Explaining the contradictory creativity of neoliberalism: Evidence from the economic development agendas of four European second-tier cities

ABSTRACT

Neoliberalism has become dominant in many policy fields since the 1980s. However, it has evolved into multifarious and hybrid forms that have generated several variegations. This uneven development has also led to a series of systematic contradictions, which are now considered a distinctive attribute of the actually existing neoliberalism. The so-called contradictory creativity is considered inherent to neoliberal policies, but the mechanism through which it actually develops is not clear yet. According to several scholars, the contradictions are mainly context-induced, because neoliberal policies are often path-dependent on preexisting local practices and institutions and are also often partially transformed and adapted to react to local frictions, emerging conflicts and endogenous crises. This article is aimed at addressing this issue by explaining the features of this contradictory creativity and the mechanism through which it develops. The analysis focuses on the neoliberal economic development agendas that have been promoted and implemented in four entrepreneurial second-tier cities from the 1980s up to the Great Recession of the end of the 2000s. The analysis will argue that the inherent contradictions detected in these neoliberal urban economic agendas were not only context-induced and that a mechanism of neoliberalization of Keynesian-Kaleckian policies took place.

Acknowledgments

A preliminary version of the paper was prepared for the RSA Conference “Rethinking urban global justice: An international academic conference for critical urban studies,” September 11–13, 2017, Leeds, and for the International Workshop on Public Policy “Towards an urban policy analysis: Linking urban politics and public policy,” June 26–28, 2018, Pittsburgh. I am particularly grateful to all the conference discussants. A special thanks goes to Gilles Pinson and Silvano Belligni for their wise critiques and suggestions on the subsequent versions of the article and to Georgina Blakeley for her encouragement. Finally, the three anonymous reviewers offered extremely useful comments for the conclusive restructuring of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Some of the most recent macroeconomics-based handbooks (Blanchard, 2017; Burda & Wiplosz, 2017; Dow, 1996; Ehnts, 2017; Miles et al., 2012; Phelps, 1990; Rittenberg & Tregarthen, 2012; De Vroey, 2016) and original treatises of the main exponents of the two epistemic communities (sources cited in Section 2) were used to trace the pillars and the policy core beliefs of the two opposite paradigms. Moreover, two economists, from different schools of thought, were consulted in order to check the correctness of my interpretations in light of the most recent evolutions of the two policy paradigms.

2. LSE research reports, English, French, Italian and Spanish books on urban policies and the following international scientific journals were consulted to select in-depth studies on the four cities: Urban Affairs Review, Journal of Urban Affairs, Urban Studies, City, Cities, Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, European Urban and Regional Studies, International Journal of Urban and Regional research, Urban History, Journal of Urban History, Territory, Politics, Governance, Urban Policy and Research, Urban Research and Practice, City and Community, Lex Localis, Metropoles, Public Policy and Administration, and Journal of Public Administration.

3. In this sense, certain public expenditures in the economic sector are clearly consistent with the neoliberal policy core beliefs and do not prove that neoliberals, “while rethorically antistatist, are adept at the (mis)use of state power in the pursuit of these goals” (Peck & Tickell, 2002, p. 381).

4. Cheshire et al. (2014) demonstrated this theoretical causal link between incentives for the localization of firms and the change in opportunity-costs with regard to contiguous urban areas.

5. According to the Espon Report (2013), the economic performances of Manchester, Barcelona, Lyon and Turin were still significantly lower than those of Milan, London and Paris in 2007 in terms of GDP per capita, but also than those of other smaller second-tier cities, such as Bologna, Leeds and Bordeaux, in terms of GDP growth rate.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stefania Ravazzi

Stefania Ravazzi is associate professor of Public Policy, Collegio Carlo Alberto affiliate and director of the Laboratory of Public Policies. She has published articles and books on urban governance, public policies and deliberative democracy. She is also a member of the standing groups “Democratic Innovations,” “Local Government and Politics,” and “Theoretical Perspectives in Policy Analysis” of the European Consortium of Political Research.