Professional Documents
Culture Documents
General Remarks
David Harvey has been one of the most influential figures and prolific writers in
Geography. In fact his influence goes much beyond our field – he is also well known in
Sociology and Anthropology. This 1989 article of Harvey’s is, in a sense, a prelude to
one of his very most influential volumes, The Conditions of Postmodernity (1989,
Blackwell), which has formed the basis for a whole generation of work on the urban built
environment. Harvey visited our Department last June and gave two seminars in our
University.
In this paper Harvey notes that beginning from the mid 1970s (more specifically the 1973
Oil Crisis) onwards urban governance (which includes but is not restricted to urban
government) has become increasingly preoccupied with the exploration of new ways in
which to foster and encourage local development and employment growth. This trend
towards “entrepreneurialism”, as Harvey terms it, is in stark contrast to the
“managerialism” of the era of the welfare state of the earlier decades in which urban
governments were preoccupied with their redistributive role, i.e., the local provision of
services and facilities to urban populations.
Harvey argues that this fundamental shift in the philosophy and practice of urban
governance is related to changes in the macro-economy. In particular the globalization
process has brought with it increasing instability, as manifested in the de-
industrialization of certain areas of the former industrial core and the declining power of
the nation-state to control multinational capital flows, that forces urban governments to
take a more pro-active stance. The gradual penetration of post-Fordist mode of
production or flexible accumulation also has a role to play.
In analysing the nature of urban entrepreneurialism, Harvey points out that it is important
to specify who is being entrepreneurial and about what. Here Harvey uses the term
“governance” rather than “government” in that urban entrepreneurialism goes beyond the
latter. More specifically, he argues that the power to organize space derives from a whole
complex of forces mobilized by diverse agents.
1. Creation of particular advantages for the production of goods and services. The
locality often offers to the investor a substantial package of aids and assistance (e.g. low
cost land, tax haven, etc) as inducement. Also the local government may invest heavily in
the provision of trained personnel and skill labour. While there are cases in which careful
attention to the industrial and marketing mix backed by strong local state action can
engender agglomeration economies and bring about rapid economic growth, cases in
which such initiatives are ill-conceived resulting only in draining of the locality’s
resources, are many times more frequent.
3. Struggle over the acquisition of key control and command functions in high
finance, government, and information processing, or, in short, the context for the world
city status. Thus we see massive investments in new airports and telecommunications
facilities. Also premium is given to certain kinds of education, namely, business and law,
media skills, high-tech production, etc.
4. Coalition between the local government and local business to strive for central
government subsidy and investment.
However, with the diminution of transport and communication costs, the significance of
the qualities of place has been enhanced. For a given city, this often is associated with a
renewed interest in the city’s past or heritage and the cultivation of a physical setting
and cultural milieu that distinguish the city from others. “Local coalitions have no
option .….. except to keep ahead of the game thus engendering leap-frogging
innovations in life styles, cultural forms, products and service mixes.” (p. 12) In this
sense, then, there is a clear connection between urban enterpreneurialism and the
development of post-modern architectures and urban forms. “The orchestrated
production of an urban image can, if successful, also help create a sense of social
solidarity, civic pride and loyalty to place.” (p. 14) However, “concentration on spectacle
and image rather than on the substance of economic and social problems can also prove
deleterious in the long run.” (p. 16)