Search results

Post-pandemic renewal has to be much more radical. In this chapter we develop a considered response to reimagining the public sector with a focus on Liverpool City Region, its local economy and local government. By drawing on wider ideas of new municipalism, new narratives of how to make local economies more social through public investment, accountability and democratic governance can be made. The local scale offers the frame through which this can be examined as we make the case for new municipalism in the Liverpool City Region.

As scholar-activists we have been involved in responding to the continuous austerity imposed on local government. We research and debate the social and economic problems faced in the Liverpool City Region and present some of our findings here. In our work, through an organisation known as ‘Beacon’ – a grass roots movement agitating for new municipalism – we make the case for new policy initiatives and seek to demonstrate a need for a different type of public sector reform through local government.

In the context of the ‘levelling up’ agenda of the UK government, there remains concern across the city region about how local government can function given the ongoing austerity imposed from the centre. We have a public sector that has faced disinvestment in communities for over a decade and because of this, we reimagine public sector renewal by advocating for a new municipalism based on strategies of economic and political innovation that can lead to greater levels of democracy, accountability, wealth creation and distribution. We show examples outside of the UK, such as in the US and Spain, where embryonic forms of new municipalism are evident.

Our work sets out a roadmap to achieve a new municipalist agenda in the Liverpool City Region through an activist movement, Beacon. We bring together ideas and practices that are often underway elsewhere that have real political and economic impacts. In articulating the need for renewal, not only must we critically reflect on underpinning problems but seek to campaign for the change we advocate. The challenge we face is one of coordination and scale.

The purpose of this paper is to propose to expand the political economic understanding of a “fix”, that is, capital’s ability to overcome crises of profitability through a displacement of its crisis tendencies, to include an analytical attention to the gendered, sexualised and racialised unwaged and underpaid (caring) labour that reproduces labour power within a capitalist economy.

A “care fix”, the author argues, involves attempts to manage a crisis of care in ways that do not resolve but merely displace the crisis, perpetuating the systemic imperative of capital to off-load the cost of social reproduction and care, thereby constituting a crucial dynamic of capitalist development and restructuring and resulting in the reorganisation of gendered and racialised class relations and historically contingent regimes of reproduction.

The maceration of the Fordist regime of reproduction under neoliberalism has given way to a new post-Fordist arrangement that, having exhausted its care fix, is now once again in crisis. A new care fix is currently under way, while at the same time it is being contested and redirected by the contemporary struggles over social reproduction, care and democracy.

Consequently, the author discusses the emergence of the notion of “caring capitalism” and contrasts this with proposals for democratising care, in turn investigating these developments in the context of an ongoing crisis of political representation in Europe and offering a notion of “care municipalism” as a possible way forward.

The practical implications concern the possibility of democratising the care sector.

The social implications pertain to the questions of how social, political and economic institutions shift when care is placed on their agenda.

The value of this paper is to make a theoretical contribution to the analysis of changing configurations of care, social reproduction and society in relation to questions of democracy.

To set the context for this edited collection by situating the discussion within both a global setting as well as examining the development and framing of processes, initiatives, policy paradigms and theoretical models which have shaped contemporary discourse and practice.

To draw on extant and current academic literature, contemporary thinking derived from policy organisations, think tanks and governmental institutions but also draw on the experience and insights provided by the contributors.

There are three core findings drawn prior to March 2022. Firstly, that the overall impact of the Global Financial Crash of 2008 and COVID-19 marks a new paradigm shift that will, more likely, shape thinking over the next decade; secondly, global attention to the climate emergency and sustainability agendas suggest that new forms of locally led responses will be necessary; and thirdly, the perceived political uncertainty of the institutions of the European Union and the USA make the stability of the policy making process and its responses to COVID-19 or the Climate Emergency much less predictable over the next 5–10 years.

This series of essays reflects the work undertaken by each of those contributing to the collection. Each author was invited to start with their primary research focus and to take their ideas and thinking for a ‘walk’ in order to stimulate discussion, novel thinking and different approaches to policy dilemmas.

During Gezi Protests of June 2013, hundred thousands of people from different and even opposite groups were together on the streets of Turkey against government for a month. The abruptness, severity, diversity and creativity of Gezi Movement make it unique among urban movements in Turkey. Protesters not only challenged the police violence and authoritarian policies but also defended public spaces of their city. My analysis of Gezi Movement is based on the comparison of Lefebvre, Harvey, and Bookchin who all integrated the critique of capitalism and revolutionary vision into urban movements. However, they are different in terms of what revolution, city, class, citizen, and urban social movements are. Gezi Movement is discussed through the similarities and differences of three approaches.

Gezi Movement is a good example of New Social Movements which lacks an organization, hierarchy and a leader. As an urban movement it provided a glimpse of heterotopia of Lefebvre where many different groups and identities challenge the abstract space of neoliberal capitalism. The protesters, as the producers and the consumers of urban commons claimed Gezi Park and Taksim Square as Harvey stated. The transformation of protests into neighborhood forums despite losing power and participation shows the civic potential of urban movement that may develop direct democracy of citizens as a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. The spatial analysis of Gezi Movement provided insight to the revolutionary potential of urban movements in neoliberal age.

This chapter will discuss understandings of forms of sustainable political economy within the context of sustainability in the community. Essentially, it will examine the issues which emerge when a community favours a green economic model within the context of the now largely discredited neo-liberal framework that never valued notions of sustainability, and is now largely in crisis due to the market decline and ‘credit crunch’. In addition, the section will outline the significance of community-based political economy for the development of sustainable forms of justice. A sustainable form of political economy incorporates particular concerns, such as ‘the geographical scope of production for local needs, and the exposing and combating the institutions and power structures that lead to poverty and lack of local control’ (Kennet & Heinemann, 2006, p. 78). Under the neo-liberal system, a dichotomy existed between community development and the dominant, yet ultimately unsustainable, growth-based form of political economy.