Random readings on society, politics and change – Jorge Carrillo
There are three main paradigms which suggest the perspective from which the city should be studied and depict how the city would be conceptualized in the future. Some think that cities will leverage the power of knowledge as the key economic driver for urban development and envision the city as a marketplace. Others think that technology will be the main factor shaping the destiny of cities in the future and envision the city as a platform. Finally, the literature adopting a nature-based perspective envisions the city as an ecological system or environment. This Article argues that all three visions or paradigms lack a rights-based approach and therefore are not able to explain, nor govern, many of the social and economic phenomena generating conflicts at the local level. They, for instance, do not tackle the issue of divisions between cities and regions, urban and rural areas, nor do they make an attempt to face the questions raised by power asymmetries and wealth redistribution within a city. In order to overcome the shortcomings of the three main visions one needs to take into account a fourth vision developed by the “right to the city” literature and reconceive the city as a commons to implement that vision. This approach envisions the city as an infrastructure enabling city inhabitants’ right to equal access to, management of, or even ownership of some urban essential resources and ultimately the city. This reconceptualization requires however embedding “urban pooling” as a design principle of a new economic, legal, and institutional framework for the city. It therefore implies the recognition of the right of multiple urban and local social actors, in particular city inhabitants, civil society organizations, and knowledge institutions like universities, to be part of partnerships with the public and the private sector to run or own urban assets or resources. The aim of urban pooling is to deploy cooperative actions, practices, institutions, and ventures to share existing urban resources, collaborate to generate new resources, and coordinate in using urban networks or producing public services. Urban pooling by mixing and matching urban resources dispersed across the city expands capacity of these resources and the city as whole. 6 Urban pooling blends individual or organizational capabilities and legal authorities that different urban actors hold and use in distinct and separate realms or ways. It combines expertise with local authority. It works across economic and institutional boundaries and thrives in interstices and voids in the delivery of services and access to essential urban resources.
A Political Ecology of the Green Economy in the Global South
Urban Studies x Sustainable Development x Geospatial Analysis
Clean living under difficult circumstances
A Sussex University Anthropology blog
Alternative paradigms, practices and challenges
A blog on gender, citizenship and urban life
Reinventing the Finnish City
a collaborative writing project on Political Ecology
The global community of academics, practitioners, and activists interested in Economic Sociology & Political Economy -- led by Oleg Komlik
Individuals "...are therefore bigger than the world, because their worlds include not only the world considered as a whole but also many of its parts." - Lévy, 2013
Posts are by authors of papers published in the RWER. Anyone may comment.
Just another WordPress.com site
Thinking about place and power - a site written and curated by Stuart Elden
Words & Fotos ON / All rights reserved © Lee Yu Kyung 2018
urban informality + urban development
bridging community development and technology
Foreigners' Rights and Layman's Legal Overview for Thailand
News about the journal, new articles, free downloads and more
Je procrastine (beaucoup). Mais des fois j'écris (un peu).
A motley group of international aid bloggers, practitioners, and critics. Interested in impact, poverty, evidence, and throwing things off planes.
THOUGHTS FOR THE POST-2008 WORLD
blogging from a marxist economist
People. Place. Technology.