MLLSM01

EVENTS POLICY

LECTURE 2

Events and political capital

Political Capital: The Outline

In this lecture I argue that events and festivals help political elites accrue valuable ‘capital’

I will firstly look briefly at the historical involvement of politics within events and festivals

I will consider how political arguments are made which enable an events (or culture)-led strategy to exist and flourish

I will consider what political benefits accrue and how the consent of the local populace is secured

I will then consider more critical perspectives on the political rationale for hosting events

Historical context for political involvement

Historically, dominant institutions and power elites determined the desired version of nationalism and public culture created by their events (Roche, 2000)

Roche argues that the successful hosting of ‘mega events’ was a way for power elites to promote ‘hegemonic’ ideologies to the masses

Marxist political economy scholars use this ‘civic boosterism’ school of thought to explain the significance of hallmark events

The politics of bidding

Increased competition for global city status now the key rationale for bidding for large scale events

Sporting mega events have taken from World Fair and Expos in relation to urban, and regional growth and place competition (Hall, 2006: p60).

Globalised media technologies allow ‘sport’ and wider cultural forms to communicate a city or nation’s offering to the world’s audience

This reflects the currency of ‘attention’ (Goldhaber, 1997)

The local political system facilitates development in place of welfare and seeks to secure the consent of the electorate

The political ‘benefits’

Economic impacts remain the dominant discourse used by political elites to promote events – urban/civic boosterism:

Associated with city image enhancement, gentrification and cosmopolitanism

Alongside the growth of ‘cultural’ quarters with their associated invented or created ‘cultural festivals’

Events ‘animate’ cities (and nations), they are the animators of static attractions (Getz, 1997)

The political ‘benefits’ ctnd

A culture or events-led policy also involves a change in the local political landscape as private and semi-private actors (Hubbard and Hall, 1998: 8) influence events policy processes

Infrastructural changes deemed politically rewarding and popular

Growth strategies tied to winning events in the realms of housing, retail, public relations

Politically, sports events seen as a ‘good thing’ . To criticise is to be ‘doubly damned’ (Hall, 2006: p67)

The political investments

Growth coalitions promise a series of ‘investments’ to deliver the legacies promoted

‘Event’ infrastructuresPost event support Social and cultural changeBut, criticised for scant disregard for the

powerless who are negatively affected by the status accorded to the event (Hiller, 1998)

Securing political consent

The impact of events justified on basis of transformations to the built, cultural and social environment – mega events must be legitimised (Hiller, 2000)

Strategies of consent and coercion to secure popular support (e.g. Sydney, 2000)

Politicians seek to secure an emotional connection with residents , whilst political dissent minimised by failure to follow normal public consultation

The use of power elites to use place marketing strategies to sell culture and politics (Hall & Hodges, 1998)

The political ‘benefits’ contested

‘Spatial injustices’ Macleod (2002) emerge from the rolling out of place marketing and neo-liberalism of which events are a major plank

Include tight regulation, discipline and demarcation of city space to ‘enable’ publicly-funded entrepreneurship to flourish

Deepening social polarities as certain excluded groups are deemed problematic to the continuation of consumerist ideologies

Some (local) cultures and spaces deemed invisibleConsumerist ideology further disenfranchises

sections of the populationBeneficiaries are promoted, victims downplayed in

bidding process

The political ‘benefits’ contested

Many events have “been associated with large-scale public expenditure, the construction

of facilities and infrastructure, and urban re-development and revitalisation strategies which may have undesirable long term consequences for public stakeholders although significant short-term gains for some corporate interests” (Hall, 2006: p59)

By-passing democratic process in the name of securing spectacle

Reinforces a dominant neo-liberal urban entrepreneurial logic within which the public purse subsidises private interests – unaccountable governance?

Urban entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and growth becomes the language of public life

The political ‘benefits’ contested

The ‘revanchist city’ – a city in which greater repressive controls are put in place to ensure the free flow of global capital accumulation

Critics argue events and festivals have been created to satisfy the lifestyle aspirations of the gentrified and touristified urban destination

The language of regeneration “anesthetizes our critical understanding” (Smith, 2002: p446) of the social polarisation wrought by these policies

Displacement effects of are stifled in the positive, pro-growth messages emerging from political leaders – propaganda messages designed to secure civic unity (Waitt, 2001)

Conclusions

Events are politicalEvents represent a vehicle for the promotion of

neo-liberal discourses of urban entrepreneurialism

Pro-growth public-private coalitions are formed which reconceptualise the relationship between the state and its citizens

Outcome = unaccountable quasi-autonomous organisations which work to a market-logic , excluding certain segments of the population

The bread and circuses formulae of the Romans is intensified as events are used as a means of socialising the population

References Law, C.M. (2002) Urban Tourism, 2nd ed, Continuum, Chapter 7 Roche, M (2000) Mega Events, London, Routledge Hall, C. Michael (2006): “Urban Entrepreneurship, Corporate Interests,

and Sports Mega-Events: The Thin Policies of Competitiveness within the Hard Outcomes of Neo-Liberalism”, The Sociological Review 54(s2), pp. 59-70. 

Shoval, Noam (2002): “A New Phase in the Competition for the Olympic Gold:  The London and New York Bids for the 2012 Games”, Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5) pp. 583-99. 

Hubbard, Phil and Hall, Tim (1998): “The Entrepreneurial City and the ‘New Urban Politics’” in Hall, Tim and Hubbard, Phil (eds.): The Entrepreneurial City (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp. 1-23. 

Henry, I .P & Paramio-Salcines, J.L. (1999) Sport and the Analysis of symbolic regimes: A case study of the City of Sheffield, Urban Affairs Review, 34, 641-666

MacLeod, Gordon (2002): “From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a ‘Revanchist City’?  On the Spatial Injustices of Glasgow’s Renaissance”, Antipode

Jamieson, Kirstie (2004): “Edinburgh: The Festival Gaze and its Boundaries”, Space and Culture 7(1) pp. 64-75. 

Smith, N (2002) ‘New Globalism,, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy’, Antipode, pp427-449