论文快递：第一百三十九期
编者按
Urban Studies 每年投稿量为1000多篇，每年发表16期，共180篇论文左右。由于稿件量大，文章从接收到正式出版周期较长，因此编辑部会在稿件接收排版后的第一时间在网上发布论文全文 (Online First) 。"论文快递" 栏目将同步推出网上刊登的最新论文，方便读者了解Urban Studies的最新动态，敬请关注！
本期为“论文快递”栏目的第一百三十九期，将介绍Urban Studies Online First 的5篇论文。主题包括包容性经济韧性，民主空间理论化，商业改善区BID，城市大型开发项目与城市开发，中国智慧城市中国家主导的智慧思维，欢迎阅读。
01
Impacts of political fragmentation on inclusive economic resilience: Examining American metropolitan areas after the Great Recession
政治碎片化对包容性经济韧性的影响：考察大萧条后的美国大都市地区
Abstract
We propose the concept of inclusive economic resilience to examine intra-regional economic recovery in American metropolitan areas after the Great Recession. Previous studies have treated regional and municipal economic resilience separately, with little attention to within-region variations in economic resilience. We contribute to the understanding of regional economic resilience by focusing on intra-regional economic recovery in cities. We also introduce an important yet overlooked regional factor in the context of American federalism – fragmentation of local governments. Examining US metropolitan areas from 2007 to 2017, we find that different dimensions of local fragmentation exert different impacts on intra-regional economic resilience. Our results indicate that a large number of municipal governments and greater service responsibilities borne by special and school districts lead to uneven economic recovery. In contrast, similar fiscal responsibilities taken by municipal governments promote inclusive income recovery.
Keywords fragmentation, Great Recession, inclusive economic resilience, metropolitan areas, resilience
关键词碎片化, 大萧条, 包容性经济复原力, 大都市地区, 复原力
原文地址https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211064455
02
Theorising democratic space with and beyond Henri Lefebvre
超越列斐伏尔的民主空间理论
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to theorise space in a way that resonates with democracy. It develops a radical understanding of democracy, as an affirmative project undertaken by people to directly manage their affairs themselves. To theorise space, the article takes up Henri Lefebvre’s concept of ‘differential space’, which it conceives as an autonomous force that produces itself through the operation of desire. This self-production, Lefebvre argues, takes place in and through everyday acts of survival of those who inhabit space. The article then situates this abstract discussion of space, again following Lefebvre, in the context of ongoing worldwide urbanisation. The urban, Lefebvre argues, has agglomerated not only capitalist productive power but also the differences that exist outside of capitalist logic, and so it is where we should be looking for revolutionary difference in the world today. Taking all these insights together, we can see the project of democracy as an affirmative project undertaken by people to directly manage the production of urban space themselves. Lastly, the article argues that the project of democracy must extend beyond Lefebvre’s thought. It thinks through one example, which is the question of the ‘we’ of democracy. It argues that to properly understand the question of difference in democratic community, we are very well served in turning to the work of Judith Butler.
摘要
本文的目的是以一种与民主产生共鸣的方式对空间进行理论化。本文发展了对民主的激进理解，将其作为人们为直接管理自己的事务而进行的平权项目。为了对空间进行理论化，本文采用了亨利・列斐伏尔 (Henri Lefebvre) 的“差异空间”概念，将其视为一种通过欲望的运作生产自身的自主力量。列斐伏尔认为，这种自我生产发生在居住在空间中的人们的日常生存行为中，并通过其发生。然后，本文再次追随列斐伏尔，将这种对空间的抽象讨论置于全球持续城市化的背景下。列斐伏尔认为，城市不仅聚集了资本主义生产力，也聚集了存在于资本主义逻辑之外的差异，因此我们应该在城市中寻找当今世界革命性的差异。综合所有这些见解，我们可以将民主项目视为人们为使自己能直接管理城市空间生产而进行的平权项目。最后，本文认为民主项目必须超越列斐伏尔的思想。本文通过一个例子来思考，那就是民主的“我们”问题。我们认为，要正确理解民主社会的差异问题，我们应当借鉴朱迪思・巴特勒 (Judith Butler) 的研究工作。
Keywords democracy, differential space, Henri Lefebvre, Judith Butler
关键词
民主, 差异空间, 亨利・列斐伏尔 (Henri Lefebvre), 朱迪思・巴特勒 (Judith Butler)
原文地址 https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211067915
03
Fifty years of Business Improvement Districts: A reappraisal of the dominant perspectives and debates
商业改善区的五十年：重新评估主流观点和辩论
Abstract
Originally created in 1970 by a small group of business people in Toronto’s Bloor West Village, Business Improvement Districts (hereafter BIDs) have become commonplace urban revitalisation strategies in cities across the world. Many critical urban scholars have conceptualised BIDs as neoliberal organisations and have resultantly critiqued their role in contemporary urban governance. With BIDs now existing for over 50 years, the purpose of this paper is to provide an overdue reappraisal of the BID research and orient future scholarship. After describing key debates from early BID research, this paper analyses two distinct themes in more recent scholarship: (1) BID policy mobility, and (2) BIDs and social regulation. As the BID model has been transferred to new locations across both the Global North and South, its rapid mobility demonstrates the permeability, resilience and limits of neoliberal urban policies. Moreover, BIDs’ social control tactics highlight how these organisations are shaped by a neoliberal logic that seeks to manage and control urban spaces in ways that attract desirable consumers and exclude the visible poor. This paper outlines the origins of both bodies of work and traces common patterns and variances over time. It concludes by highlighting gaps in the existing literature and offers suggestions for future work.
摘要 商业改善区（以下简称 BID）最初由多伦多布鲁尔西村 (Bloor West Village) 的一小群商界人士于 1970 年创建，现已成为世界各地城市振兴策略的通行做法。许多批判性城市学者将 BID 概念化为新自由主义组织，并因此批评了它们在当代城市治理中的作用。由于 BID 已经存在了 50 多年，本文的目的是对 BID 研究进行一项姗姗来迟的重新评估，并为未来的学术研究指明方向。在阐述了早期 BID 研究的关键辩论后，本文分析了近期学术研究中的两个不同主题：(1) BID 政策流动性，以及 (2) BID 和社会监管。随着 BID 模式被复制到全球北方和全球南方的新地点，其快速流动性证明了新自由主义城市政策的渗透性、复原性和局限性。此外，BID 的社会控制策略凸显了这些组织如何受到新自由主义逻辑的影响，这种逻辑寻求以吸引理想消费者和排斥可见的贫困阶层的方式管理和控制城市空间。本文概述了这两种工作的起源，并追踪了长期中的共同模式和差异。最后，我们强调现有文献中的空白，并为未来的研究工作提供了建议。
Keywords Business Improvement Area, Business Improvement District, neoliberal urbanism, policy mobility, social control
关键词
商业改善区 (Business Improvement Area), 商业改善分区 (Business Improvement District), 新自由主义城市化, 政策流动性, 社会控制
原文地址
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211066420
04
Beyond variegation: The territorialisation of states, communities and developers in large-scale developments in Johannesburg, Shanghai and London
超越杂色：约翰内斯堡、上海和伦敦大型开发项目中的政府、社区和开发商的地域化
Abstract
Large-scale urban development projects are a significant format of urban expansion and renewal across the globe. As generators of governance innovation and indicators of the future city in each urban context, large-scale development projects have been interpreted within frameworks of ‘variegations’ of wider circulating processes, such as neoliberalisation or financialisation. However, such projects often entail significant state support and investment, are strongly linked to a wide variety of transnational investors and developers and are frequently highly contested in their local environments. Thus, each project comes to fruition in a distinctive regulatory context, often as an exception to the norm, and each emerges through complex interactions over a long period of time amongst an array of actors. We therefore seek to broaden the discussion from an analytical focus on variegated globalised processes to consider three large-scale urban development projects (in Shanghai, Johannesburg and London) as distinctive (transcalar) territorialisations. Using an innovative comparative approach, we outline the grounds for a systematic analytical conversation across mega-urban development projects in very different contexts. Initially, comparability rests on the shared features of large-scale developments – that they are multi-jurisdictional, involve long time scales and bring significant financing challenges. Comparing three development projects, we are able to interrogate, rather than take for granted, how a range of wider processes, circulating practices, transcalar actors and territorial regulatory formations composed specific urban outcomes in each case. Thinking across these diverse cases provides grounds for rebuilding understandings of urban development politics.
Keywordscomparative urbanism, developers, financing, large-scale urban development, state–community relations, urban politics
关键词
比较城市研究, 开发商, 融资, 大型城市开发项目, 政府 - 社区关系, 城市政治
05
State-steered smartmentality in Chinese smart urbanism
中国智慧城市主义中的国家主导智慧思维
Abstract
This study explores the socio-political shaping of Chinese smart urbanism by examining the power relations between the government (national and municipal), private firms and citizens embedded in smartmentality. Our exploration begins with teasing out key analytical standpoints of Alberto Vanolo’s concept of smartmentality applied in neoliberal practices of smart urbanism. Through this analytical framework, we conceptualise Chinafied smartmentality and illustrate how it is actually playing out in China by undertaking documentary research and in-depth interviews from an inductive case study of the Smart Transportation System (STS) in the city of Shijiazhuang. We observe that the idea of Chinafication extends smartmentality with a focus on the power dynamic. We further argue that this Chinafied smartmentality implies uncritical technological solutionism that is state-steered in nature, and citizen participation in digital platforms that is performed with limited roles and power for inclusion. The article concludes by calling for future research on the critical examination of value co-creation for shaping a truly citizen-centric mode of governance in Chinese smart urbanism.
本项研究通过考察智慧思维 (smartmentality) 中所嵌入的政府（国家政府和市政府）、私营企业和公民之间的权力关系，探讨了中国智慧城市化的社会政治塑造。我们探索的出发点是对阿尔贝托·瓦诺洛 (Alberto Vanolo) 的智慧思维概念在智慧城市化的新自由主义实践中应用的关键分析观点进行梳理。凭借这一分析框架，我们通过对石家庄市智慧交通系统 (STS) 进行归纳案例研究（包括文献研究和深入访谈），将中国化智慧思维概念化并说明它是如何在中国实际发挥作用的。我们观察到，中国化的想法扩展了智慧思维，重点关注权力动态。我们进一步认为，这种中国化的智慧思维本质上是一种国家主导的、不加批判的技术解决方案主义，以及公民在参与数字平台方面的作用与包容性权力的有限性。本文最后呼吁未来的研究对价值共创进行批判性检验，以在中国智慧城市化过程中塑造真正以公民为中心的治理模式。
KeywordsChinese cities, citizenship, governmentality, smart city, smartmentality, smart urbanism
关键词中国城市, 公民, 政府, 智慧城市, 智慧思维, 智慧城市化
原文地址https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211062888
扫码关注我们
微信号｜USJ_online
Urban Studies期刊官方微信公众号