Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00955.x Byline: MIKE GEDDES (1) Keywords: Local governance; Neoliberalism; Participation; Bolivia Abstract: Abstract This final article first reflects on the previous articles in the symposium, positioning the diverse trajectories of local governance which they exhibit in relation to two contrasting ideal types - the one neoliberal, the other contesting neoliberalism from a progressive, left perspective. Differences between these ideal types, and among the actually existing patterns of local governance discussed in the symposium (in relation to their economic and social objectives and governance institutions and practices) are highlighted. The second part of the article offers a consideration of local governance in Bolivia, a country which encapsulates some of the key issues at stake in the ongoing struggles to either build, or contest, neoliberalism at the local level. Here a distinction is advanced between 'expansive' and 'consolidatory' moments of neoliberal local governance, which may take the form of consecutive phases, but may have different, overlapping temporalities. In conclusion, it is suggested the challenges which the impact of the financial crisis and global recession pose both to neoliberal forms of local governance and to contestatory forces should be a primary concern for future research. Resume Ce dernier article revient d'abord sur les articles precedents du symposium, pour replacer les diverses voies de gouvernance locale presentees par rapport a deux idealtypes mis en opposition: l'un neoliberal, l'autre contestant le neoliberalisme d'un point de vue progressiste de gauche. Il met en evidence les differences entre ces idealtypes, et entre les modeles actuels de gouvernance locale debattus dans le symposium (en lien avec leurs objectifs economiques et sociaux et avec les institutions et pratiques de gouvernance). La seconde partie s'interesse a la gouvernance locale en Bolivie, un pays qui incarne certains des principaux enjeux dans les luttes en cours visant a batir ou a contester un neoliberalisme au niveau local. Une distinction est proposee entre les moments d''expansion' et de 'consolidation' de la gouvernance locale neoliberale, lesquels peuvent se presenter de maniere consecutive, mais aussi sur des plages temporelles differentes en chevauchement. Pour conclure, les defis que les consequences de la crise financiere et la recession mondiale posent aux formes neoliberales de gouvernance locale ainsi qu'aux forces contestataires devraient constituer une priorite dans les recherches a venir. Author Affiliation: (1)Institute for Governance and Public Management, University of Warwick, UK Article note: Mike Geddes (Mike.Geddes@associate.wbs.ac.uk), Institute for Governance and Public Management, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00952.x Byline: VALERIA GUARNEROS-MEZA (1), MIKE GEDDES (2) Keywords: local governance; neoliberalism; participation Author Affiliation: (1)Centre for Local and Regional Government Research, Cardiff University, UK (2)Institute for Governance and Public Management, University of Warwick, UK Article note: Valeria Guarneros-Meza (vgm@cardiff.ac.uk), Centre for Local and Regional Government Research, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK and Mike Geddes (Mike.Geddes@associate.wbs.ac.uk), Institute for Governance and Public Management, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

There is much debate about the shift from a pattern of traditional local government to one of local governance, and about the impact of such a tendency on the effectiveness of governance processes and outcomes. This article argues that it is necessary in exploring such issues to bring together contributions informed by new institutionalist perspectives with others concerned with the political economy of neoliberalism. Partnerships are widely seen to be a significant element in the shift from government to governance, and the article focuses on the role of partnerships at both local (ie local authority) and neighbourhood level. Key questions about 'local partnership governance' concern its democratic legitimacy and the capacity of its institutions. Drawing on the examples of local strategic partnerships and the New Deal for Communities programme in England, it is recognized that such partnerships can appear to open up new approaches to legitimacy and new possibilities of enhancing the capacity of the local governance system. In fact, however, they are more likely to undermine democracy and accountability, and lack the capacity to be effective, while limiting local policy options to those consistent with New Labour's neoliberal policy agenda.

This article is based on recent transnational research on partnership-based initiatives to promote local development and regeneration and combat social exclusion in the EU. The increasing reliance on partnership as the basis for local policy initiatives is first situated in the context of contemporary debates about social exclusion. The main part of the article then draws on the literatures on local governance and urban regime theory to examine three issues critical to the impact of the `new orthodoxy' of local partnership: the capacity of partnerships as interorganizational forms of local governance; their inclusiveness; and the extent of outcomes which can be attributed to partnership as a distinctive mode of local governance. On all three issues, the evidence points to the limited claims that can be made for most local partnerships as `inclusion coalitions' capable of effectively tackling social exclusion, and suggests that structural features of the currently dominant version of partnership entrench a model of elite rather than inclusive governance. Local partnership is associated with weak rather than strong discourses of social exclusion and inclusion, and its significance lies as much as anything in the way in which the practice of partnership tends to foreclose the sphere of debate and action, excluding more radical options.