Exploring practices and spatialities of urban transformation: the role of power in urban governance

This PhD thesis is a qualitative study that attempts to broaden urban geography’s reach in regard to the forces affecting the production of the city. It focuses, in particular, on governance aspects and the local mechanisms of power that they underpin to provide a fresh look at central issues of urban transformation such as an actor’s capacity to act and collective action. As the thesis adopts a framework informed by urban politics, a crucial effort is that of accounting for the methodological bias of such studies, which assume that the urban scale is a pregiven, relatively discrete container of political-economic processes. This shortcoming is counterbalanced considering the urban dimension and multiscalar nature of the power relationships under study. The thesis is written in the form of academic papers investigating separate issues under the umbrella of local power mechanisms in urban transformation. The first paper is a theoretical work, whereas the second and the third ones are empirical works. They deal respectively with: the explanatory power of urban regime theory beyond its original Western-centric and urban-centric foci (Paper 1), the role of criminal organisations in the production of the city (Paper 2) and the possibility of progressive forces to shift agendas away from the issue of attractiveness (Paper 3). Distinct bodies of literature contribute to the three papers and add to the overall interest in practices and spatialities of urban transformation––e.g. political science (Paper 1), criminological literature (Paper 2) and urban planning one (Paper 2 and Paper 3). In terms of methodology, the thesis is characterised by an explorative attitude. On the one hand, the theoretical paper attempts to trace novel research trajectories in urban governance theory through a longitudinal literature review. On the other, the two empirical papers deal with under-researched contexts of urban transformation by means of a case study methodology led by an information-oriented selection of critical cases. This implies that the purpose is neither to achieve generalisation or comparison at all costs, nor to provide a comprehensive analysis of urban transformation. Since the three papers grasp relations and possible new interpretations as for the issues under study, there is room for extending the analysis of these trends––e.g. through quantitative research and comparative qualitative studies. Overall, the three papers show that the relation between “power to” (i.e. an actor’s capacity to act), “power with” (i.e. consensual interactions between actors) and “power over” (i.e. domination of an actor over another one) dynamics offer worth-considering insights through which to read practices of urban transformation and patterns of production, regulation and consumption of urban space. Paper 1 looks at the evolution of urban regime analysis (URA)––a school of political science that is considered a precursor to urban governance and in which the issue of “power to” is crucial. The paper identifies the rise of a new wave of URA that draws from urban geography and tackles URA’s original Western-centric and urban-centric foci. In doing so, it argues that much of the potential of this cross-disciplinary contamination is still unexplored and the study of urban regimes would benefit from a thorough confrontation with debates in urban geography. Paper 2 argues that the local mechanisms of “power to” that constitute the grey area of urban governance allow the infiltration of mafia-type organised criminal groups in urban development. The paper has a focus on peripheral areas and identifies those place-bound aspects that foster the infiltration process. By investigating two peripheral municipalities set in northern Italy, it claims that: first, the structural weaknesses of peripheral municipalities with regard to their political-administrative spheres amplify the shortcomings of the planning process; second, peripheral property markets present some features that make them more likely to be affected by the economic input of mafia-type organised criminal groups. Finally, Paper 3 examines new municipalist politics and the local power-rationality relations that result from the concurrent implementation of participatory governance solutions and the urban commons agenda. By examining the case of an Italian mid-sized progressive city, it shows how coalition politics prevail over progressive claims by exploiting the ambiguities of new municipalism––in particular, by means of “power over” practices that are concealed under the guise of “power with” institutional solutions.