Blockchain Papers

Odile Lakomski-Laguerre, Ludovic Desmedt

Depuis quelques années, nous assistons à l’émergence de monnaies d’un genre nouveau, reposant sur des procédés cryptographiques, gérées en pair à pair selon un consensus distribué. La plus représentative d’entre elles, le Bitcoin, est lancée après la crise financière de 2008 et vient contester un ordre monétaire fondé sur le crédit et le pouvoir bancaire. Ces crypto-monnaies viennent heurter la conception traditionnelle de la monnaie : unitaire, souveraine, territoriale et centralisée. Par conséquent, elles interrogent la théorie et renouvellent le débat sur la nature de la monnaie. Dans ce papier, nous proposons d’analyser le Bitcoin au filtre d’une théorie institutionnaliste de la monnaie. En tant qu’institution sociale, la monnaie est plus qu’une technologie, car elle participe à la construction d’un espace marchand s’articulant avec un ordre socio-économique. C’est pourquoi nous mettons en évidence les arguments de la contestation et les racines idéologiques qui sous-tendent le système Bitcoin : décentralisation, anti-étatisme (cryptage) et naturalisation de la monnaie (minage). En mettant en avant la notion centrale de confiance, nous nous intéressons ensuite à la capacité du projet Bitcoin à construire un ordre monétaire, certes alternatif, mais stable.

Henrik Karlstrøm

The new, decentralized, anonymous digital currency Bitcoin has in less than three years gone from a proof-of-concept to being traded for about €78 million on a daily basis. Its ascendancy offers up a puzzle for financial regulators and other law-enforcers worldwide, while also promising to fulfill the political visions of a group of market-anarchist cryptographers. While it is still a very small economy in absolute terms, Bitcoin also poses some interesting challenges to traditional economic institutions, and is thus an interesting case for economic sociology. Using the notion of material embeddedness, this paper examines the possible implications of a further propagation of Bitcoin. If the currency proves a success, this will have ramifications for a large number of economic institutions, such as the possibility of taxation of untraceable money, the credit economy and interest rates, and international currency control.

M. Shaw

‘We are poised between an old world that no longer works and a new one struggling to be born. Surrounded by centralized hierarchies on the one hand and predatory markets on the other, people around the world are searching for alternatives’. This is the starting point for what David Bollier and Silke Helfrich, the editors of The Wealth of the Commons: A World Beyond Market and State (2012), describe as ‘an extended global exercise in commoning’ – Peter Linebaugh's term for ‘the self-determination of commoners in managing their shared resources’ (p. 396). In other words, the book itself is offered as an active process of ‘making the path’ by presenting ‘some of the most promising new paths now being developed’. It is intended to be ‘rigorous enough for academic readers yet accessible enough for the layperson’. In this, it more than achieves its ambitions. The Wealth of the Commons is an edited collection of seventy-three short papers from thirty countries: ‘a collective venture of sharing, collaboration, negotiation and creative production among some of the most diverse commons scholars, activists and projects leaders imaginable’. This rich and diverse source of knowledge and inspiration could be described as ‘polyvocal’ in the sense that it presents a multiplicity of voices improvising around a single theme – sometimes in harmony, sometimes discordant, but always interesting. The book brings together an impressive collection of contributors from different places, backgrounds and interests to explore the meaning of the commons and to advocate for it ‘as a new paradigm’ for the organization of public and private life. In this sense, it represents a project rather than an analysis: essentially espousing a cause with imperative urgency. This is not necessarily a weakness, but it does raise specific questions about what is included and what is absent or marginalized in this particular selection of accounts, and what might be lost along the way. What counts as ‘commons’ or ‘the commons’ or ‘the common’ (all used in the text) is a subject of discussion and contestation here, as elsewhere. The effort to ‘name and claim’ is an integral aspect of the project. As Jeffrey et al. (2012, p. 10) comment, ‘the struggle for the commons has never been without its own politics of separation and division’, raising valid questions about the prospects for a coherent paradigm at this stage. At the very least, however, this rich resource may prove seminal in countering those dominant paradigms of growth and development in which structural and cultural adjustments ‘serve as a justifying rhetoric for continuity in plunder’ of common resources (Mattei, p. 41). The contributions fall into three general categories: those offering a critique of existing ‘increasingly dysfunctional’ market/state relations; those that ‘enlarge theoretical understandings of the commons as a way to change the world’; and those that ‘describe innovative working projects which demonstrate the feasibility’ of the commons. As acknowledged in many of the chapters, defining the commons in any consistent and convincing way can be deeply problematic. Like ‘community’ itself, it can be regarded to some degree as an ideological portmanteau which contains a variety of meanings. Nonetheless, there is a general commitment to confront such difficulties in an open way, and to be as clear as possible about what the commons might represent, what it might replace, and what it should not be confused with. Put most simply, the commons refers to what human beings share in nature and society that should be cherished for all now and for the future: ‘the term … provides the binding element between the natural and the social or cultural worlds’ (Weber p.11). Its profound challenge to the logic of competitive capitalist relations, therefore, is to ‘validate new schemes of human relations, production and governance … commonance’ (Bollier and Helfrich, p. xiv) that penetrate all levels of public and private life. This idea is explored in detail in many of the contributions. The commons, then, claims to represent a philosophical stance, an intellectual framework, a moral and economic imperative, a set of organizing principles and commitments, a movement, and an emerging ‘global community of practice’ (O'Connell, 2012). It has also developed an increasingly shared discourse, which is designed to unsettle institutionalized norms and values and to reclaim or remake the language of co-operation, fairness and social justice. As the editorial points out, the language of capitalism is one that becomes ‘encoded into the epistemology of our language and internalized by people’. In community development, and elsewhere, we have become sensitized to the way in which progressive language can be appropriated to support individualistic market values. When empowerment can mean facilitated asset-stripping of local communities, and solidarity targets can be set by government (e.g. Scottish Government, 2007), then we must be wary about assuming proprietorial closure on the term ‘commons’ itself. As Federici, in a particularly persuasive chapter, warns: ‘… capital is learning about the virtues of the common good’ (p. 46). She argues that, ‘since at least the 1990s, the language of the commons has been appropriated … by the World Bank and put at the service of privatization’. For this reason, it is important to think of the commons as a ‘quality of relations, a principle of co-operation and of responsibility to each other and to the earth, the forests, the seas, the animals’ (p. 50). This produces a different operational logic, which is explored in depth across the collection. To advance the commons as ‘a new paradigm’, it is necessary to locate it historically and to show the ways in which it has been colonized and compromised, as some of these pieces do. It may seem ironic that the meaning of ‘the commons’ to many people in the UK, for example, is that bear pit of parliamentary business, the House of Commons, in which adversarial rather than consensual politics is the order of the day. Reclaiming such foundational ideas is a lengthy and demanding process, as David Graeber shows in The Democracy Project, his recent account of the Occupy Movement, which for a time commanded considerable international interest. Drawing on Linebaugh, Federici contends that ‘commons have been the thread that has connected the history of the class struggle into our time’. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the volume fails to address the relationship between organized labour and the commons, as highlighted in the introduction, because there is a distinctive contribution to be made here. As Harvey (2012) argues, decentralization and autonomy are also primary vehicles for reinforcing neoliberal class strategies of social reproduction and producing greater inequality. For example, in urban environments in particular, ‘the better the common qualities a social group creates, the more likely it is to be raided and appropriated by private profit-maximising interests’ leading inexorably to economic cleansing of whole areas. Gentrification and tourism are the clearest examples. The salience of class in general is an underdeveloped line of argument. If this authoritative collection is anything to go by, this may be a significant deficiency in the commons framework. Without historical continuity – honouring the contribution of those ‘commoners’ who came before in various guises and places – there is a danger of falling into the contemporary trap of regarding ‘innovation’ as a way of separating us from our past. History in the past as well as in the making is as essential a part of our commons as is the present and the future – material, temporal and spiritual. Some of the chapters are conceptual, some practical, some poetic, but all have at their heart the ‘duty’ not only to describe the problems of contemporary life, but to develop alternative ways of thinking about and living the relationship between individual and society, state and market, policy and politics. Since these relationships are, in broad terms, the primary focus of community development in theory and practice, commons perspectives have much to offer. Given the breadth of vision represented in this impressive book, and the restrictions of space here, I have limited myself to those chapters and issues that have particular relevance to community development. A fundamental concern is the tension between public and private spheres, and how these relate to the idea of the commons. The subtitle of the book makes clear that the ‘the wealth of the commons’ lies ‘beyond the market and the state’, emphasizing the private, communal or community spheres. However, it is important to acknowledge that ‘community’ has traditionally been as much a fiction of political contrivance as a real search for communal relationships. For example, in the current context, community is being systematically deployed as an alibi for decentralizing responsibility from the ‘public’ to the gendered ‘private’ community sector, en route to the ‘private’ commercial sector. If the potential for more democratic and meaningful social relationships is to be realized, then at the very least there needs to be recognition of the anti-democratic potential of community development in facilitating a ‘localism’ agenda which may deprive the poorest of key state services (a vital part of their particular commons heritage). There is clearly a qualitative difference between municipal co-operatives as an extension of ‘the public’ and community engagement strategies which are likely to lead to an extension of ‘the private’ in both senses of the word. The need for ‘reflexive decentralization’ in making these distinctions is beyond question (Graeber, 2013). Whilst community has always been a contested term, there is now a very real possibility that it becomes a victim of enclosure itself, in the sense that a ‘space for political empowerment’ is extinguished by default or by design, to be replaced by a process of managed compliance and privatization. At the same time, Harvey (2012, p. 70) argues, not all forms of enclosure can be dismissed as bad by definition. In fact, ‘some sort of closure is often the best way to preserve certain kinds of valued commons’. Kratzwald (p. 55), in her compelling chapter on rethinking the social welfare state in light of the commons, argues that one strategic way of avoiding wholesale appropriation of ‘commons’ ideology in the service of privatization agendas is to reconsider how services are provided – ‘by the state, controlled by those affected; by citizens, through various forms of government support and financing; or in self-organised social networks’ – and that such decisions must be made ‘anew in every individual case’. The precondition in all cases would be the strengthening of ‘political empowerment’ against privatization. This is essentially a call for ‘clarity through specificity’ (Cornwall, 2008), which could act as a very concrete corrective to some of the more grandiose claims of community development. In addition, the strategic application of the kind of filtering process suggested by Kratzwald may offer sustenance to beleaguered practitioners working with long-suffering communities to understand where their best interests might lie. It also validates the case for speaking out collectively ‘when the idea of the commons is used to justify cutting public expenditures’ (Kratzwald, p. 59) as in various versions of ‘the big society’. Re-theorizing both ‘the public’ and ‘the private’ in community development would help to expose the shallowness of much of the current drive towards community governance worldwide and help to repoliticize participatory democracy. Any serious case for a commons-based approach must be at least partially measured by the extent to which it expands democratic political space for those most removed from power. As Quilligan in particular argues (p. 73), there is always a tension between representative and participatory democracy, with community development often positioned as a mediator between state and civil society. However, in a global environment in which private ‘corporations have substantially invaded the sphere of government, demanding that the state functions mainly for their benefit’ (Rustin, 2013), that mediating position is severely compromised, if not rendered almost impossible. In this process poor people everywhere have been ‘responsibilized’ and ‘demonized’ while, at the same time, some sections of civil society have been ‘entrepreneurialized’ by being expected to take over substantial state functions, sometimes through competitive tendering processes, which produce low wages, poor services and increasingly divided communities. This creates the sharpest of tensions, considering that ‘the community solution’ has traditionally been framed within the politics of the state. There is a strong temptation therefore to regard the marketized state as beyond redemption, a central cause of the problems that currently beset democratic life. In this respect, Mattei (p. 39) argues that the conventional state/market dichotomy is a ‘distinction without a difference’. And there is no shortage of evidence of the combination of market economics and bureaucratic politics that have so undermined democratic structures and cultures. Nonetheless, an insistent question remains as to whether the state should be surrendered so readily, and what might take its place as an institutionalized expression of the collective will of citizens in defence of ‘their sovereign rights … to their common goods’ (Quilligan, p. 81). The state is essentially an ambivalent formation, which has been fought over and fought for in many different contexts over time. As it has been gradually hollowed out by the virus of neoliberalism, it is tempting to erase from collective memory those democratic struggles over the state through which marginalized groups have fought their way towards some degree of social protection, cultural recognition and material redistribution. Through representing their claims in and outside of state structures, social and political movements have shifted the balance of power in many situations for the better. There is a dialectical relationship between the state and civil society, between representative and participatory democracy. To construct the state as the enemy, or at least as an unwanted encumbrance, is to reduce confidence in collective social and economic solutions as they may be expressed and evolved through democratic politics. As Kratzwald argues, what is required is a reclaiming of the state and the public sphere by ‘stepping out of the private sphere’ and into the sphere of politics. This could be a promising position for community development workers to put to the test. Operating both within the ‘invited spaces’ of policy and the ‘demanded spaces’ of politics, practitioners and community groups continuously need to make a critical assessment of the opportunities and challenges of both strategic participation and strategic non-participation in existing structures and programmes. Indeed, society from the as it (p. presents a key challenge for and community development (p. approach to reclaiming the state a and for thinking about the politics of take are in a and people over their and are to take responsibility for also a central for the state, as citizens active in such various to the state or the In is through the and the people In this way the democratic state is from the of the market through the made of it by an and active civil society. It is also different to those contemporary versions of in which the of power is through the of representative has always its history us that people with their that which they could never to in the market and other public 2012). To and for a democratic state that on the of human and social need as a central of the commons its because it provides a political focus for the kind of of and communal necessary to public in any way. This reclaiming the state as a shared a is regarded by some as a lost or but it is no more so than the commons project itself. Whilst there is an to be by with what is as the project of the social welfare state, it is where there is of this position that the commons idea at its and least There is no from politics, and it to that ideas are at their best they are made argues that of the of the of is that the very idea of a and of a alternative has been almost from the of It is for example, that there is not a single in the of this to is there much of other political and in at any What are we to make of The commons could be to a broad an which has an important in and to an alternative social However, there is a broad commitment to are framed in ways that its is essentially ideological and cultural rather than This is not in the contribution it could make to the development of a project. As (2012) argues in his assessment of social movements in the ‘the fundamental power struggle is the for the of meaning in the of people’. one of the most about the collection of ideas and which the commitment to is that it is an active which does not in the in which all often to politics community development. At the same time, this may also be one of the in to a coherent commons of ‘the commons’ is a of claims therefore, always such social and political As in his critique of the urban commons (2012, p. argues, the of it the is often with a are common interests to and by what are essentially political The potential for the rich to lead and to in communities and to an commons is all A more epistemology may be required to take account of or The of commons may be necessary in to and a vision of an alternative moral which would for but an of of power a more dialectical of cause and For example, the and of certain sections of the are as of – be they welfare at one of the or and at the Whilst it is clearly that and can the kind of wealth which in some world over whole are increasingly on their it is the of economic in order to produce those very that is the to the kind of commons which would society. In a of by – from public through to – the of an must confront the of an for enclosure has always been the default and who autonomy to their one of the most significant contributions of the commons then, is in the ideological and cultural challenge it presents for community development. In this respect, it is important to that capitalism itself is if not an ideological with profound cultural in of how people to and Graeber makes a but between the and the in politics, both as an and the Occupy Movement, in the The as are with structures, process being a The on the other are in of which will construct the as yet important of politics therefore is that it through its in the and to offer a of the future it is – to it as it This kind of politics is also in much commons thinking and community development. The dialectical process of in of power by the claims of marginalized groups expressed through is what community development should be In other words, greater to democratic democratic structures that in the in which those are or As it (p. need a state that expands our for community To what might be a which practitioners to the of and critical framed within an of collective and and to an of the structural of could help to community This book provides a to ways of thinking and that at the very least, our from and beyond the and in which many of us are It us of the of the of in our to rather than or of a more world – and then to for

Stefan Gärtner, Franz Flögel

We are calling for comparisons of banking and banking systems from a spatial perspective. Therefore, this paper develops a classification identifying decentralized and centralized banking according to two characteristics: geographical market orientation (regional vs. supraregional) – to determine whether banks facilitate regional savings-investment cycles – and place of decision-making (proximity vs. distance) – to identify whether the flow of soft information is supported in SME lending. The degree of banks’ centralization is also approximated by the spatial concentration of bank employees and shows remarkable explanatory power in Germany, as de-centralized banks increase lending at the expense of centralized banks.

Marcela Cristini, Ramiro Moya, Guillermo Bermúdez

In the last three decades, the supply of housing in Argentina has not kept pace with demand. This study analyzes the main drivers of Argentina's housing market and relates them to the macroeconomic environment in order to advance a policy agenda for housing policy reform. The demand for housing was calculated and tenure choice was analyzed. Structural characteristics affecting Argentina's housing market include the high concentration of the urban population in a few large metropolitan areas, te association of urban poverty with the housing deficit, and overcrowding. The mortgage market lost its appeal following the 2001-02 crisis due to widespread breaches of contract legitimized through protective legislation (still in place), insufficient long-term financing, and high inflation. The housing deficit could be eliminated in five to eight years if well-coordinated policy initiatives to develop the mortgage market and provide low-income housing were adopted under a decentralized, demand-driven, subsidized program.

Valeria Guarneros‐Meza, Mike Geddes

Two broad and interlinking themes have dominated much of the recent literature on local governance1 and participation: the dynamics, spatialities and temporalities of the ‘neoliberalization’ of local governance; and the relationship between local governance and democracy, especially the ‘meanings, potentials and pitfalls of “participation” ’ (Melo and Baiocchi, 2006: 596). Taking the latter first, Beaumont and Nicholls (2008) in identifying new research issues emerging from a symposium have highlighted a range of questions: frictions between representative and participative local democracy; distinctions and overlaps between participation, democratization and social movements in cities; and the tools for deepening democratic engagement with impoverished and marginalized communities in cities of the global North and South. Purcell (2007) argues that there is a need for more and more sustained work on the political as well as the economic dynamics of city regions, and that this means engaging with questions of democracy as well as of citizenship. Melo and Baiocchi suggest there are two key questions: whether deliberative, ‘horizontal’ governance structures favour middle-class and elite interests; and what are the conditions under which participatory arrangements can be both democratic and governance-enhancing. A related issue is the potentially problematic power relationship between elite forms of local governance — for example the influence of unelected local notables in institutions such as local partnerships — and participatory practices (Geddes, 2006). The abundant literature on decentralization initiatives in many Southern states frequently questions the extent to which such initiatives have been able to embed effective and democratically accountable institutions at the subnational level (Stren, 2004; Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). These issues of the politics of local governance — the interplay of participation and partnership, social movements and the representative democracy of political parties and leaders — are central to this symposium. Many, if not all, of the contributors to the above debates position issues of democracy and participation in the context of processes of neoliberalization, and the ‘market democracy’ or ‘market citizenship’ associated with neoliberalism (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). The concept of neoliberalism is complex, diverse and contested, and works on a number of levels. These range from institutionalized cognitive principles —‘a deep, taken-for-granted belief in neoclassical economics’, through consequent normative principles favouring free market solutions to economic problems, to a set of policies implemented during the 1980s and 1990s to promote a lean welfare state, low taxation and flexible labour markets (Dumenil and Levy, 2001: 5). In an important recent contribution, Harvey (2005: 19) argues that neoliberalism should not be understood as a bundle of characteristics, but as a political project, a process of neoliberalization ‘to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites’, and specifically to disembed capital from the constraints of the ‘embedded liberalism’ of social democracy and the Keynesian welfare state (ibid.: 11). When theoretical neoliberal principles clash with the need to restore or sustain capitalist class power, or when such principles lead to tensions and contradictions, ‘then the principles are either abandoned or become so twisted as to be unrecognisable’ (ibid.: 19). He cites the rhetorical commitment of neoconservatives to democracy as an example. Harvey reflects on the important role of urban crisis — such as the New York fiscal crisis of the 1970s — in paving the way for neoliberalism, and also points to neoliberal forms of elite, closed governance such as partnership, which circumscribe both ‘old’ representative and ‘new’ participatory democratic processes (Fuller and Geddes, 2008). In this vein, other key contributions have resonated widely in the recent literature. Jessop (2002: 466) noted how key global neoliberal strategies envisage a growing ‘role for cities in managing the interface between the local economy and global flows, between the potentially conflicting demands of local sustainability and local wellbeing and those of international competitiveness, and between the challenges of social exclusion and global polarization and the continuing demands for liberalization, deregulation, [and] privatization’. Along similar lines, Brenner and Theodore (2002: 369–72) referred to the ‘neoliberalization of urban space’ (or ‘neoliberal localization’) as one of destructive creation in which the old local state apparatus is replaced by new forms of local governance — including ‘networked’ forms of governance based upon public–private partnerships; ‘new public management’ strategies; privatization and competitive contracting of municipal services. In a widely cited formulation, Peck and Tickell (2007) distinguished two phases of neoliberalism in the UK context: roll-back (when a primary objective was to roll back the pre-existing political economy of the social democratic welfare state, via deregulation and public expenditure cuts) and roll-out (the extension and deepening of neoliberal forms such as networked governance, fiscal responsibility and reregulation). Cerny (2008), emphasizing the importance of place in the global evolution of neoliberalism, identifies a ‘social neoliberalism’ in which welfare is not rolled back but restructured and marketized in highly complex ways. Thus: the neoliberal ascendancy of the past three decades has been associated with a series of paradoxical and contradictory ‘double movements’ . . . neoliberalism involves the simultaneous and iterative roll-back of institutional and social forms (especially those associated with Keynesianism) together with the roll-out of restructured institutional and state forms (Peck and Tickell, 2007). While this literature initially focused primarily on the changes encountered by urban institutions across countries and regions in Europe and North America, there is now increasing recognition that the neoliberalization of local governance is a global phenomenon (Leitner et al., 2007). An insistent skein in the increasingly globalized literature has been the call to recognize the diversity of ‘actually existing neoliberalisms’. Larner (2005: 17), for example, is concerned to move beyond neoliberalism as a monolithic hegemonic entity in order to understand its uneven, contested and contingent nature, and recognizes that institutional landscapes are characterized by diverse, ‘contradictory spatialities, socialities and subjectivities’, operating through divergent political, institutional and regulatory strategies that are characterized by contradiction and contestation. It is also important to recognize that policy change can involve a degree of the ‘pragmatic and opportunistic’ (Peck and Tickell, 2007: 30). There are, though, important differences between perspectives which essentially identify variants of neoliberalism, and others which talk in terms of hybrids between neoliberalism and other political projects. In this perspective, many rationalities and approaches are prioritized by the state, which come to form a ‘hybridity of approaches and rationalities’ (Purcell and Nevins, 2005; Raco, 2005: 325), in which there is no assumption of the dominance of neoliberalism (Barnett, 2005). Exploring both the temporal and spatial dynamics of neoliberalization, Geddes (2005) suggests that the transition to a neoliberalized local governance remains highly differentiated. Beyond a neoliberal heartland (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand) there are marked differences between a ‘new Europe’ eager to embrace neoliberalism, a social Europe still as yet with a markedly different vision, and a transitional Europe, itself divided into several trajectories. Beyond Europe, there can be not just mimicry of European/US models, but also very different local governance initiatives, some of which challenge neoliberal prescriptions. Summarizing a symposium on the geographies of neoliberalism in America, (2005: that spatial and . . . processes of state and the of neoliberal landscapes and a but also that is a as well as destructive . . . which for or social emphasizing that such of are at the by neoliberal In and neoliberalization has been associated with the deepening and of market the role of the state and its relationship with its in order to and and 2005; and Farthing, 2006). In no a local been on the social its role has been in with the neoliberal by recent 2008). The spatial and temporal dynamics of neoliberalization can a contested and (Leitner et al., in which of neoliberalism can itself a not as a to neoliberalism, but also of the of neoliberalism by and practices and with (ibid.: 5). that to in terms of neoliberalism are (2005: for example, argues that of neoliberalism to of which are not to neoliberalism and from the not how this While that not is to neoliberalism, in that neoliberalism has the to with such which in the context of phases of symposium with debates local governance, and especially participatory in global from the UK and this to and this and (Geddes, this While and the cities on which of the not of more a of global to issues in a set of very different — including the and different past the global and countries and with both and very different governance and this of by to the literature. In this with the issue of what to the of ‘actually forms of local governance under suggest that such an to two of both of the upon which the process of neoliberalization and other to that of neoliberalization, which are also on local latter in to local governance are processes of with a in contradictory relationship to neoliberalism, as Harvey is one of with in which are in both and in formulation, . . . . . . the of across and when and are In the of this primarily on which to of in local also reflects the that the contributors to the symposium different the extent to which neoliberalization of and the of a of The in the symposium primarily on neoliberalism — that is to in one on the extent to which processes in local governance in very different local not understand a to and the in which both tensions and neoliberalism, and forms of in complex of local governance both and now under — the social and political and and the process — which are in different in the of the The of the state, including the extent — or — of democratic political institutions is a primary local noted Jessop and Brenner and Theodore to the process of the local neoliberal Harvey the neoliberal state is a contested political form a number of and tensions to the between and democracy; in the of the existing social order which neoliberal and extension of between and In to the of and forms of The countries and cities in this symposium such tensions and the local of both and Southern and and and in which the extension of democratic forms markedly different The of the states which the cities are are important in of local governance in at three which are the of the state, the of the local state and its In the UK the countries in the the social democratic state a form of ‘embedded liberalism’ 2005: which the neoliberal has to the extent of this the of the UK state, to the of neoliberalism to on the of social democracy and its in have for neoliberal local state forms and In in the other states — and — the transition neoliberalism has place or state there are also important differences between The states in and very of political in the state to its the was and still is characterized by a level of political and and 2006: The characterized by social that in local political and in the of the of and the of local et al., In in the can be that when with neoliberal to have complex of participation urban In forms of have in the important on local state policy in movements have participatory local institutions by the neoliberal In both and the of neoliberal state forms with the transition from has been a in this still be to In the of argues that in the the transition to a neoliberal urban governance was as was the to be to a new state the of economic and In the of the transition from of its with the of has also with with and as and and is is In neoliberalism in the 1980s in the crisis of an and but the neoliberal with local participatory to its was to the changes of which the neoliberal to the of democratic processes the The a of from those neoliberalism characterized by an of political and has been able to a degree of from its with the transition to democracy, to those its with democracy is and its more It is also as for similar to from political strategies by states with different and in social democratic and have similar participation as of and similar competitive economic The to are in at to the influence of the state in the form of the in neoliberal urban economic and social different social democratic of the countries and cities in the degree of decentralization of political power to the local level governance and in terms of is for example, with the of and based on from across America, of the complex between neoliberalism, democratization and and the that decentralization is associated with either neoliberalism or there is a between the decentralization of power in which has more for local in to the position in the urban has been to with and this local governance in both and is well and In the of local is into the but the to local in in to the of means that the of local governance arrangements is more contested in cities local state is of or are complex and of are much In (Geddes, this local across the in the and constraints have been especially The in the the and of the state at both and local levels. It is also important to recognize the role of state institutions and now an increasingly important role in policy and such as the and its the the of Europe, and international have been important in the of and neoliberal policies different global regions example under the of the which from the neoliberal in and The of governance principles by is for many countries to of the which and to is upon with the neoliberal economic principles which 2007). the key points of have in of what is between and the and in and more participatory forms of democracy and political emphasizing the principles of and local democracy similar with forms of participation, to promote of participation 2007). there is growing recognition of the which frequently between the of participatory institutions and and 2005). The some contributions to for more to how democratically local are and to the issues by Beaumont and Nicholls frictions and distinctions between participation and democratization and the need for deepening democratic engagement of marginalized movements and have been key in local governance, as was the with the in during the and the in one perspective, the of social movements in more recent is a to the of social movements have the political of the by neoliberalism to of the neoliberal state and politics et al., 2007). the of neoliberalism, local strategies have been and social capital to be as a to state and in which and are are in neoliberal local (2005: the is the extent to which social movements have become into a of neoliberal state argues — with many others — that participatory processes such as those in and well more as for the of social as means of that much of the governance literature on a of power an in the power of a in state power, argues that engagement with the literature is the of power beyond a and emphasizing the continuing of in governance is at to that such for participation, be what was on The latter a neoliberal forms of engagement well more social democratic local is also is to such local participatory initiatives the of neoliberalism and neoliberal local In for example, on such initiatives is with that on economic In the context of the UK, the New for across by the New have no on the economic context of economic in one such participatory processes can be as one in a ‘social neoliberalism’ primarily class to social be more to the of state policy in with on the of the neoliberal state, in to which such participatory social are of be from and In this the of the latter for a local state are The of and are also of the way in which social can be local state which are to and by the central state, in a relationship as et is . . . are to to of but are to to neoliberal A very different is in the local social movements of the and are in and at from the assumption that is by the state, to influence local state policy is in a context of social and at the of the local and (2007) the of of and engagement in as to both and the These very different be the for local social movements of a position which is both and the state — in a position in which can influence the state in The challenge to social movements has (2007) to that should to participation in institutions such as local which that such an engagement is — such as participatory in — to have on the of local social movements with a local to and with or in the of from in countries the UK, social demands to be into a and increasingly by the local state there are still important — such as in and — of participation in a range of forms of across local and global which or by the In the of many social movements both in communities and in urban both with a of to the state, has not social movements to but has to form the for of the neoliberal and 2007). governance has the on social movements to to the of partnerships and forms of neoliberal participation, and in so has to the participation of the 1980s in countries such as and beyond 2005; 2007). others 2005; and Farthing, and the not but to forms of and to forms of political participation by the not an neoliberal practices of the of neoliberal institutions by in very different by different or local governance has increasingly the of the has been the of the power and of local and political The of and political parties via local has been by and has been with participative and forms of local democratic The of partnerships has to local to the of one many the primary in local political leaders have been on the one to become more and on the other to new based on the of political and more on or in a In countries such as the UK, local political is increasingly concerned with in the of the different a the and of local political has been as important in and to from of and 2005). local is not to the political leaders in cities in and have also this to power et al., with as and The of and in have local and public to with the creation of new forms of and such as and participation There is much though, of by political leaders in the by and the of which have the of also local of is the local of the literature on local suggests in the context of a neoliberal local politics of governance, should be or the contributions of local leaders from and In some countries has been that local political has to from a to a range of different in a more democratic (Melo and Baiocchi, can also be the that and of old have of in many of America, the of leaders still remains In for example, the of as has the of and that remains between the of political and of a politics in which and in some countries such as the UK, policies have to promote the importance of in one as a way to local democratic and and 2005). the which is one in which local and parties — of both and and in countries — have to of the new of local governance, but in the process different and to governance such as the by of political parties of partnerships in which theoretical of and the and competitive of local this through the example of the in which in the 1980s a more for the of the the city the and as the the that has been to the city and the urban the political of the by the in In America, both and parties have been concerned with and effective While is the that the of has been more in including and social and the that neoliberal can local participatory structures which new to local not be The of the and policies in and how the process of a between the of a a social and the social as well as across and can have for the of local the of a policy or either the or to a different can also a in the of governance of the political in The of the participatory process from to other but also to many cities is the example of how local can the of a governance et al., 2008). and the global urban the important spatial of the economic and social across the by the neoliberal a set of that local that by the the urban of In that the of Europe, North and and the be the and be with and the and the regions the in between and 2007). In the of and These are local governance in an increasingly and has been with urban governance an of the extension and of urban as a of and with the of in strategies to a global competitive are a more competitive and local have to place and new forms of local but have also for new strategies of social and place policies have been by the creation of and and with other cities the and the Southern et al., 2006). cities are the international and are not at the of the global urban but are cities at the level of the that is a dominated by the city of the and important at a level the power of of the global and the initiatives which have been are a continuing of local governance In and in a context of strategies have the a city and of old the for the of 2006). the urban influence the extent to which different cities strategies the local governance in terms of the of institutions and from and beyond and the of and across different the of local governance institutions to to is also by the of the other three which cities have example, of of between the and levels. the of and have as much in with the of as with the in to global changes in and which of and that level cities have and social and are highly in and and have governance the of in and is much in the of urban governance to such is more and some strategies of social by the state — such as participatory participation, partnerships and social — have become to urban social 2004; and many of have been by social movements and forms of other more and also the of the and in cities and of in the the of communities in and 2004; 2004; and increasing in the North are other such as in the UK, which have and spatial on marginalized 2004; this is a that has been associated with and the economic and social The has the role of as a to the of the at the as the has to policies in political in have to institutions and of as a way of a democratic and and this In and political of both and have in the of based on to partnerships and in this symposium are emphasizing the urban is also important to recognize the of In the between the and many of the social movements of should that the is not with social The of movements in in the 1990s and of this have been central to to neoliberalism, and have in structures in urban as a of (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). the of as well as urban local governance the importance of of the of the of has been to a in which very different and urban have been to to a political that and have become of ‘new and the processes change in both how and to local governance in city in and ways. The key between the two cities was the political context in by the transition from the to a democratic that of urban governance, characterized by decentralization and a of participation, was from The on of to two the governance that a of state and and across to a of not a of state that an in participation not an in on and the for local governance of a at the urban those related to issues such as or urban which call and to the on the of the for the urban and the of neoliberalism in the to with the state, a more especially for cities in to a more for In this the importance of as the of public at the subnational and the central place of or in the urban and for In the Geddes suggests that is to the of two of local governance — neoliberal and is not to or the diversity of existing but to to the terms of He reflects on local governance in in the 1980s and 1990s a for the new neoliberal but now a of as a of the recent of the the of the neoliberal on He suggests a of and of neoliberalism is in the tensions and complex temporalities of the between neoliberalism and to in and

Ana Arriba González de Durana, Zyab Ibáñez

Social assistance as the technique providing means-tested income guaranteed financed by general taxation in Spain is composed by different benefits. There is not a only one policy, but different measures oriented to different groups of population and organised by different public administrations. During the last two decades, the different levels of public administration have implemented a set of benefits, which observed together can considered as the Spanish ‘safety net’. The main lines of this development has been: a) fragmented in different protection systems (unemployment, pensions, social services), b) subsidiary of the development of these systems and c) decentralized in different levels of public administration (mainly in regional level, i.e. Autonomous Communities).

Vasilis Kostakis, Chris Giotitsas

The still raging financial crisis of 2007–2008 has enabled the emergence of several alternative practices concerning the production, circulation, and use of money. This essay explores the political economy of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Specifically, we examine the context in which this digital currency is emerging as well as its nature, dynamics, advantages, and disadvantages. We conclude that Bitcoin, a truly interesting experiment, exemplifies “distributed capitalism” and should be mostly seen as a technological innovation. Rather than providing pragmatic answers and solutions to the current views on the financial crisis, Bitcoin provides some useful and timely questions about the principles and bases of the dominant political economy. A ECONOMIA POLÍTICA DO BITCOINResumoO aquecimento da crise financeira de 2007-2008 permitiu o surgimento de várias práticas alternativas em matéria de produção, circulação e uso do dinheiro. Este ensaio explora a economia política do ecossistema Bitcoin. Especificamente, vamos examinar o contexto em que essa moeda digital está emergindo, bem como a sua natureza, dinâmica, vantagens e desvantagens. Concluímos que Bitcoin, uma experiência verdadeiramente interessante, exemplifica "capitalismo distribuído" e deve ser visto principalmente como uma inovação tecnológica. Em vez de fornecer respostas e soluções pragmáticas para os pontos de vista atuais sobre a crise financeira, Bitcoin fornece algumas perguntas úteis e oportunas sobre os princípios e as bases da economia política dominante.