 |
 |
-- Apologies for cross-posting -- AAG 2015, Chicago, 21-25 April Second Call for Papers “The Financialization of City-making: Articulating critical perspectives” [.pdf version here] Accounts on the “financialization” of the built environment have grown exponentially. This “true explosion of the concept” (Aalbers, 2015) is reflected in a series of special issues (e.g. IJURR 2009, Articulo 2012, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2013, Regional Studies 2014, forthcoming Urban Studies). Altogether, various contributions have embraced a wide range of situations where shareholders and fund managers increasingly assume greater leverage – if not legitimacy – in city-making through their more or less direct role in the provision of real estate, infrastructure, and services. In that respect, Marxian urban rent theory has regained traction, particularly through the frequent use of Harvey’s “land as a financial asset” concept (e.g. Christophers, 2010; Charnock, Purcell, & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014). Other approaches have delivered equally critical insights, from economic geography to social studies of finance (Henneberry & Roberts, 2008; David & Halbert, 2014; Theurillat & Crevoisier, 2014). However, the sheer proliferation of case-studies leads to a risk of fragmentation of critical approaches. There is arguably a latent tendency not to engage with other existing theoretical frameworks and/or to confront with past research, such as works on the intermingling between property and financial markets in the 1990s. This may result in limiting our collective ability to delineate what is specific about present-day forms of financialization (and what is not) and eventually to restrict the explanatory purchase of this concept. Aiming to improve our joint understanding of how the (re)production of the urban built environment is driven by the process of financialization, this session stands at the crossroads of a twofold research agenda. Further empirically-based accounts of financialization – “as a lived process” (Kaika & Ruggiero, 2013) – are needed to pursue and refine the analysis of this ongoing process, particularly in terms of its impact on urban dynamics in different space-time contexts. Meanwhile, it is now important to engage in a critical reflection vis-à-vis the kaleidoscopic variety of theoretical frameworks used in analysis. This involves surveying the different approaches, comparing and/or contrasting them, but also establishing cross-theoretical bridges. We welcome contributions on the financialization of the urban built environment, and more particularly papers addressing one (or more) of these issues: - Theoretical frameworks, dialogue, and combination: What are the theoretical approaches at hands? What are their respective merits and limits? How and should they be combined to support a more acute critical perspective, and with what risks? In addition, how do they compare with other influential concepts of urban political economy (e.g. neoliberalization, regime theory, assemblages, etc.)? For instance, it still remains unclear – if not controversial – how “financialization” intersects with neoliberalization in contemporary urban dynamics. - Financialization as circulation: How do the rationale, techniques, and practices of financial markets and actors circulate between places (e.g. from Anglo-American capitalism to other national contexts, including countries of the Global South) but also among other key actors of urban development such as local authorities, planners, and developers? Weber’s call for more research “from the perspective of city governments” (2010, p. 256) is still pressing, while other intermediate but nonetheless key actors of this circulation remains under-searched, such as economic consultants, property brokers, and real estate departments of (semi-)public institutions. This circulation also involves places or events still largely unaddressed, such as property fairs (e.g. MIPIM, Expo Real, etc.). - Urban landscapes and politics: What are the consequences of urban financialization, whether in terms of spatial, social, or political outcomes? In particular, we are interested in learning more about the rescaling of power relationships that financialization can bring about, including situations of resistance. How are urban political and economic elites affected and does it change the existing landscapes of urban power? What are the resistances to financialization, if any? To what extent does financialization entail a reconfiguration of uneven patterns of development? Abstracts of 250 words (maximum) should be submitted to Ludovic Halbert ([log in to unmask]) and Antoine Guironnet ([log in to unmask]) by October 24th. Please remember to include your name, institutional affiliation, and contact details on your submission. References Aalbers, M. B. (2015). Corporate Financialization (N. Castree, Ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. Charnock, G., Purcell, T. F., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2014). City of Rents: The limits to the Barcelona model of urban competitiveness. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), pp. 198–217. Christophers, B. (2010). On voodoo economics: theorising relations of property, value and contemporary capitalism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), pp. 94–108. David, L., & Halbert, L. (2014). Finance Capital, Actor-Network Theory and the Struggle Over Calculative Agencies in the Business Property Markets of Mexico City Metropolitan Region. Regional Studies, 48(3), pp. 516–529. Henneberry, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Calculated Inequality? Portfolio Benchmarking and Regional Office Property Investment in the UK. Urban Studies, 45(5-6), pp. 1217–1241. Kaika, M., & Ruggiero, L. (2013). Land Financialization as a “lived” process: The transformation of Milan’s Bicocca by Pirelli. European Urban and Regional Studies, pp. 1–20. doi: 10.1177/0969776413484166 Theurillat, T., & Crevoisier, O. (2014). Sustainability and the Anchoring of Capital: Negotiations Surrounding Two Major Urban Projects in Switzerland. Regional Studies, 48(3), pp. 501–515. Weber, R. (2010). Selling City Futures: The Financialization of Urban Redevelopment Policy. Economic Geography, 86(3), pp. 251–274. _______________________________________________________ [log in to unmask] An urban geography discussion and announcement forum List Archives: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/URB-GEOG-FORUM Maintained by: RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group UGRG Home Page: http://www.urban-geography.org.uk