Urban Sustainability Amid Neoliberalism: the Tensions Between Capital and Economic Wellbeing in the Contemporary City

With the observation that cities are in no way sustainable, this research took a genuinely exploratory approach to discover the reasons why in an attempt to find answers as to how this may be addressed. Consequently, 86 interviews with policymakers and key stakeholders, supplemented by secondary data, were conducted in York (29), Bath (9), Bristol (8), Edinburgh (12), Plymouth (10) and Preston (11), from which an understanding of each city was constructed. From these, two avenues of insight into urban sustainability emerged: one in which York is the focus, and one with wider implications.

First, due to the emphasis that York places on tourism that sees the city identify through its built heritage, the picture that was painted by respective interviewees is one of a ‘stodgy’ culture that does not want to face the challenges of the future. This regressive state was thought to create a duality in the local economy in which life may be good for the professionals who are attracted to live on the basis of York offering a good quality of life, but this contrasts with those on low pay who mainly work in the tourist industry and who can less afford to live in and access many of the socio-economic benefits that the city has to offer. Part of the problem was said to be that City of York Council is held back by the culture in addition to a fluctuating political climate in which there are three marginal parties.

Contrasting the Bath, Edinburgh and York case studies shows, however, that an economic focus from built heritage related tourism may lead to cultural shifts. Certainly, York was thought by respective interviewees to be home to a creative industry that would benefit significantly from support. Meanwhile, through their encouragement, residents in Bristol, Plymouth and Preston were highlighted by respective interviewees to be enjoying the cultural, economic, environmental, social and political benefits of social economy models, such as co-operatives and social enterprises. Therefore, in addition to reducing the tourism related income inequality, with cultural shifts among the population of York from pursuing such economic opportunities this may lead to a more innovative local authority operating in the more stable political climate that was shown by the Bristol, Edinburgh and Preston case studies to be more able to provide long-term vision and enact greater good policies. Consequently, City of York Council may be more able to address key areas in which the city was said to be deficient around renewable energy production, recycling provisioning, affordable housing, and the encouragement of sustainable transport.

While the first avenue of insight highlights specific barriers that, if overcame, creates a pathway through which York may shift towards sustainability, fundamental insight lies in contrasting common themes that emerged across the case studies:

Cities require economic welfare. Here, ‘economic welfare’ is being used to describe how the wages and profits from a city’s economy meet the needs of its residents. The case studies show that when concerned with the issues of deprivation the need for economic welfare is the priority of both local authorities and their populations. No more so was this need and intervention evident than in Plymouth and Preston as the most deprived case studies. However, even in those case studies considered to be ‘wealthy’ there were found to be significant problems with deprivation among their populations.

To provide economic welfare within their cities, to varying degrees all the case studies looked to attract capital. This takes the form of investment into business or property development and groupings such as professionals and tourists. This phenomenon, known as ‘urban entrepreneurialism’, has been extensively explored in academic literature whereby the neoliberal period of capitalism has seen the privatisation of services, and reductions in both the provisioning of social welfare programmes, such as those around housing and social security, and legislation limiting the mobility of capital. Meanwhile, technological advances have accelerated the decline of traditional manufacturing industries and further increased the mobility of capital. In short, there is less egalitarian and spatially-fixed economic welfare within cities, compelling them to compete for capital to overcome this shortfall. Overall, due to the need to divert resources towards (re)attracting these mobile capital groupings and away from less mobile groupings who are more likely to be in need, and encouraging the low-paid tourist industry, this form of economic development inevitably leads to the inequality and deprivation that was observed within the case studies.

A strategy set forth by the academic, James Defilippis, and built upon by the think tank, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, however, counters this. By using the resources of locally-based organisations that have an active interest in that city to favour local, democratic control in land-use (e.g. mutual housing associations, use of facilities by communities), investment (e.g. community banks) and the procurement of services (e.g. social enterprises, co-operatives), more egalitarian and spatially-fixed economic welfare may be encouraged. Although this strategy has only been partially employed in Preston, the city is bucking the economic trend of many of its counterparts (PwC, 2018).

The case studies show that such a strategy has the potential to impact the different realms of a city. First, with increased economic wellbeing, as the financial security that citizens require to meet their basic needs, across a city, populations are more willing and able to express their cultural yearnings for the long-term goals associated with sustainability in both their consumer decisions and support for the related policies of their local authority. Second, through the encouragement of social economy models, and as argued extensively within the literature, there are superior sustainability outputs from a city’s economic capacities. Third, less concerned with the issues of deprivation or the need to divert resources to the (re)attraction of the mobile capital groupings, and with cultural impetuses from their populations, local authorities are more able to pursue longer-term goals around quality of life and the environment. Therefore, through resolving the tensions between capital and economic wellbeing, urban sustainability is possible.