No abstract

The recent emergence of global justice networks (GJNs) to counter neoliberal globalization has been an important political and geographical phenomenon. Much has been written about the emergence of a new global civil society, centred upon a new `network' ontology. In engaging with these debates in this paper, our purpose is to develop a more critical spatial perspective. We argue that issues of space and place are critical in understanding the operation of GJNs and their potential to contribute to an alternative global politics. Spatially, the global linkages of GJNs can be seen as creating cultural and spatial configurations that connect places with each other in opposition to neoliberalism. However, the individual movements that comprise networks, while not necessarily place-restricted, remain heavily territorialized in their struggles. Additionally, networks evolve unevenly over space. Some groups and actors within them are able to develop extensive translocal connections and associations whereas others remain relatively more localized. Potential conflicts arise from such complex geographies, which only become evident through analysing the operation and evolution of different networks. This leads us to focus not solely on the transnational character of networks but also upon how the global is enacted through the localized practices of movements within them, in considering the potential for GJNs to form more sustainable political alternatives to neoliberalism.

Diversity and operational logics of global justice networks New forms of political solidarity and consciousness have begun to emerge, as social movements, trade unions, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and other organisations increase their spatial reach, constructing networks of support and solidarity for their particular struggles, and by participating with other movements in broad networks to resist neoliberal globalisation. There are a range of different labels that have been used to describe the protests against neoliberalism:`antiglobalisation' and movement of movements' (Mertes, 2004;Tormey, 2004a) being amongst the most common. We are unconvinced by`antiglobalisation' terminology since resistance against neoliberalism articulates a form of grassroots globalisation (Appadurai, 2000;Routledge, 2003a). We are also unconvinced that a coherent`movement' or`movement of movements' actually exists. Instead, we conceive of a series of overlapping, interacting, and differentially placed and resourced networks. Through such networks, different place-based movements are becoming linked up into much more spatially extensive coalitions of interest. We term such formations global justice networks (GJNs) because such networks, and the movements that constitute them, articulate demands for social, economic, and environmental justice.Underpinning such developments is a conceptualisation of protest and struggle that respects difference, rather than attempting to develop universalistic and centralising solutions that deny the diversity of interests and identities that are confronted with neoliberal globalisation processes. As such, it is argued that GJNs represent a participatory way of practising effective politics, articulating the ability of different movements to be able to work together without any single organisation or ideology controlling a particular network. Moreover, participation in a network has become an essential component of the collective identities of those involved, with networking forming part of their common repertoire of action and recruitment (Castells, 1997; Melucci, 1996). However, the forging of alliances between increasingly diverse interests implies alliances that might become ever more contradictory and problematic (Chin and Mittelman, 1997). Indeed, it is our contention that the diversity inherent in GJNs will inevitably give rise to conflicting goals, ideologies, and strategies, and, as a result, conflictual geographies

In recent years, following the lead of the US, several OECD countries have introduced 'workfare' policies that link receipt of unemployment and related social benefits to compulsory participation on state-administered work and training schemes. The UK's New Deal (Welfare-to-Work) for Young People is one of the largest and most developed of these workfare programmes. Official evaluations of the UK's New Deal for Young People claim that it has been a national success, but overlook local variations in its results. This paper uses the Government's own performance measures, data on local unemployment flows, numbers of New Deal participants recycled through the scheme as second starts, and interviews with both local policy managers and participants, to demonstrate that these local variations have been substantial. These different indicators suggest that the programme has been noticeably less effective in many inner urban and depressed industrial labour markets. In such areas the 'recycling and churning' of participants through the programme are more significant, and suggest that local labour market structures play a significant role in shaping policy outcomes. The paper argues that recent additions to the New Deal to improve job search and matching fail to address this local variation, and that a longer-term approach is required that seeks to improve not only the employability of individuals, but also the local employment opportunities open to them. One key implication is clear: that local labour market conditions can exert a significant influence on the outcomes of national workfare type policies, not only in terms of geographical variations in the problem to be solved, but also in shaping and constraining the local nature of policy outcomes. key words Britain New Deal youth unemployment local labour markets employability workfare recycling

No abstract