No abstract

No abstract

The literature on the financialisation of urban infrastructure typically traces how an infrastructure asset’s balance sheet is (re)engineered to create a financial asset. What the literature neglects are the processes by which an asset generates urban flows. Attention to these processes, we argue, not only gives better insight into the processes of financialisation of infrastructure but also exposes how the act of financing affects the operations of cities through its influence on the performance of infrastructure assets. The argument presented in the article is informed by case studies of infrastructure investments revealed in interviews conducted in New York, London and Sydney. This material is drawn on to generate a framework for understanding the relationships between infrastructure investing and the infrastructure-enabled flows of a city. This framework has three dimensions through which the financialisation process is seen to be mediated. These are capital structure, organisational structure and regulatory structure. The article argues that these mezzanine-level conceptualisations enable us to explore the to-and-fro between financing and operating cities. A key proposition is that the physical flows of a city are basic not only to the design and enactment of an investment instrument but also to its financial viability. The realisation of this relationship has changed the way investors approach infrastructure assets as investment products. Implications for urban management are drawn.

In this paper, we are interested in dissolving the dominant representation of the enterprise as a singularity and a site of rational, reproductive and progressive imperatives. It is this discursive figuring that, in our view, stands in the way of the development of more innovative forms of politics involving claims on corporate wealth. We offer a discussion of enterprise discourse that highlights contradictory narratives of the corporation and the multiplicity of logics seen to determine its dynamics. Taking the Australian-based multinational BHP, in particular its steel division, as our object of analysis, we use excerpts from interviews conducted with two ex-general managers of the Newcastle steel plant to deconstruct the dominant monopoly capitalist representation of the company. Drawing upon existing enterprise discourses and fragments of executive talk, we produce a decentred, 'disorganized' representation of the enterprise, and point to the ways in which it might invigorate a new form of politics in and around the corporation. key words enterprise discourse representations decentring reproduction Australia

The provision of large economic infrastructure in Australian cities is widely seen to be in crisis. This paper examines the reasons why crisis has arisen in the urban infrastructure sector and what might be done to redress this. The analysis and the argument are based on a resuscitation of the ideas and ideals of infrastructure provision and how these have been eroded. The paper shows how these ideas/ ideals once underpinned the formulation of state role, governance and regulation systems, financial arrangements, and even community need and expectation. Critical to this was an acceptance of the ideals of universality, access, bundling and free positive externalities, and the belief that these should be assembled necessarily as part of any urban infrastructure roll-out. This package became instinctive in post-war economic and urban management. Yet this instinct has been lost as governments shift from models of infrastructure provision to infrastructure procurement where a major role for the private sector is now common. While such an involvement has its benefits, there are concerns for the urban condition when privatisation of infrastructure construction, delivery and operation becomes dominant. Citing Graham and Marvin (2001), the paper argues that, where once infrastructure was the key device for integrating the elements of the city and its people, the way it is now being delivered produces a splintered urbanism. There is an urgent need, then, to re-think what infrastructure means in today's urban context and thereafter to re-assess the criteria for deciding what infrastructure is to be provided, in what form it should be provided, who should provide it, who should pay, and who should operate it.