Reaction paper- two pages please use the attached ariticle

Anonymous
timer Asked: Oct 18th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $5

Question Description

I want you to read the article and write reaction paper( two pages). please see the instructions and answer the four question. each question must be in a paragraph. the Category is the international affair.


Instruction
When reading and writing, you should keep the following questions in mind: 1. What is the main question or issue addressed by the reading? 2. What are the author(s)’ main argument(s)? 3. What kind of data or evidence is used and how is used to develop the study? 4. How do you view this research’s argument and conclusions?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 12 ‘GLOCALIZATION’ AS A STATE SPATIAL STRATEGY: URBAN ENTREPRENEURIALISM AND THE NEW POLITICS OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT IN WESTERN EUROPE Neil Brenner INTRODUCTION: urban entrepreneurialism through the lens of spatialized state theory Since the late 1970s, the political geographies of urban governance have been transformed throughout western Europe. The welfarist orientation of urban political institutions that prevailed during the post-war boom has been superseded by a ‘new urban politics’ focused on the issues of local economic development and local economic competitiveness. This reorientation of urban governance has been famously described by Harvey (1989a) as a shift from urban ‘managerialism’ towards urban ‘entrepreneurialism’ and has been documented extensively (Hall and Hubbard, 1998). While the politics of urban growth have long been a central preoccupation within scholarship on US cities, the investigation of urban entrepreneurialism in western Europe has been intertwined with more recent debates on globalization, European integration and the crisis of the Keynesian welfare national state (Harding, 1997). In the face of geo-economic shifts such as the globalization of capital, the consolidation of the Single European Market and the decline of Fordist manufacturing industries, many western European cities have been confronted with intensifying socio-economic problems such as capital flight, mass unemployment and infrastructural decay. At the same time, as Keynesian welfare systems have been retrenched under pressure from neoliberal and ‘Third 198 Refiguring Global Rules Way’ national governments, local states have been confronted with a more hostile fiscal environment in which they have been constrained to engage proactively in diverse economic development projects. Taken together, these transformations have underpinned an increasing neoliberalization of urban politics throughout western Europe, as the priorities of economic growth, territorial competitiveness, labour market flexibility, lean administration and market discipline have become increasingly naturalized as the unquestioned parameters for local policy experimentation (Peck and Tickell, 1994; Tickell and Peck, in this volume). In recent years, analyses of the geographies of urban entrepreneurialism in western Europe have proliferated, filling a growing number of pages within international urban studies journals. Building upon these research forays, this chapter develops a state-theoretical interpretation of the uneven transition towards urban entrepreneurialism in western Europe. I argue that entrepreneurial cities represent key regulatory arenas in which new ‘glocalized’ geographies of national state power are being consolidated. Faced with the intensified globalization/Europeanization of economic activities and the increasing dependence of major capitalist firms upon localized agglomeration economies (see also Hudson, in this volume), these emergent glocalizing state institutions have mobilized diverse political strategies to enhance place-specific socio-economic assets within their territories. In contrast to the Keynesian welfare national states of the post-war era, which attempted to equalize the distribution of population, industry and infrastructure across the national territory, the hallmark of glocalizing states is the project of reconcentrating the capacities for economic development within strategic subnational sites such as cities, city-regions and industrial districts, which are in turn to be positioned strategically within global and European economic flows. This emergent strategy of urban reconcentration is arguably a key element within contemporary post-Keynesian competition states (Cerny, 1995) and has generated qualitatively new forms of uneven spatial development throughout western Europe. Crucially, however, the concept of glocalizing states is deployed here to refer not to a stabilized, fully consolidated state form, but rather to demarcate an important tendency of state spatial restructuring in contemporary western Europe. The process of glocalization will thus be theorized here as an emergent and deeply contradictory state strategy (Jessop, 1990) that hinges upon the spatial reorganization of state regulatory arrangements at multiple spatial scales. In this chapter, I shall not attempt to document the transition to urban entrepreneurialism in western Europe or, for that matter, to differentiate among the diverse (national and local) political forms and institutional pathways through which this reorganization of urban governance has unfolded (Brenner, 2001). Instead, my primary goal is interpretive: I aim to outline a theoretical conceptualization of state spatial strategies that illuminates the proliferation of local economic initiatives throughout the western European city-system during the last three decades. Like other contributions to this volume, this chapter emphasizes the uneven, politically mediated character of contemporary geo-economic transformations. The process of globalization is viewed here as a medium and expression of political strategies intended to undermine the nationally organized regulatory constraints upon capital accumulation that had been established during the post- ‘Glocalization’ as a State Spatial Strategy 199 war period. While such strategies have assumed diverse political-institutional forms around the world, they have frequently been oriented towards a rescaling of inherited national regulatory arrangements, leading in turn to an intensification of uneven development and territorial inequality at all spatial scales (Peck and Tickell, 1994). This analysis suggests that state institutions are playing a key role in forging the uneven geographies of political-economic life under early twenty-first century capitalism. Thus conceived, states do not merely ‘react’ to supposedly external geoeconomic forces, but actively produce and continually reshape the very institutional terrain within which the spatial dynamics of globalized capital accumulation unfold. The next section elaborates a theoretical approach to the geographies of statehood under modern capitalism through a spatialization of Jessop’s (1990) strategic-relational approach. I shall then outline an interpretation of the entrepreneurialization of urban governance and the ‘glocalization’ of state space in contemporary western Europe. ON THE SPATIAL SELECTIVITY OF CAPITALIST STATES: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS While traditional accounts of statehood presupposed numerous geographical assumptions (Agnew, 1994), contemporary geo-economic and geopolitical transformations have generated an unprecedented interest in the geographical dimensions of state power (Brenner et al., 2003). As this burgeoning literature has emphasized, contemporary transformations have entailed a reterritorialization and rescaling of inherited, nationally organized formations of state spatiality rather than an erosion of the state form as such. Much of this research can be situated within a broader body of social-scientific work concerned to counter mainstream globalization narratives by examining the ongoing reorganization of state apparatuses in the context of globalizing/neoliberalizing trends. Thus, among the many arguments that have been advanced regarding the institutional architectures of post-Keynesian, post-Fordist, workfare or competition states, recent discussions of state spatial restructuring are characterized by a distinctive emphasis upon the new scales, boundaries and territorial contours of state regulation that are currently crystallizing. Insofar as the apparently ossified fixity of established formations of national state territoriality has suddenly been thrust into historical motion, contemporary scholars are confronted with the daunting but exciting task of developing new categories and methods through which to map the rescaled, reterritorialized and rebordered terrains of statecraft that have subsequently emerged around the world. Surprisingly, much recent work on the production of new state spaces has proceeded without an explicit theoretical foundation. In many contributions to this literature, the geographical dimensions of state power are treated in descriptive terms, as merely one among many aspects of statehood that are undergoing 200 Refiguring Global Rules systemic changes. Just as frequently, the causal forces underlying processes of state spatial restructuring are not explicitly specified. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more systematic reflection on the specific political-institutional mechanisms through which states’ territorial and/or scalar configurations are transformed from the stabilized settings in which political regulation unfolds into the objects and stakes of socio-political contestation. These issues can be confronted, I believe, through an inquiry into the state’s contradictory strategic role in the regulation of capitalism’s uneven geographical development at various scales. To this end, I shall draw upon Jessop’s (1990) strategic-relational approach to the state in order to interpret contemporary processes of state spatial restructuring as expressions of spatially selective political strategies. On this basis, I shall then examine the state-led political strategies that have underpinned the transition to urban entrepreneurialism in post-1970s western Europe. According to Jessop (1990), the capitalist state must be viewed as an institutionally specific form of social relations. Just as the capital relation is constituted through value (in the sphere of production) and the commodity, price and money (in the sphere of circulation), so too, Jessop (1990: 206) maintains, is the state form constituted through its ‘particularization’ or institutional separation from the circuit of capital. However, in his view, neither the value form nor the state form necessarily engender functionally unified, operationally cohesive or organizationally coherent institutional arrangements. The value form is underdetermined insofar as its substance – the socially necessarily labour time embodied in commodities – is contingent upon (1) class struggles in the sphere of production; (2) extra-economic class struggles; and (3) intercapitalist competition (Jessop, 1990: 197–8). According to him, therefore, the relatively inchoate, contradictory matrix of social relations associated with the value form can only be translated into a system of reproducible institutional arrangements through accumulation strategies. In Jessop’s (1990: 198) terms, an accumulation strategy emerges when a model of economic growth is linked to a framework of institutions and state policies that are capable of reproducing it (see also Jessop et al., 1988: 158).1 He proposes a formally analogous argument regarding the state form whose functional unity and organizational coherence are likewise said to be deeply problematic. To him, the existence of the state as a distinctive form of social relations does not automatically translate into a coherent, coordinated or reproducible framework of concrete state activities and interventions. On the contrary, the state form is seen as an underdetermined condensation of continual strategic interactions regarding the nature of state intervention, political representation and ideological hegemony within capitalist society. For Jessop, therefore, the functional unity and organizational coherence of the state are never pregiven, but must be viewed as emergent, contested and unstable outcomes of social struggles. Indeed, it is only through the mobilization of historically specific state projects that attempt to integrate state activities around a set of coherent political-economic agendas that the image of the state as a unified organizational entity (‘state effects’) can be projected into civil society (Jessop, 1990: 9, 346). State projects are thus formally analogous to accumulation strategies ‘Glocalization’ as a State Spatial Strategy 201 insofar as both represent strategic initiatives to institutionalize and reproduce the contradictory social forms of modern capitalism. On this basis, Jessop introduces the key concept of strategic selectivity, the goal of which is to develop a framework for analysing the role of political strategies in forging the state’s institutional structures and forms of socio-economic intervention. Jessop concurs with Claus Offe’s well-known hypothesis that the state is endowed with selectivity – that is, with a tendency to privilege particular social forces, interests and actors over others. For Jessop, however, this selectivity is best understood as an object and outcome of ongoing struggles rather than as a structurally preinscribed feature of the state system. Accordingly, Jessop (1990: 260) proposes that the state operates as ‘the site, generator and the product of strategies’: 1 The state is the site of strategies insofar as ‘a given state form, a given form of regime, will be more accessible to some forces than others according to the strategies they adopt to gain state power’ (Jessop, 1990: 260). 2 The state is the generator of strategies because it may play an essential role in enabling societal forces to mobilize particular accumulation strategies and/or hegemonic projects. 3 The state is the product of strategies because its own organizational structures and modes of socio-economic intervention are inherited from earlier political strategies (Jessop, 1990: 261). In this manner, Jessop underscores the relational character of state strategic selectivity. The state’s tendency to privilege certain class factions and social forces over others results from the evolving relationship between inherited state structures and emergent strategies to harness state institutions towards particular socioeconomic projects. The state strategies in question may be oriented towards a range of distinct socio-institutional targets. In particular, strategies oriented towards the state’s own institutional structure may be distinguished from those strategies oriented towards the circuit of capital and/or in the mobilization of societal hegemony. In Jessop’s terminology, the former represent state projects whereas the latter represent state strategies. State projects aim to provide state institutions with some measure of functional unity, operational coordination and organizational coherence. When successful, state projects generate ‘state effects’ which endow the state apparatus with an image of unity, functional coherence and organizational integration (Jessop, 1990: 6–9). By contrast, state strategies represent initiatives to mobilize state institutions towards particular forms of socio-economic intervention (Jessop, 1990: 260–1). When successful, state strategies result in the mobilization of coherent accumulation strategies and/or hegemonic projects (Jessop, 1990: 196– 219). While state strategies generally presuppose the existence of a relatively coherent state project, there is no guarantee that state projects will effectively translate into viable state strategies (Table 12.1). 202 Refiguring Global Rules In sum, rather than viewing selectivity as a pregiven structural feature of the state, Jessop insists that it results from a dialectic of strategic interaction and sociopolitical contestation within and beyond state institutions. In this view, ongoing social struggles mould (1) the state’s evolving institutional structure and (2) the state’s changing modes of socio-economic intervention, accumulation strategies and hegemonic projects. Just as crucially, the institutional ensemble in which this dialectic unfolds is viewed as the result of earlier rounds of political struggle regarding the forms and functions of state power. Accordingly, ‘the state as such has no power – it is merely an institutional ensemble; it has only a set of institutional capacities and liabilities which mediate that power; the power of the state is the power of the forces acting in and through the state’ (Jessop, 1990: 270). The conception of the state as a political strategy is thus intended to illuminate the interplay between these evolving institutional capacities/liabilities and the ensemble of social forces acting in and through state institutions. Table 12.1 State projects and state strategies STATE PROJECTS Initiatives to endow state institutions with organizational coherence, functional coordination and operational unity: they target the state itself as a distinct institutional ensemble within the broader field of social forces. • Target: state institutions • Possible outcome: ‘state effects’ STATE STRATEGIES Initiatives to mobilize state institutions in order to promote particular forms of socioeconomic intervention: they focus upon the articulation of the state to non-state institutions and attempt to instrumentalize the state to regulate the circuit of capital and/or the balance of forces within civil society. • Target: the circuit of capital and/or civil society • Possible outcomes: accumulation strategies and/or hegemonic projects Source: Based on Jessop (1990) In an important extension of Jessop’s framework, Jones (1997) has proposed that capitalist states are endowed with distinctive spatial selectivities as well. For Jones (1997: 851), spatial selectivity refers to the processes of ‘spatial privileging and articulation’ through which state institutions and policies are differentiated across territorial space to focus upon particular geographical areas. Building upon Jones’ arguments, I would suggest that Jessop’s strategic-relational approach can be fruitfully mobilized as the foundation for a spatialized conceptualization of state restructuring. The methodological lynch-pin of this conceptualization is the proposition that state spatiality is never a fixed, pregiven entity but, like all other aspects of the state form, represents an emergent, strategically selective and socially contested process. Just as radical approaches to urbanization under capitalism have long emphasized the processual character of urban spatiality (Harvey, 1989b), so too is a dynamic, process-based understanding of state spatiality required in order ‘Glocalization’ as a State Spatial Strategy 203 to decipher the historical geographies of state restructuring under capitalism (Lefebvre, 1978). Jessop’s strategic-relational approach to the state provides a useful basis on which to develop such an analysis. As indicated, Jessop maintains that the organizational coherence, operational cohesion and functional unity of the state are never pregiven, but can be established only through political strategies. This argument can be fruitfully applied to the geographies of state power as well. From this perspective, the territorial coherence and interscalar coordination of state institutions and policies are never pregiven, but can be established only through political strategies to influence the form, structure and internal differentiation of state space. Concomitantly, extant geographies of state institutions and policies must be viewed as the products of earlier strategies to reshape state spatial arrangements. The spatiality of state power can therefore be viewed at once as a site, generator and product of political strategies (MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999). State spatiality is forged through a dialectical relationship between (1) inherited patternings of state spatial organization and (2) emergent strategies to modify or transform entrenched political geographies. Building upon Jessop’s strategicrelational theorization of the state form, state projects and state strategies, three equally fundamental dimensions of state spatiality under capitalism can be distinguished – the state spatial form, state s ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

KeithMac
School: New York University

sorry forgot to format but i have corrected everything

Running Head: REACTION PAPER

REACTION PAPER
Name
Institution
Course
Date
What is the main question or issue addressed by the reading?
The principle issue tended to by this perusing is 'glocalization' as a state spatial methodology
and the urban entrepreneurialism and the new legislative issues of uneven improvement in
Western Europe. This issue is addressed after the post war in the late 1970s when the political
topographies have been changed in the whole Western Europe. The political organization that
surfaced accelerated the nearby monetary advancement and intensity, which the creator
Harvey (198...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors