“We just need the developer to develop”: Entrepreneurialism, financialization and urban redevelopment in Lexington, Kentucky

Abstract

Since the 1980s US city governments have increased their use of more speculative means of financing economic redevelopment. This has involved experimenting with a variety of financial and taxation instruments as a way of growing their economies and redeveloping their built environments. This very general tendency, of course, masks how some cities have done well through the use of these instruments while others have not. The work to date has tended to pivot around a “winner-loser dichotomy”, which emphasises either the capacity of US cities to be able to experiment and speculate through the use of one financial instrument or another or their failings with these instruments, resulting in bankruptcy and fiscal crisis. This paper presents a case study of Lexington, Kentucky and using archival research and interviews we argue that speculative financial instruments are harder to choreograph for some cities than for others. We draw particular attention to US cities beyond those that tend to be over-represented in the metro-centric academic literature. This argument has conceptual significance. Building theory out of the experiences of US cities such as Lexington, Kentucky turns attention to the work required by city governments as they seek to finance the redevelopment of their downtowns. We make the case for a continued appreciation of the messy politics around the use of financial instruments, and its indeterminate, open and unpredictable nature in an era of fragile and uncertain entrepreneurial US urban policy-making.

Capital’s welfare dependency: Market failure, stalled regeneration and state subsidy in Glasgow and Edinburgh

“…Rather than publicly funded social democratic programmes of social provision (public housing, public transport and other forms of public goods), such projects are the real ‘subsidy junkies’ of contemporary urbanism – where market failure is endemic and state intervention is tacitly admitted as an essential correction of market failure, even if free market ideology cannot bear to admit it. Drawing on a key argument in Harvey’s (1989) classic paper charting the shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism, Ward and Wood (2021) argue that analyses of risk absorption by the public sector, and public sector funding of privatised infrastructural provision, have been downplayed in urban regeneration research. We agree.…”

Fiscal geographies between the crisis and the pandemic

“…In their work on local authorities in England, Muldoon-Smith and Sandford (2021) similarly raise the need to recognize the local state's unique role and fiscal capacities. And in a case study of Lexington, KY, Ward and Wood (2021) show that government officials leverage the local tax base for speculative urban financing mechanisms. Whiteside's (2021) contribution to this themed issue adds theoretical grounding to these topics.…”

FROM BUDAPEST TO BRUSSELS: Discursive and Material Failure in Mobile Policy

“…With an eye on the social processes of circulating models of expertise and the politics of fine‐tuning these models to specific, territorialized contexts, much of the work on urban policy mobilities has, up to now, looked at how successful policies have been mobilized and changed as they travel (McCann and Ward, 2011; 2015; Peck, 2011; Temenos and McCann, 2012). Unsurprisingly, this often has the effect of reinforcing perceptions of the success of particular models (Ward and Wood, 2021).…”