Radical Innovation in the Era of Liberal Governance

Abstract

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.

Coastal Innovation Paradox

“…Many coastal communities are engaging in enterprising episodes of collective action to change how governance works, creating a squeeze on dominant governance processes, discourses and practices. Transformative social innovation in governance at a local level will only occur when formerly excluded social groups are integrated into dominant processes [113][114][115][116]119]. This insight is consistent with environmental governance scholarship that demonstrates that there is no fixed spatial or temporal level appropriate for governing ecosystems.…”

“…Continual interaction between these layers of governance ensures that each level is influenced by the dynamics and driving forces welling up from below or filtering down from above. A variety of studies demonstrate that social and governance innovation at the grassroots level can only become transformative if it helps to overcome the authoritarianism that is characteristic of many capitalist societies [113][114][115]. Swyngedouw [116] argues that socially innovative approaches to governance-beyond-the-state are decidedly Janus-faced (i.e., two-faced), particularly under circumstances where politics-as-usual is dominated by market interests that erode democracy.…”

Greening Vienna. The Multi-Level Interplay of Urban Environmental Policy–Making

“…Indeed, the City, while remaining faithful to its long-standing social-democratic tradition of public intervention in crucial policy sectors, has embraced the capitalist logic of economic growth as the only viable option to subsidise public services. In line with the observation of Novy and Hammer [65] (p. 213), it can be argued that the Viennese social-democratic regime has not remained intact over time; rather, it has shifted towards socially liberal principles, primarily "controlled modernization", which privileges private over public economic activity.…”

“…However, changes in the governance structure, with multiple levels and actors involved in the policy-making, coupled with geo-political and socio-demographic transformations, led to the reinterpretation of the 'traditional' environmental outlook through the adoption of an entrepreneurial and techno-managerial policy style. This shift to an "entrepreneurial city" has been documented by other authors [63][64][65]. In particular, Astleithner and Hamedinger [64] (p. 68) found how in the 1990s the social-democratic administration tried to mould Vienna on the "entrepreneurial city" model, bringing in the core elements of New Public Management, such as collaborations with private actors, greater descaling of competencies and performance assessment mechanisms.…”

Cooperative Housing and Social Cohesion: The Role of Linking Social Capital

“…Here, our findings on the reluctance of professionals and the passivity of residents correspond to the findings of earlier studies in the field (for example Taylor, 2000;Dekker & Van Kempen, 2009). However, applying a two-level analysis suggests that these attitudes do not only result from an increasingly corporate approach of cooperative housing managements, but are grounded in the top-down model of urban governance in Vienna (Novy & Hammer, 2007).…”