Four Types of Urban Austerity. Public Land Privatizations in French and Italian Cities Félix Adisson, Francesca Artioli
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Four Types of Urban Austerity. Public Land Privatizations in French and Italian Cities Félix Adisson, Francesca Artioli To cite this version: Félix Adisson, Francesca Artioli. Four Types of Urban Austerity. Public Land Privatiza- tions in French and Italian Cities. Urban Studies, SAGE Publications, 2020, 57 (1), pp.72-92. 10.1177/0042098019827517. halshs-02012028 HAL Id: halshs-02012028 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02012028 Submitted on 25 Jul 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Urban Studies Four Types of Urban Austerity. Public Land Privatizations in French and Italian Cities Journal: Urban Studies Manuscript ID CUS-740-18-07.R1 Manuscript Type: Article <b>Discipline: Please select a keyword from the following Planning list that best describes the discipline used in your paper.: World Region: Please select the region(s) that best reflect the focus of your paper. Names of individual countries, Europe, Western Europe cities & economic groupings should appear in the title where appropriate.: Major Topic: Please identify up to 5 topics that best Land Use, Method, Planning, Policy, Local Government identify the subject of your article.: You may add up to 2 further relevant keywords of your Urban Austerity, Intergovernmental System choosing below:: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] Page 1 of 29 Urban Studies 1 2 3 4 Four Types of Urban Austerity. Public Land Privatizations in French and Italian 5 Cities 6 7 8 9 Félix Adisson and Francesca Artioli 10 11 12 Abstract 13 14 This paper contributes to current debates on urban austerity by comparing public land 15 16 privatizations in French and Italian cities. These privatisations have emerged in several 17 18 countries during the last two decades as a recurring austerity measure. However, 19 current research does not explain how similar national public land austerity policies 20 21 result in diverse urban outcomes. This paper tackles this limit by developing an 22 23 analytical model of the different types of urban austerity. It uses the intergovernmental 24 system and local policy capacity as the main variables to explain four local patterns 25 26 of austerity, i.e. gridlock austerity, nationally mitigated austerity, locally 27 28 mitigated austerity, or opportunistic austerity. Drawing on nine case studies 29 30 covering two public landowners, the paper shows that public land austerity policies 31 have become routine practice based on compromises in French cities, but conflictual 32 33 and based on ad hoc solutions in Italian cities. 34 35 36 37 Keywords 38 Land use, Method, Planning, Policy, Local government, Urban austerity, 39 40 Intergovernmental system 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] Urban Studies Page 2 of 29 1 2 Introduction 3 4 5 It is now clear that austerity is no longer a temporary response to the 2008 financial crisis 6 7 but a long-term urban policy framework in Western countries. Following Blyth (2013), 8 9 austerity can be defined as a rhetorical and a practical attempt to make the state 10 11 responsible for the economic crisis. It is based on the idea that economic recovery depends 12 on state ability to restore the so-called ‘confidence’ of the financial markets, especially 13 14 the sovereign debt market. Austerity’s main features are the reduction of public debt and 15 16 deficits by cutting public expenditure, as well as reorganising and privatising public 17 18 assets, companies, services and employment at all levels of government, including the 19 local one (Pike et al. 2018, p.4). These austerity measures have concentrated effects on 20 21 urban spaces and populations and their analysis has opened a particular research agenda 22 23 on urban austerity (Peck 2012; Meegan et al. 2014). 24 25 26 This paper contributes to current debates on urban austerity by investigating its varieties 27 28 through the study of public land1 privatizations and their consequences for urban spaces 29 30 in Europe. This focus on land privatizations is based on the following premises: (i) the 31 centrality of land ownership in urban processes, especially urban development; (ii) the 32 33 crucial role of state organisations in contemporary urban land dynamics both as regulators 34 35 and land providers; and (iii) the sale of public real estate as a recurring measure of the 36 37 austerity toolbox. 38 39 40 Public land austerity policies consist of reorganising and selling public lands and 41 42 buildings, with the aim of cutting real estate management costs and boosting land disposal 43 revenue. While these processes are at work in countries as different as France, Italy, the 44 45 UK, Finland and Canada (Artioli 2016; Adisson 2018; Christophers 2017; Hyötyläinen 46 47 48 1 49 The term ‘public land’ encompasses the land owned by municipalities which is not 50 addressed in this paper. As for state property, the privatization of municipal lands in 51 52 Europe is also driven by austerity, but can differ in terms of approach, actors, and 53 54 regulations (on the distinction between state and municipal land, see Haila 2016: 20). 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] Page 3 of 29 Urban Studies 1 2 and Haila 2017; Eidelman 2016), both the privatization processes and outcomes differ 3 4 between these countries and their cities. In some cases, they only involve rent maximising 5 strategies. In other cases, newly-developed privatized land projects include 6 7 redistributional goals. This paper explores how similar national public land policies 8 9 framed by the same policy paradigm of austerity nonetheless result in diverse urban 10 11 outcomes. 12 13 14 Existing urban austerity research literature provides limited theoretical explanations for 15 16 such differences which are seen as the result of different socio-economic conditions or 17 18 simply overlooked by single case studies. This paper seeks to redress these limitations in 19 two related ways. Firstly, it provides an analytical urban austerity model based on political 20 21 and organisational variables that explain four local types, i.e. gridlock austerity, 22 23 nationally mitigated austerity, locally mitigated austerity, or opportunistic austerity. 24 These patterns depend on how the intergovernmental system and local policy capacities 25 26 affect public land austerity policy. Secondly, at an empirical level, the paper provides a 27 28 multi-level and international comparison based on research into the sale and 29 30 redevelopment of public land in nine French and Italian cities. This medium-N and 31 qualitative comparative method highlights the different timeframes, processes and 32 33 material outcomes that can characterize public land austerity locally. The paper 34 35 demonstrates that public land austerity policies have become routine practice based on 36 37 compromises in French cities, but conflictual and depending on ad hoc solutions in Italian 38 cities. It shows that public land austerity constitutes a state-led process of ownership 39 40 reform and privatisation that restructures the tenure and layout of the built environment 41 42 in ways that are shaped by both redistributional policies and local policy capacity. 43 44 45 We first discuss the limitations of previous urban austerity literature in explaining 46 47 different outcomes between countries and cities, and present the comparative analytical 48 49 model developed to overcome these limits. Secondly, we explain the benefits of using the 50 model in the case of public land reforms in France and Italy. Thirdly, we compare these 51 52 public land austerity policies, stressing similarities in reforms but differences in 53 54 development outcomes in the cities of these countries. Lastly, we analyse the roles that 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] Urban Studies Page 4 of 29 1 2 the intergovernmental system and local policy capacity play in this differentiation before 3 4 discussing how this results in different trajectories in terms of local adaptations to the 5 policy paradigm of austerity. 6 7 8 9 Gridlock, mitigated, opportunistic: different types of public land austerity in cities 10 11 Understanding austerity requires an awareness of its geographical diversity and specific 12 13 local and national factors that underpin differences. When analysing diversity, existing 14 literature displays the limitations typical of an emerging research field: a focus on single 15 16 case studies (based on a city, country, or policy sector) and a lack of comparison that 17 18 makes it difficult to explain the variety of austerity policy processes and outcomes. 19 20 Furthermore, when this process is analysed as a local government response to budget 21 difficulties, there is often a focus on extreme cases such as Detroit (Peck and Whiteside 22 23 2016) or Athens (Chorianopoulos and Tselepi 2017). Like a magnifying glass, these 24 25 extreme cases are good at highlighting the characteristics of a phenomenon (Gerring 26 2007: 101–2) but have limited representativeness if they are not compared to a larger 27 28 urban sample. 29 30 31 32 When diversity is analysed, authors consider that localities are not impacted in the same 33 way because of their different socio-economic features (Meegan et al.