This article focuses on the identification and role of social innovation in urban development. The aim is to further the understanding of the contradictory relationship between state and civil society, using a thorough analysis of the process of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, the capital city of Rio Grande do Sul-the most southern state of Brazil. The first section spells out four different concepts of the relationship between state and civil society and their implications for social innovation. In the second section, these popular movements are shown to be embedded in the historically rooted structure of patrimonialism and capitalism in Brazil. The third section provides an historical analysis of Brazilian popular movements which represent new key actors in civil society. The fourth section offers a detailed description of the process of the participatory budget. In the final section, conclusions are drawn about social innovation in local politics, focusing on the empowering experiments with new public and democratic forms of the local state accessible to civil society and its interests.

This article aims to clarify the concept of social cohesion by embedding it within a dynamic, multiscalar and complex understanding of socioeconomic development in the city. Section 1 gives a European perspective on the relationship between differing views of social cohesion and urban policy and how its relation to competitiveness is inherent to contemporary EU cohesion discourse. It examines the ambiguity of policy orientations that seek an answer to this failing functionalisation. Section 2 unravels the complexity and multidimensionality of social cohesion as a problématique. It systematises social cohesion as an ‘open concept’, distinguishing between its socioeconomic, cultural, ecological and political dimensions. Section 3 offers ways of accommodating the tensions and contradictions between cohesion and competitiveness inherent in capitalist market economies, and argues in favour of a progressive neo-structuralist approach, capable of laying out policies to make cities more inclusive for all inhabitants in all their uniqueness and diversity.

This article exploits the potential and limits of participation as a means to overcome authoritarian structures. The main argument is that social innovation at the grassroots level can only become radical if it helps overcome authoritarianism which is a general characteristic of capitalist societies and has a specific form in Austria and Vienna. The two projects chosen for in-depth analysis are initiatives of bottom-up participation: Local Agenda 21 and Local Area Management. Both are deeply interwoven with current processes of transformation in Europe, oscillating between path dependency — surrendering to one more episode of controlled modernization — and radical change — the diffusion of a political culture of democracy and participation. The initiatives analysed focus on a common political domain: broadening public participation by offering better access to the local state and the public sphere. Both projects put in train broad discussions of how to organize social change and mobilization. They are Janus-faced as there were struggles between democratic tendencies, which seek to acknowledge a wide range of stakeholders in policy making, and techno-corporate tendencies. Both projects are `schools of participation', as they increased know-how and social competence and raised consciousness. But only by questioning liberal governance and the straitjacket of its naturalization of the market society can citizens regain control of urban development and jointly shape the destiny of the city.

The article examines the role of housing cooperatives for social cohesion in the city by introducing linking social capital which grasps the vertical dimension of social capital. Housing cooperatives represent a crucial intermediate level between residents and urban housing policy, thus providing opportunity structures for bottom-linked citizen participation. Drawing on the case of Vienna, a large-scale household survey and interviews with key informants provide empirical evidence on the importance of a form of social capital which links actors at different levels in the spatial hierarchy: residents, housing managers and political decision-makers. The findings add to our understanding of the opportunities and problems with resident participation in a policy field structured by multi-level governance. Our two-level analysis shows that the dominant model of governance, top-down as well as neoliberal, has structurally limited the room for participatory practices in cooperative housing. Nevertheless, we argue that professional housing cooperatives have a potential to give residents a voice beyond the neighbourhood. Their strong linkages with public decision-makers at different scales can help leverage ideas and resources of residents.

The planetary boundaries concept has profoundly changed the vocabulary and representation of global environmental issues. We bring a critical social science perspective to this framework through the notion of societal boundaries and aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the social nature of thresholds. We start by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of planetary boundaries from a social science perspective. We then focus on capitalist societies as a heuristic for discussing the expansionary dynamics, power relations, and lock-ins of modern societies that impel highly unsustainable societal relations with nature. While formulating societal boundaries implies a controversial processbased on normative judgments, ethical concerns, and socio-political strugglesit has the potential to offer guidelines for a just, social-ecological transformation. Collective autonomy and the politics of self-limitation are key elements of societal boundaries and are linked to important proposals and pluriverse experiences to integrate well-being and boundaries. The role of the state and propositions for radical alternative approaches to well-being have particular importance. We conclude with reflections on social freedom, defined as the right not to live at others' expense. Toward the aim of defining boundaries through transdisciplinary and democratic processes, we seek to open a dialogue on these issues.