Search

This paper presents 'shared projects' and the 'symbiotic' relations they engender to capture accounts of state and society actors collaborating to turn individual constraints into collective opportunities for pursuing urban experiments which are institutionally-shaped but also institution-shaping. The concepts are developed through a sequential and recursive comparison – that is, a 'comparative conversation'– between a case of urban village upgrading in Shenzhen and Community Land Trust Development in London. The paper uses a pragmatist approach to capitalist transformation as a starting point for comparison between these supposedly 'incomparable' cases. I build both heterogeneous and generalisable accounts of the pathways and progressive potential of collaborations on shared projects by recursively composing analytical proximities across the cases and their contexts of state entrepreneurialism and austerity localism. Theoretically, this paper contributes to scholarship which focuses on the contingency and complexity inherent in urban transformation. State and society actors are seen as potential collaborators working pragmatically to solve systemic problems without necessarily targeting wholesale systemic change. Methodologically, it contributes to ongoing attempts to demonstrate the positive relationship between experimental comparisons and conceptual innovation through staging a 'comparative conversation'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper frames a critical evaluation of the progressive aspirations of localism partnerships by conceptualising them as informal associations. I show how the selective limitations and affordances of the Localism Act and its related policies necessitated and enabled direct, deliberative encounters, and pragmatic working between the Rural Urban Synthesis Society and its local authority, Lewisham Council. These practices allowed them to co‐produce a precedent for community‐led affordable housing development in London, as well as contribute to the growth of the sector. Informal associations are thus both means and end. They enable innovative articulations of localism and underpin a broader, ongoing project of progressive localism. They also form the conceptual basis for future research to delve more deeply and widely into analyses of localism partnerships and their relationalities to the institutions in which they are embedded. Within the vagarious and incoherent institutional landscape of austerity, informal associations invoke a local politics which embraces collaborative, direct experimentation between state agents and societal actors, working with uncertainty in planning to achieve progressive developmental and governance outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]