civic republican model’ of solidarity (Klein, 2002). democratic decision-making, secondary Some nation-states, such as Great Britain or associations are deemed important in order Germany, have launched new Leitbilder to reproduce the moral foundations of democ- [leading frameworks] of social policy such racy among the members of society, but do as the ‘activating state’ and the ‘enabling not have to deal with overarching societal state’. The idea behind them can be inter- questions themselves or interfere with parlia- preted in several ways. These models mentary decision-making, seen as too taxing announce a welfare mix in which the state for the wider public. The ‘egalitarian pluralist keeps responsibility for central problems of model’ suggests that minority civil societies societal welfare while promoting an infra- should be enabled to participate in and structure of civic engagement for citizens to inform a public realm and that associations take matters increasingly into their own should be ‘accommodated’ within a frame- hands. In the name of welfare production, work enabling egalitarian participation in a the ‘civil sphere’ can easily be ‘used’ as a public realm, in which the general interest of replacement for the welfare state that has a society is agreed through negotiation. The gone into crisis. Under current fiscal pres- members of the parliamentary process can sures, there is high risk and some evidence draw upon this pluralist bazaar to aid their that civil society is colonised by the welfare decisions; but in this strand of debate, the state (Klein, 2002). Furthermore, there is linkage between civil society and the state is evidence that, while there are demands in neglected. The model that is preferred here civil society for more welfare production, is what Cohen and Rogers (1992) call ‘associa- the delegation of responsibilities and the tive democracy’ (see also Offe, 2002). As an creation of free action spaces is lagging advance on previous models, associations in behind—and for some groups more so than this model should have competencies that for others. We are thus discussing, in the allow participation in decision-making itself, role of civil society in innovating urban gover- to the detriment of the exclusiveness of nance relations and institutions, a tension parliamentary institutions: field of emancipatory justice and equality, pursuing neo-communitarian forces and their Associative democracy draws on an colonisation by neo-liberal macro-politics. egalitarian ideal of social association. Theoretically speaking, under current The core of that ideal is that the members conditions, civil society is the very sphere of of a society ought to be treated as social organisation with the highest potential equals in fixing the basic terms of social for socially innovative contributions to co-operation—including the ways that social integration. Within modern democracy authoritative collective decisions are theory, four constitutional-political views are made, the ways that resources are produced expressed that highlight the role of secondary and distributed, and the ways that social life associations representing minorities outside more broadly is organised. The substantive 2014 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL.

commitments of the ideal include the about proceedings in society and interests to concerns about fair conditions for citizen be represented. Models of socially innovative participation in politics and robust public forms of governance are created. As debate, an equitable distribution of European-scale urban research has shown, resources, and the protection of individual the initiative often starts in social movements, choice (Cohen and Rogers, 1992, p. 416). civic action groups and social economy initiatives. It is associations that engage The contribution would show itself in a less actively in pursuit of the goals of the diverse constrained information flow between frag- social groups that they represent. They mented social groups and governing insti- have often proved to have socially innovative tutions. As the pre-condition for effective impacts (Moulaert et al., 1997, 2000). policy-making, the equalising of represen- Furthermore, civil society has an important tation, for citizen and for group role in the reproduction of cohesive orien- contribution to alternative governance—i.e. tations as well as in the provision of welfare. non-market and non-hierarchical—this freer In civil society, if it is truly civil, people are flow of information leads to the creation of oriented towards the general welfare, rather trust and the reduction of transaction costs in than individual interest. This produces social securing agreement among competing inter- recognition, paving the way for integration, ests. A general strategy is needed to curb the and is a pre-condition for the socialisation of ‘mischief of faction’ (Cohen and Rogers, people as citizens. The welfare state is depen- 1992) in such a process and this should dent on support generated in civil society. A consist mainly of the support of those forms complementary welfare arrangement could of group representation that contrast least encompass an emerging civil society sup- with the norms of democratic governance. plementary to a tax-financed, administered The case of northern European countries has welfare system and thereby supplemented by shown that this model of associability and solidarity as people live it. The flaw to this density with a supportive governance system arrangement is the replacement of legal secu- encourages the growth of civil society as rity by the insecurity of expectation. This well as economic performance and social carries risks for those who cannot contribute, equity. It is a model that is apt to target rigid like the ill, the elderly, the mobile, migrants bureaucratic structures in developed welfare or children, that also in the future would states and that can help to remobilise rigid cor- have to be minimised through the frame of poratist relations which have been hindering the welfare state. But a state-only solution to those social and reforms targeted state failure is not possible in the medium at the ‘old’ homogeneous national society term because, within it, the socio-moral con- and neglecting instruments to target the victions will erode and the people will orient ‘new’ plural and fragmented society. themselves solely in relation to market- Innovation, qualitatively directed towards rational behaviour in a market-liberal order. normatively defined social innovation, can The Italian sociologist Enzo Mingione sees a take place within this associative democracy, return to what he calls the household sphere in the shape of transfer and mediation of inter- in social reproduction. The latter “expresses ests from formerly less represented groups the diverse conditions and organisational and milieus. The interests of these groups, relations which allow human beings to newly articulated, can be integrated into the survive in various social contexts and public will and general interest formation, groups” (Mingione, 1991, p. 124), a form of which can then be translated into public/ integration that has become vital especially legal decision-making and strategic decisions to the labouring classes in the course of the from local states. This is especially true in increasing substitution of labour by capital the pluralistic, and often fragmented, urban in the capitalist economy and the decline of societies of today. Here, states are informed the ‘welfare social democratic dream’. SOCIAL INNOVATION 2015

However, with the decline of family networks structures work to their advantage, in in northern and western European cities, fore- making their position more comfortable and casts for such a role are probably too optimis- less challenged, in that it reinforces their pos- tic. Likewise, Jeremy Rifkin (1995) stresses ition, through repeated and taken-for-granted the challenge for contemporary welfare routines (Bourdieu, 1976, 2000). Thus, this states in the provision of an alleviating third- position of an actor within the social space sector social economy, in which the unem- of a place is crucial for power relations ployed can engage, receive recognition and within all spheres of social organisation, material recompense and, thus, integration. including civil society. When considering socially innovative New policy approaches, such as integrated governance to include civil society, we need area approaches to social urban development, to find models adapted to targeting these may provide a ‘window of opportunity’ to current urban processes of fragmentation and new groups to be brought into the institutional social exclusion. In cities, exclusion processes frame of the governance of place (Tarrow, and therefore the need for social innovation 1994). Social innovation in urban governance have developed the furthest. Cities are also relations means the establishment of new links the primary action sites of urban civil and new relations, crossing the emerging lines society, action groups and social movements of fragmentations, where ties have been and thus for experimenting with new govern- abandoned as a result of social exclusion ance arrangements concerning these groups. processes. Examples for new relations are In British urban geography and planning, a reinsertion into the labour market, or political, new, institutionalist approach to urban gov- cultural and material participation. ernance has been developed in which place Eric Swyngedouw (in this issue) summari- is understood in terms of social relations. ses criticism towards the increasing integra- Actors and their actions are seen in the tion of civil society into urban governance context of their networks of social relations relations under neo-liberal, market-focused within which systems of meaning and ways conditions in a Marxist philosophy. He puts of acting are constituted (Healey, 1999). forward mainly problems of citizenship— Networks in most cases extend beyond which is not clearly defined in governance places and “webs of relations that transect a systems. These include an increasing variety place are potentially very diverse” (Healey, of horizontal institutional relations, problems 1999, p. 115). This diversity is captured in of participation and related problems of the term ‘multiplex places’ (Graham and representation, of accountability of those Healey, 1999). A city and a neighbourhood involved and, last but not least, problems of can each be thought of as a multiplex place. the legitimacy of their actions. In state govern- An urban governance arrangement in this ment, these issues are clearly defined, regu- approach is understood as a specific setting lated and reliable, often legally binding. In of different actors with specific shared norms more dynamic and not legally regulated and values (institutions), who reach decisions governance relations, problems arise that on urban places. To a growing extent, urban have the tendency to turn governance into an governance involves non-governmental exclusive way of ruling the world. Yet, what actors from the spheres of market and civil Swyngedouw does not mention is that, yes, society. These institutional coalitions consti- the state represents legitimacy as well as tute specific arenas and network nodes, in accountability, but this diminishes with which places are shaped, actions and identities growing numbers of immigrant non-citizens framed, and structures altered. Those with a and rising levels of social exclusion in other weaker power position in the relational field dimensions. Consequently, the effectiveness of a place will feel more constraints within of state policy is under threat. The dynamic structures, whereas those with favourable institutional context in which Swyngedouw positions in social space2 will feel that puts his criticism is one of a shift towards a 2016 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL. neo-liberal governmentality in which actors 5. A Concept of Civil Society Fit for have the possibility to up-scale or down- Social Innovation scale decision-making capacities and thus In his conception of the bu¨rgerliche rapidly empower or disempower actors Gesellschaft [civil society], developed in his according to their market-focused needs. ‘Philosophy of Rights’ when analysing the The question to which we seek to contribute early modern states, the German philosopher answers in this article, is: under what con- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel stated that ditions and in what institutional configurations the experience of voluntary collective activity can the integration of civil society into local for a common purpose in associations pro- governance relations foster a form of social duces new forms of solidarity and egalitarian innovation, which is emancipatory, inclusive participation, membership and Sittlichkeit and needs-satisfying, and not purely an instru- [ethical life]. This concept is today largely sup- ment of governmentality under a neo-liberal ported by research, which states regime? Bob Jessop helps with answering that a high level of associability creates trust this question. In his 2002 analysis of contem- and solidarity within groups and associations porary urban regimes, he states that, at (Putnam, 1993, 2002). The pre-condition for different spatial scales, different regimes voluntary association is the right to associate, may become established. The local level is to express freely and to be personally free. quite likely to develop neo-communitarian These legal rights are granted by a liberal regimes under conditions of less competitive democratic state, which therefore builds a spaces in deindustrialised zones, and of great possible context for civil society. This legality social problems without pre-defined solutions. is the expression of a self-imposed limitation Other regimes at intermediate scales may be of state power to that of civil society and neo-statist or neo-corporatist. All these households. Cohen and Arato find that regimes are headed by a general neo-liberal tendency, but as this tendency produces the Hegelian theory is crucial because it contradictions and conflicts, it does not find reconstructs civil society in terms of the full acceptance and full execution in all three levels of legality, plurality and associ- places and at all spatial scales. Social move- ation, and publicity and because Hegel sees ments, unions and the electorate are forces the link between civil society and state in that may have hindered the full development terms of mediation and interpenetration of a national, regional, urban or local (Cohen and Arato, 1992, p. xiv). neo-liberal regime. This means that there are contexts which are more favourable than In Sittlichkeit (ethical life), produced and others, both institutionally and in their regu- reproduced within this sphere lations. It also brings up another crucial the norms of a society’s public life ...[are] problem: the interscalar institutional articula- sustained by our action, and yet as already tion. Local neo-communitarian regimes can there ...is no gap between what ought to only have a socially innovative impact in so be and what is, between Sollen and Sein far as the other regimes at higher spatial (Charles Taylor; cited in Cohen and scales do not interfere where they actually Arato, 1992). have the authority to do so. Such a case would be the colonisation of local civil There is no clash possible between the univer- society to meet neo-liberal, higher-scale sal and the particular will. It is a common interests that in the end run counter to agreement on values, rules and orientations the local interests. Ideally, interests are within bu¨rgerliche Gesellschaft, which is articulated or contested, and subsequently even defined as ethical life itself. These rules weighed between the different scales (see, are referred to, and used as a common for example, Swyngedouw, in this issue; starting-point for collective action, which at Moulaert et al., 2000, ch. 5). the same time reproduces “Sittlichkeit”. SOCIAL INNOVATION 2017

The second important dimension of this public sphere in a fragmented society contains concept is the notion of publicness or a more pluralist image of the available groups openness. Only in the public sphere can the than before; and, whether power relations particular interests be mediated against each therein allow for open deliberation in, other to form the general interest of a more ideally, free-speech situations. A third issue cohesive society. This can be translated into is how the obstacles to communication socially innovative urban development in among groups with varying values and orien- that a strong civil society with the virtues tations as well as culturally transmitted codes ascribed by Hegel’s philosophy, needs the of communication, are targeted in the delibe- possibility to enter the public domain and to ration process. Deliberation on the question deliberate issues with other social forces, the of civility of values is not an easy task, state (local, regional, national, international), especially where the means of communication as well as the economy. Integrated area devel- between civil groups is brittle. opment, a multidimensional approach to Jessop’s condition of a less competitive urban development which seeks to involve space struck by deindustrialisation, and all these actor spheres into policy-making thus less aspiration within the local state to and urban development, explicitly attempts promote market actors to the detriment of to create such a public domain. Here, all social policy, is thus in favour of a neo- actors are deliberately asked to participate communitarian approach which gives some by the programming state, or the state by the space for socially innovative movements and leading civil society agents (Moulaert, 2000, action groups to promote their issues of ch. 4). Thus, the intermediation of interests, social justice and social inclusion. At the the exchange of ideas, is accommodated as same time, the state can gain by reducing one of the strategic as well as one of the oper- the social costs of deindustrialisation through ational objectives (see, for example, DIfU, the innovative problem solutions provided 1998, for the German programme). It is by social economic initiatives and other important, then, to check whether this encour- local social movements. agement of publicness or openness includes Hegel’s normative concept of a civil society the excluded, and thus overcomes exclusion, is to a certain extent ahistorical. Gosewinkel or whether it limits social innovation. The and Rucht (2004) claim convincingly that state here has the role of steering this public- civil society cannot be looked at indepen- ness, which is needed to mediate interests. dently from its historical context. For them, Social movements aspire to gain power by unlike Hegel’s conception of an externally attracting followers, in order to be able to given ethical life, that life is pursued within force the state into allowing public delibera- a specific civil society and informed by a tion of formerly excluded issues. The stronger collective historical experience, or (at least) the movement, the better the chances of influ- the common reference to a historical encing the state in that direction. context. In reality, this collective spirit may The German philosopher Ju¨rgen Habermas have any value one can think of, but it needs has conceptualised a public sphere of commu- to show particular qualities in order to be nicative action and deliberation in which, collectively considered as ‘civil society’. according to a more or less supportive Moreover, this qualification should be the institutional framework, the process of politi- outcome of a society-based public communi- cal opinion and will formation take place. In cation process, which in reality often only this concept, a consensual political will can reaches sections of the constituency. At be reached through on-going deliberation, least, an agreement on the very foundations between all social groups (Habermas, 1965). of association and voluntariness, the repro- Crucial questions towards identifying duction of citizenship and personal rights, is whether an urban governance arrangement is necessary for values to be considered socially innovative are: whether a particular civil. This excludes overtly authoritarian, 2018 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL. anti-democratic aspirations in associative, structures in which they are embedded, public activity, such as in right- or left-wing produce elements of a civil society, which extremist groups, which collide with personal may or may not eventually merge, resulting freedoms (Gosewinkel and Rucht, 2004; in more or less integrated local civil societies. Roth, 2003). They are constituted by social networks, common frames of reference, values and orientations. In the case of fragmentation 6. Conclusion: Inequality and Social and social exclusion between various social Exclusion and Their Challenges for Social milieux, there is a lack of connection and Innovation in Local Urban Governance deliberation of shared values, symbols, Within fragmented cities with heterogeneous frames of reference and orientations within social groups as well as within distressed them, as has been shown in Germany in the neighbourhoods where often socially and relationships between the alternative and the ethnically diverse groups live together traditional workers’ milieux (Ueltzho¨ffer, involuntarily, values and orientations are 2000) and is apparent between ethnic likely to be heterogeneous and conflicting. milieux in places where social relations Today, we cannot think of civil society as are ethinicised.4 Socio-spatial segregation, homogeneous unity. Inequality is a central and the development of exclusionary spaces characteristic of any society and might be (see section on social exclusion), are certainly reproduced by civil society’s actions. It was not favourable to the mediation between the exactly this problem that was tackled by the milieux. Great gaps between resource modern welfare state: to organise redistribu- availabilities, common frames of reference, tion of political, economic and cultural or several different, potentially conflicting resources, which the family was unable to milieux are contexts which need specific manage in complex modern societies. attention by policy-makers and in local We must take into account that the ability to governance. act in the public sphere is distributed unevenly The political-constitutional arrangements among different segments of the overall civil between civil society and the state define the society. Who produces the general interest, structure of the public sphere, where general the common values, that find entry into interest is deliberated and procedurally policy-making? Following the social capital agreed upon. Forms of exclusion and approach, this depends on the position of the integration, which become visible in the individual in social space (Bourdieu, 1983) social milieu structure of a local society and which, in turn, is structured by different their available social capital forms, define qualities of social capital among and participation of groups within the segment of between groups, especially ‘bonding’ social the public sphere, which is the civil society. capital and ‘bridging’ social capital (Putnam, Just to rely on the power of civil society 1993). Problems in the creation of an inclusive would therefore not lead to social innovation, public are addressed in Putnam’s approach but result in the reproduction or even in the through the availability and quality of deepening of inequality. network bridges between different social A plurality of social milieux with their own milieux3 and through the role of gatekeepers associations and collective spirits that derive that control these bridges. Conflicts can be from a variety of shared historical experi- thought of in a dynamic way as articulated ences, and common frames of reference, are problems linked to changes in the qualities what constitute contemporary urban societies. of networks, as closures, or openings of It becomes crucial for social innovation, if and bridges, intensifying or retarding flows how the plural structure is either causing between groups (see also Moulaert and fragmentation or producing a shared sphere Nussbaumer, in this issue). These milieux, of reciprocal responsibility and solidarity. It within the local contexts and resource is an empirical question, and a question of SOCIAL INNOVATION 2019 the local political culture, whether elements of dialectical relationship between bonding and a communal spirit, supporting inclusive bridging network relationships. politics in an urban environment, are still An inclusive civil society is not just a alive (Le Gale`s, 2002), but there is evidence given. So, the remaining question is: how to that this is the case in a variety of localities create it? To reconstruct social relations at a all over Europe (Moulaert et al., 1997; local level would be real social innovation. Jessop, 2002). And these relations could be the basis of The theoretical construction of a civil new forms of a social economy, which society, that could play an important role in could overcome the fragmentations and div- fighting exclusion, remains paradoxical to a isions imposed by the global, post-Fordist certain extent: self-help and associations are economy. usually built on common interests of the group members and, in such a perspective, they represent particular interests. But they Notes all have to refer to a common frame of mutual respect and acknowledgement, and 1. Social innovation is a new approach, which this means in the last instance a reference to has been developed (among others using the same notion) by the research group behind the overall constitution of a coherent society, this special topic, SINGOCOM. SINGOCOM sharing some common values of non-violent is an acronym for a research project called co-operation and social cohesion (Gemein- “Social innovation, governance and commu- wohl). So each particular group also has nity building”, funded by the European non-particular interests and orientations, Commission under Framework V, Targeted Socio-economic Research Programme. which must be stressed in forming an 2. Bourdieu (1976, 2000) distinguishes between integrated civil society. physical and socially appropriated space. Social innovation in governance at a local Social space is a structure of parallel social level, taking into account civil society, will positions, whose reality is being inscribed only hold good when new links are established into physical space. It is a system of relations between the positions of different social between excluded and integrated segments of groups. The ability to dominate the appro- the local society and when the public sphere is priated space depends on capital (economic, enriched by the participation of the formerly cultural, social). Actors occupy multiple excluded social groups. The more pervasive places within multiple relatively autonomous is the local social exclusion, the more difficult fields that together constitute their status, class, social position: in sum, their place will be the process and, in the case of within society. multiplex places, it is likely to bring conflict. 3. For an introduction to the social milieu Some capacity among civic actors to approach in social science, see, for example, exchange information will be required. Vester et al., 1993. Plurality is a constitutive element of a socially 4. In Germany as a Herkunftsgemeinschaft [a society of descent] especially, integration innovative civil society, in contrast to the of immigrants is considered to be a task dominant perception of civil society as a for the immigrants alone. In a concept middle-class homogenised sphere in charge of nation as a Herkunftsgemeinschaft of defining Gemeinwohl, representative of (Muench, 1997; cited in Gestring and the whole of society. Bremer, 2004, p. 259), which is at least cul- turally, if not ethnically homogeneous (the Social economy and community exchange latter argument is no longer dominant in of help, information and goods are easier to the contemporary political debate for reason organise within a social milieu. Common of incredibility), exclusion processes, which frames of reference can serve as a resource may be at least partially explained by this to promote cohesive ties within a milieu. discrimination, have led to a certain ‘ethnic revival’ among some of the younger migrants State structures that promote local social of the second generation (Heitmeyer et al., economies should take this factor into 1997; cited in Gestring and Bremer, 2004, consideration, but also always consider the p. 263). 2020 JULIA GEROMETTA ET AL.

References KEMPEN, R. VAN (2001) Social exclusion: the importance of context, in: H. T. ANDERSEN BOURDIEU, P. (1976) Entwurf einer Theorie der and R. VAN KEMPEN (Eds) Governing European Praxis: auf der ethnologischen Grundlage der Cities. Social Fragmentation, Social Exclusion kabylischen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am-Main: and Urban Governance, pp. 41–70. Aldershot: Suhrkamp. Ashgate. BOURDIEU, P. (1983) Oekonomisches Kapital, KLEIN, A. (2002) Der Diskurs der kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital, in: Zivilgesellschaft, in: T. MEYER and R. WEIL R. KRECKEL (Ed.) Soziale Ungleichheiten, (Eds) Die Bu¨rgergesellschaft: Perspektiven fu¨r pp. 183–198. Go¨ttingen: Schwartz. Bu¨rgerbeteiligung und Bu¨rgerkommunikation, BOURDIEU, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations. pp. 37–64. Bonn: Dietz. Cambridge: Polity Press. KRONAUER, M. (1999) Die Innen-Außen-Spaltung CASTEL, R. (1995) La me´tamorphose de la der Gesellschaft: Eine Verteidigung des question sociale. Paris: Fayard. Exklusionsbegriffs gegen seinen mystifizieren- COHEN, J. and ROGERS, J. (1992) Secondary den Gebrauch, in: S. HERKOMMER (Ed.) associations and democratic governance, Soziale Ausgrenzungen: Gesichter des neuen Politics and Society, 20, pp. 393–472. Kapitalismus, pp. 60–72. Hamburg: VSA. COHEN, J. L. and ARATO, A. (1992) Civil Society KRONAUER, M. (2002) Exklusion: die Gefa¨hrdung and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT des Sozialen im Hoch entwickelten Kapitalis- Press. mus. Frankfurt am-Main: Campus. DIFU (DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FU¨ R URBANISTIK) LE GALE` S, P. (2002) European Cities: Social (1998) Programmgrundlagen zum Programm Conflicts and Governance. Oxford: Oxford Soziale Stadt. Berlin: DIfU. University Press. ENQUE` TE-KOMMISSION,ZUKUNFT DES BUERGER- LU¨ TZ, S. (2004) Der Wohlfahrtsstaat im SCHAFTLICHEN ENGAGEMENTS (Ed.) (2001) Bu¨r- gergesellschaftliches Engagement und Umbruch—Neue Herausforderungen, wissen- Zivilgesellschaft. Opladen: Leske and Budrich. schaftliche Kontroversen und Umbauprozesse, in: S. LU¨ TZ and R. CZADA (Eds) Wohlfahrts- GESTRING, N. and BREMER, P. (2004) Migranten— staat—Transformation und Perspektiven, ausgegrenzt? in: H. HAEUSSERMANN, pp. 11–37. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r M. KRONAUER and W. SIEBEL (Ed.) An den Raendern der Staedte. Armut und Ausgrenzung, Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 258–285. Frankfurt am-Main: Suhrkamp. MINGIONE, E. (1991) Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life beyond the GOSEWINKEL, D. and RUCHT, D. (2004) “History meets sociology”: Zivilgesellschaft als Prozess, Market Paradigm. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. in: D. GOSEWINKEL, D. RUCHT, W. VAN DEN OULAERT ELLADETSIMA ELVAIN- DAELE and J. KOCKA (Eds) Zivilgesellschaft— M , F., D , P., D National und Transnational, pp. 29–60. QUIE` RE, J.-C., ET AL. (2002) Integrated Area Berlin: Edition Sigma. Development in European Cities. Oxford: GRAHAM, S. and HEALEY, P. (1999) Relational Oxford University Press. concepts of space and place: issues for MOULAERT, F., DELVAINQUIE` RE, J.-C. and planning theory and practice, European DELLADETSIMA, P. (1997) Rapports sociaux Planning Studies, 7, pp. 623–647. dans le de´veloppement local: le roˆle des mouve- HABERMAS, J. (1965) Strukturwandel der O¨ ffen- ments sociaux, in: J.-L. KLEIN (Ed.) Au-dela` du tlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie ne´olibe´ralisme: quel roˆle pour les mouvements der bu¨rgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied: sociaux?, pp. 77–98. Sainte-Foy, Que´bec: Luchterhand. Presses de l’University du Que´bec. HA¨ USSERMANN, H., KRONAUER, M. and SIEBEL, MOULAERT, F., RODRIGUEZ, A. and SWYNGE- W. (Eds) (2004) An den Raendern der Staedte: DOUW, E. (Eds) (2003) The Globalized City. Armut und Ausgrenzung. Frankfurt am-Main: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization Suhrkamp. in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University HEALEY, P. (1999) Institutionalist analysis, Press. communicative planning, and shaping places, MU¨ NCH, R. (1997) Elemente einer Theorie der Journal of Planning Education and Research, Integration moderner Gesellschaften. Eine 19, pp. 111–121. Bestandsaufnahme, in: W. HEITMEYER (Ed.) JESSOP, B. (2002) Liberalism, and Was ha¨lt die Gesellschaft zusammen?, pp. 66– urban governance: a state-theoretical perspec- 109. Frankfurt am-Main: Suhrkamp. tive, Antipode, 34(2), pp. 452–472. MU¨ NKLER, H. (2001) Buergergesellschaft und KEARNS, A. and PARKINSON, M. (2001) The Sozialstaat. Paper presented to Enque`te- significance of neighbourhood, Urban Studies, Kommission Zukunft des bu¨rgerschaftlichen 38, pp. 2103–2110. Engagements, Hall, July. SOCIAL INNOVATION 2021

OFFE, C. (2002) Staat, Markt und Gemeinschaft. ROTH, R. (2003) Die dunklen Seiten der Gestaltungsoptionen im Spannungsfeld dreier Zivilgesellschaft, Forschungsjournal Neue politischer Ordnungsprinzipien, in: T. MEYER Soziale Bewegungen, 16, pp. 59–73. and R. WEIL (Eds) Die Bu¨rgergesellschaft: TARROW, S. (1994) Power in Movement: Social Perspektiven fu¨r Bu¨rgerbeteiligung und Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Bu¨rgerkommunikation, pp. 65–84. Bonn: Dietz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. POLANYI, K. (1944/1995) The great transform- TAYLOR, C. (1975) Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge ation: politische und oekonomische Urspruenge University Press. von Gesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen. TAYLOR, M. (2000) Communities in the lead: Frankfurt am-Main: Suhrkamp. power, organisational capacity and social PUTNAM, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: capital, Urban Studies, 37, pp. 1019–1035. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, UELTZHOEFFER, J. (2000) Lebenswelt und NJ: Princeton University Press. Bu¨rgerschaftliches Engagement: soziale Milieus PUTNAM, R. D. (2002) Bowling Alone: The in der Bu¨rgergesellschaft; Ergebnisse einer Collapse and Revival of American Community. sozialempirischen Repra¨sentativerhebung in New York: Simon and Schuster. der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: RIFKIN, J. (1995) The End of Work: The Decline of Sozialministerium Baden-Wuerttemberg. the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the VESTER, M., OERTZEN, P. VON,GEILING, H. Post-market Era. New York: Putnam. ET AL. (1993) Soziale Milieus im gesells- ROOM, G. (1995) Beyond the Threshold. The chaftlichen Strukturwandel: zwischen Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion. Integration und Ausgrenzung. Koeln: Bristol: Policy Press. Bund-Verlag.