Economic inequalities have been increasing between and within nations, regions and cities, but questions of redistribution have to some extent been displaced by those of recognition, empowerment and diversity in urban and regional inquiry and policy. A conceptual framework drawing upon Nancy Fraser's and Iris Marion Young's ideas about economic and cultural injustice is proposed for evaluating local empowerment initiatives, which is then drawn upon to explore the nature and effectiveness of participation with reference to one specific New Deal For Communities partnership scheme in the London Borough of Hackney, Shoreditch – Our Way, concerned with regeneration. Our findings suggest that while participation is certainly a necessary condition for moving towards a more egalitarian society, current policies are valuable but limited in terms of the degree of representation and the extent of control. They are part of an affirmative agenda – that is, they tackle symptoms but not causes of deprivation. We conclude that if long-term remedies are desired, then transformative solutions which address both economic and political injustice are necessary.
Les inegalites economiques se sont creusees entre et au sein des nations, regions et villes mais, dans les etudes et dans les politiques urbaines et regionales, les questions de redistribution ont, dans une certaine mesure, ete supplantees par celles de reconnaissance, empowerment et diversite. L'article propose un cadre conceptuel inspire des idees de Nancy Fraser et Iris Marion Young sur l'injustice economique et culturelle afin d'evaluer les initiatives locales d'empowerment. Cette evaluation permet ensuite d'explorer la nature et l'efficacite de la participation en evoquant un programme de regeneration en partenariat de type New Deal for Communities, a Shoreditch, dans la banlieue londonienne de Hackney (Our Way). Les resultats suggerent que, si la participation est bien sur une condition necessaire pour aller vers une societe plus egalitaire, les politiques actuelles, quoique precieuses, sont limitees en termes de degre de representation et niveau de maitrise. Elles s'inscrivent dans une demarche antidiscriminatoire en traitant les symptomes, mais pas les causes de l'appauvrissement. En conclusion, si l'on souhaite des solutions a long terme, il faut des transformations remediant aux injustices tant economiques que politiques.
[1]
D. Massey.
Politicising space and place
,
1996
.
[2]
M. Dunford.
Disparities in Employment, Productivity and Output in the EU: The Roles of Labour Market Governance and Welfare Regimes∗
,
1996
.
[3]
P. Healey.
The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation
,
1996
.
[4]
M. Parkinson.
Combating social exclusion: Lessons from area-based programmes in Europe
,
1998
.
[5]
P Healey,et al.
Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning
,
1998
.
[6]
M. Kleinman.
Include Me Out? The New Politics of Place and Poverty
,
1998
.
[7]
Patsy Healey,et al.
Planning Theory and Urban and Regional Dynamics: a comment on Yiftachel and Huxley
,
2000
.
[8]
Margo Huxley,et al.
Debating Dominence and Relevance: Notes on the ‘Communicative Turn’ in Planning Theory
,
2000
.
[9]
M. Geddes,et al.
Tackling Social Exclusion in the European Union? The Limits to the New Orthodoxy of Local Partnership
,
2000
.
[10]
Iain Docherty,et al.
Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods
,
2001
.
[11]
G. Cars,et al.
Multiculturalism and Governing Neighbourhoods
,
2001
.
[12]
Vivien Lowndes,et al.
Rescuing Aunt Sally: Taking Institutional Theory Seriously in Urban Politics
,
2001
.