Chapter 19
Economic Geographies of Global Governance: Rules, Rationalities, and “Relational Comparisons”
In June 2010, global governance arrived in Toronto. In the weeks preceding the appearance of world leaders’ themselves the G8 and G20 Summits dominated the city’s mainstream media headlines. For the first time, the meetings of the two high-profile clubs of world leaders were to be staged in tandem, with the mandate to further international economic cooperation among the major industrial democracies (the G8) and their chosen “systematically important” counterparts from regions around the world (the G20; Penttilä 2003). For Canada, this was a chance to broker a coordinated response to the global financial crisis. No expense was spared in staging this major event of global governance on Canadian soil – extending to the fabrication of an iconic Canadian shield landscape inside Toronto’s downtown convention center, complete with a lake and Precambrian igneous outcroppings, before which the G20 forum of finance ministers and central bank governors could be photographed.
In Toronto, media coverage focused on the draconian methods and exorbitant costs of security, together with controversies surrounding Canadian positioning in the months of preparatory meetings leading up to the summits. By the time the summits started, the Canadian state had committed to spending over a billion dollars on crowd-control strategies and the largest deployment of security forces in the country’s (and the Summits’) history, making dissent increasingly difficult and dangerous. The two-day G8 Summit was sequestered in a luxury resort near remote Huntsville, Ontario (population 19 000), around which was constructed an approximately 8 kilometer chain link fence, necessitating the clear-cutting of a real Canadian shield landscape. In Toronto, against the mayor’s recommendation to hold the G20 Summit on the contained grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition, Prime Minister Harper opted for the Metro Convention Centre in the downtown core. Downtown Toronto was converted into a militarized zone with physical barricades, checkpoints, air surveillance, and a war chest of weapons to release on protestors (Mazer and Vitale 2010; Podur 2010).
Meanwhile, at the summits themselves the Harper government worked to derail initiatives of the United States, together with a group of export-dependent “emerging economies,” to promote a stimulus-based approach to the global financial crisis – in favor of a principle of “fiscal consolidation” that would involve attacking deficits while eschewing financial reregulation. Never mind that when this neoliberal regime was implemented in the country’s largest province of Ontario, as the “Common Sense Revolution”, it only increased deficits and debts, while devastating the public sector and the social safety net. Harper also identified maternal and child health in poor countries as a key campaign, at the same time announcing the elimination of Canadian funding for programs that provide abortion services abroad; in so doing, he reopened the abortion debate domestically and positioned Canada globally as a vanguard of social conservatism.
This instance of global governance, like all others, is a decidedly local, national, and international affair, and economic geographers have pioneered approaches that probe the politics of scale in constituting the “global” in global governance. This chapter explores those contributions and comments on possibilities for promising new directions. Of course, “global governance” is a concept that now circulates widely within international financial institutions, development agencies, state governments, and the transnational corporations whose interests it serves. In these contexts, the term signals a renewed interest in the role of institutions, social capital, and empowerment of the poor in the efficient functioning of markets. Economic geographers have viewed these developments critically, investigating the complex and contradictory ways neoliberal ideologies have consolidated at a global scale. Here, “global governance” is understood to mean formal and informal systems of control that organize prevailing ideas about market-state-society relations at a global scale. Global governance encompasses governmental institutions (such as international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank), inter-governmental organizations like the G8 and G20 – even nation-states and non-governmental organizations that are rarely thought of as “global” but nonetheless play a role in advancing particular global-governmental regimes around the world; it also encompasses a whole series of practices that create social systems of political control endeavoring to regulate individual behavior in line with those regimes (Sparke 2011). Today, global governance plays a key role in promoting the ideals of market discipline and market-led development. By emphasizing the conjunctural specificity of the contemporary neoliberal regime of global governance (it was not always this way and it need not always be), however, economic geographers have contributed empirical depth and theoretical refinement to the Polanyian formulation that markets are socially and politically constructed formations, not naturally occurring or spontaneously actualizing systems, as prevailing economic theory would have it (Tickell and Peck 2003). This orientation assumes heightened significance in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when the call was sounded even from the most unlikely bastions of liberal economism to “remake global capitalist governance after the Washington consensus” (Sheppard and Leitner 2010).
The stories that circulated about the G8/20 in Toronto newspapers provide an occasion to tease out a range of epistemological approaches that economic geographers are currently taking to the issue of global governance. Three lines of distinct but overlapping questioning can be identified. First, what modes of regulation are institutionalized through such venues as the G8/G20, what forms of accumulation do they facilitate, who are the primary agents and beneficiaries of such arrangements, and where are the greatest points of contestation and flux? Second, what kinds of governmental technologies and subjectivities are advanced by neoliberal global-governance regimes, and how have these practices and discourses expanded capitalist power relations into new areas of social, political, and biophysical life? Third, how do global governance regimes articulate local social histories in particular space–time conjunctures; in what ways, that is, does place matter for the formulation and practice of global governance?
This chapter sketches a typology of these apporaches – characterized here by their genealogical derivation from the Marxist French regulation school, Foucauldian governmentality studies, and Gramscian studies of articulation, respectively – as they have been (or could be) taken up in economic geography (see also MacKinnon, this volume, for an assessment of the “state and economic governance” in relation to some of these epistemological framings). In so doing, it explores how these epistemological framings differ fundamentally in their treatment of four core themes that are crucial to articulating an agenda in economic geography today: (a) their conceptualization of place and scale, (b) their engagements with the cognate field of critical development studies, (c) methodology, and (d) political praxis.
The second theme requires some clarification at the outset, and for this purpose it is helpful to consider some of the silences in mainstream media representations of the G8/G20 Summits. Coverage of resistance and critique was largely limited to performances of protest and state security – the graffiti, the war chests, and so on. There was no significant coverage of the 2010 “People’s Summit” occurring a week before the G8/20 meetings; billed as an accessible and low-cost alternative to the G8/20, the People’s Summit is organized annually as a space for informed dialogue about the politics of neoliberal global governance and about strategies for “building a movement for a just world” (The 2010 People’s Summit). Also missing from Toronto news accounts was the remarkable convergence of Toronto-based social movements around an explicitly anti-colonialism rubric through which to protest the G8/20 summits as a key modality for the displacements of global capitalism (Hussan 2010).
These omissions are particularly evident in the Toronto context where “multiculturalism” is routinely celebrated in economistic “creative city” metrics, even as emerging solidarities among immigrant, indigenous, and racialized groups have forged a powerful standpoint from which to critique such metrics and the neocolonial violences they commit (Goonewardena and Kipfer 2006; Viswanathan 2009). Economic geography is not entirely guilty of the same silences, committed as it has been to understanding the dynamics of dispossession and injustice. Recent economic-geographic scholarship emphasizing “policy travel” and the variegated nature of actually existing neoliberal governance has, moreover, gone a long way to overcoming the geographic reductivism plaguing earlier scholarship derived with exclusive reference to experiences in the global North (e.g. Leitner et al. 2007; Peck and Theodore 2010a; Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010; Ward and England 2007). Nevertheless, this review affords an ideal occasion to take stock of the ways in which the core concerns and epistemological framings of economic geography have been – or could be – informed by the cognate field of critical development studies, which is more explicitly oriented to perspectives on global governance from the global South, postcolonial theory, and transnational feminism.
The chapter is organized into three sections which discuss each of the three epistemological framings of global governance in relation to the four identified themes. It is important to emphasize at the outset that the three framings are posed as locus points for arcs of development in the literature rather than separate projects per se; some of the most productive scholarship in economic geography today – and certainly the most promising directions for the future – explicitly seeks to traverse these heuristic divisions.2 Nonetheless, such epistemological mappings are useful for charting genealogical pathways and, within the mapping furnished here, particular emphasis is given to probing the theoretical and critical resources available to each of the three framings from the subfield of critical development studies. The chapter concludes by considering the implications of the favored “articulation” approach for building a praxis of critical reflexivity within the academy.
Regulation School
Confronted with epochal proclamations about the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1992), the “end of the nation-state” (Ohmae 1995), and the “cultures of globalization” (Jameson and Miyoshi 1998), economic geographers found in the French regulation school key analytical resources with which to interpret the major transformations in North Atlantic capitalist societies taking place in the last quarter of the twentieth century. This approach begins with the basic Althusserian premise that ideology and politics have a key role to play in the resilience of capitalism and that these extra-economic dimensions develop dialectically in relation to concrete historical conditions (Swyngedouw 2002; Peck and Tickell 1992; Tickell and Peck 2003). The task then becomes one of developing typologies and periodizations of dominant institutional and regulatory forms – modes of regulation – that create the conditions of possibility for successful accumulation in particular historical periods. Through this formulation, economic geographers have challenged predictions of a global convergence to a universal market society. They have done so through historically and geographically specific accounts of the transition from Fordist to post-Fordist regimes of accumulation (e.g. Gertler 2004; Glasmeier 2001) and, within the latter, by disaggregating distinctive modes of neoliberal governance (most famously, its “proto-, roll-back and roll-out” forms, Tickell and Peck 2003). The point has been to demonstrate how historically and geographically specific regimes of accumulation are dependent on a facilitating shell of social and cultural arrangements; in other words, they are formed through political, not teleological, processes (Fraser 2003; Peck and Tickell 1992).
A regulation-school framework thus maintains the fundamental commitments of structural Marxism – especially an attentiveness to the role of state institutions in reproducing capitalist society – while also accounting for differences in formations of capital over space and time. Early work within this framework concentrated on the interface between national forms of regulation and the globalizing dynamic of accumulation. With the growing functional integration of economic activities across the globe from the 1990s, attention has turned increasingly to global scales of regulation facilitating transnational accumulation processes. Some institutional sites of global neoliberal governance, such as the IMF and the World Bank, date to the formation of the Bretton Woods system and First World multilateralism of the Cold War era. Those geared specifically toward the management of global trade – the World Trade Organization (WTO), associated regional trading blocs such as the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the global summits of world leaders – emerged more recently in relation to the global economic integration of the 1980s and 1990s. As transnational corporations have moved increasingly to organize manufacturing, agriculture, and services into a global production system, this global regulatory infrastructure has consolidated around a common ideology of free trade, open economies, and the discretionary rights of transnational capital.
Analytically, then, the task becomes one of identifying the market rules through which this ideological vision is institutionalized, disseminated, and embedded in national regulatory frames. To do so, geographers have drawn on the subfield of global political economy to consider how a regime of neoliberal market rules operating at a global scale – dubbed the “new constitutionalism” by political scientist Stephen Gill (1998) – reconfigures the legal and juridical bases for policy making within nation-states in a way that “straitjacket[s] policy and makes democratic forms of governance harder to imagine and implement” (Sparke 2006). To this formulation, economic geographers have contributed a finer-grain of periodization rooted in an analysis of the shifting institutional landscape of global neoliberal governance. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the 1980s reflected a fundamental “rolling back” of “progressive constitutionalism” geared toward supporting Keynesian models of national economic growth, and the “rolling forward” of rigorous neoliberal reform programs (Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010; Peck and Tickell 1992). But a second “roll-out” phase of neoliberal global governance can also be detected, one that abandons the harsh austerity measures of structural adjustment in favor of more politically viable strategies to “get the institutions right” for market efficiency through poverty reduction and good governance (Sheppard and Leitner 2010).
In probing these regulatory shifts, geographers have challenged claims from multiple locations on the political spectrum (e.g. Escobar 2008; Stiglitz 2006) that we have entered a fundamentally new era in global governance – an era of “post-neoliberalism” or a “post-Washington Consensus.” They have emphasized instead the continuities with earlier modes of neoliberal governance (Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010; Roy 2010; Sheppard and Leitner 2010). The World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Programs, the UN Millennium Development Goals, Joseph Stiglitz’s “global Keynesianism” – none of these constitute a true social-protectionist countermovement against a Hayekian ideology of market self-regulation. Instead, they maintain the same flat-world ontologies, capitalist mode of production, modernist teleology, and commodification of sociospatial difference that characterize the preceding structural adjustment programs – and indeed that characterize the Keynesian state failures and other spatial and institutional “fixes” for global capital that came before (Sheppard and Leitner 2010).
Economic geographers working in the regulationist tradition have also troubled the “global” in “global governance” by making scale a central category of analysis. The most promising new work pushes at the boundaries of this epistemological framework to question the “unidirectional logic” and “superordinate gaze” of global governance studies (Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010: 196). Recent scholarship on “policy mobilities” instead takes a more explicitly relational approach to consider “subglobal forms of regulatory experimentation that reciprocally shape processes of global neoliberal parameterization” (Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010: 196). Workfare (Peck and Theodore 2010b), business improvement districts (McCann and Ward 2010), creative cities (Peck 2005), new urbanism (McCann and Ward 2010), and microfinance (Rankin 2008; Roy 2010) are examples of mobile policies that assume differentiated, context-specific forms, but are also embedded within transnationally interconnected programs of market-driven reform. Here, global governance takes the form of “fast policy” that loops through not only transnational governance institutions, national ministries, and central banks but also policy think tanks, city agencies, and non-governmental organizations (Peck 2002) – and that is transmitted by policy actors who also occupy multiple institutional and scalar locations over their lifetimes (Larner 2009). Methodologically, the emphasis shifts from institutional political economy of world-historical structures to approaches that can “trace connective flows” among variegated sites of policy formation, experimentation, and emulation or “expose nodes and networks of resistance” (Peck and Theodore 2010a). These approaches engage institutional political economy but also encompass ethnography, discourse analysis, life histories, and other methodologies suited to documenting processes of policy flow and cross-local and cross-scalar comparisons.
Geographic scholarship within a regulationist framework shares an explicitly critical stance along the Marxian lines of seeking to understand the world in order to change it. Specifying the regulatory formations through which neoliberalism insinuates itself into institutional settlements at different scales, places, and times creates several opportunities in this regard. First, regulation school approaches work to denaturalize neoliberalism analytically in an era when it has become normalized politically (Tickell and Peck 2003: 181). Second, they clarify the institutional constraints within which firms, producers, consumers, and other market actors operate – structures that contour agency – and the uneven spatial outcomes that result (e.g. Christopherson 1993). Third, they offer some procedural and institutional content to the Polanyian promise that market rules might be refashioned to achieve more desirable practices and social outcomes (Swyngedouw 2002). As Susan Smith writes (with regard to multiple configurations of housing markets in Britain, 2005: 1), “there is a possibility here of wresting a different ethic from markets … reformatting their economy and rethinking their social role.”
At the same time, it is worth considering how the political potency of this promise might be strengthened through a more systematic view from the global South, where the continuities of neoliberal global governance with preceding forms of imperialism are brought into stark relief. The subfield of critical development studies (which encompasses many contributions from development geography) offers some key historiographic and conceptual resources in this regard, many of which are implicit in recent economic-geographic scholarship but have not been featured centrally (see Werner this volume). It is here that we can find some of the most cogent accounts of the role of development in facilitating the penetration of capitalist social relations into the non-capitalist periphery (e.g. Amin 1998; Frank 1967; McMichael 2008; Peet 2009; Prashad 2007). A similar periodization of the post-War period is offered. The “development project” corresponds to a Fordist mode of regulation – with multilateral and bilateral agencies supporting a Keynesian model of economic nationalism. The “globalization project” corresponds to a post-Fordist mode of regulation – with neoliberal conditionalities mandating global economic integration.
Yet we are also reminded of two additional dimensions of this periodization. First, the “development project” was also the “Third World project” (Prashad 2007), the “Bandung project” (Amin 1998), and the “Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM) (Morphet 2004). Newly independent anti-colonial states acted jointly to challenge the neocolonial dynamic of the development project, to articulate a vision for a world governed by peace and justice, and to assemble the institutional platforms for this agenda, in the form of UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade and Development), the G77, the NAM summit, and so on. The globalization project, too, has met a formidable resistance from the global South in the form of the World Social Forum (WSF) and the network of social movements that comprise it (McMichael 2005; McNally 2002; Sparke, Brown, and Corva 2005). Its critiques of globalized American imperialism, practices of transnational “strategic diversity” (McMichael 2005), and visions of “Another World” assume their own institutional forms with their own connective flows and processes of mutation that also constitute global governance today – and indeed help to provincialize neoliberalism and politicize capitalism (Sheppard and Leitner 2010). Second, the transition from the development to the globalization project was marked by two key geopolitical dynamics – the disintegration of the Second World and its alternative of socialist planning and the consolidation of the Third World debt regime that dismantled the Bandung project and the possibility of a unified front vis à vis the institutions of global governance.
On the one hand these dynamics have created the conditions of possibility for the emergence of a globalized neoliberal modality of American imperialism, forged through “hegemonies of consent in the core and scattered hegemonies of domination in the periphery” (Sparke 2004: 788). Scholarship in critical development studies has done much to establish the contours of this new era of imperialism – the ways in which “accumulation by dispossession” is organized on a global scale to secure the entirety of the world market (McNally 2002), render states non-governmental (Ferguson 2006), and govern through the leverage of debt (McMichael 2008). Perspectives from critical development studies can enrich ongoing research in economic geography by reactivating neocolonialism, empire, and domination as central categories of analysis. On the other hand current and past practices of dissent and alternative modalities of governance (that have been featured in critical development studies) suggest key roles for economic geographers to play in challenging the hegemony of neoliberal global governance: by tracing networked and mobile practices of resistance, politicizing capitalism, and specifying alternative market formations geared toward “moving from dispossession to repossession” (Sparke 2008: 425).
Governmentality Studies
Approaches within a governmentality studies framework, too, reject cavalier convergence theories positing a “hollowing out” of the state. Analytically, the focus shifts, however, from market rules promulgated by empowered bureaucratic apparatuses, to the “capillary” ways in which state power operates to educate desires and configure habits, aspirations, and beliefs – to shape, as Foucault (1982) famously put it, the “conduct of conduct.” “Governmentality” refers to an art of directing people that includes political rationalities, technologies of practice, and modes of subjectification. Foucault wrote his essay on “Governmentality” in the 1970s, at a time when cracks in the Fordist regime of accumulation were becoming apparent (see Fraser 2003, for a historiographical perspective on Foucault). With the advent of rationalities of empowerment and self-help, and techniques to render individual subjects and communities responsible for their own self-care, a disciplinary model of power was no longer sufficient to explain state practice. Governmentality studies thus expanded a Foucauldian analytical scope beyond the microphysics of power to encompass state macrostructures, while also working to decenter the state and trace the multiple scales and capillary forms through which governmental power operates (Ferguson and Gupta 2002).
Geographers have engaged this approach to assess modes of neoliberal government operating at a global scale. Wendy Larner and William Walters (2004) identify globalization itself as a form of governmentality, to identify the intellectual and epistemological systems through which globalization is produced as a hegemonic representation of the social world. For Peter Marcuse (2004), the operative rationality is “globalism,” which represents actually-existing globalization in a manner that legitimates global capitalism over all other forms of identifiable social organization. Globalism assembles the anti-planning treatises of Friedrich von Hayek with Rostowian modernization theory and the market triumphalism of Francis Fukuyama to depict a world of markets unencumbered by “tradition” or intrusive states. This kind of economistic teleological ontology can be found, unadulterated, in the 2009 World Development Report featuring “economic geography” (in its neoclassical guise). Here urbanization and competitive agglomeration are promised as a “pan-regional development fix” for poverty and under-development – to the outright neglect of the injustices and spatial inequalities that come into view through the more relational ontologies evident in the critical economic geography surveyed here (Hart 2010; Peck and Sheppard 2010). Others have similarly traced free trade (Gilbert 2005), marketplace society (Agnew 2005), American imperialism (Roberts, Secord, and Sparke 2003), and the post-Washington consensus (Sheppard and Leitner 2010) as governmental rationalities evoking a global ontology.
These forms of knowledge require strategies of power. Geographers have identified the calculative practices like benchmarking, auditing, patenting, and credit rating that suffuse global governance institutions with a common ethos and disseminate that ethos across the global space of multiple states (Larner and LeHeron 2002; Lawson 2002). Transnational alliances too are required – comprising not only global governance institutions and corporate capital but also national elites and voluntary organizations specializing in the ethics and practices of self-care (Bebbington 2003; Laurie and Bondi 2006). Governmentality studies thus aim to specify the situated subjects of global governance regimes such as World Bank economists (Roy 2010), WTO directors (Larner 2009), development bankers (Rankin and Shakya 2007), as well as the subjectivities they would seek to foster, including the responsible microentrepreneur (Rankin 2001; Roy 2010).
Methodologically, the line of sight is focused on discourses and mundane micropractices – “the ceaseless work of conferences, speeches, commissions, measurements, research centers, … [that play] … an active, not merely reflective, role in fixing globalization, … giving it presence and durability” (Larner and Walters 2004: 497). Discourse analysis and ethnographies of bureaucratic practice are undertaken to specify the governmental mechanisms through which political rationalities organize the conduct of conduct. While global governance regimes themselves may work to reinscribe notions of state territory and encompassment, the point methodologically is to trace “mechanisms of government that … cut across domains that we would regard as separate: the state, civil society, the family, down to the intimate details of what we would regard as personal life” (Ferguson and Gupta 2002: 989). Global governance discourses operate through these and other venues to establish a regime of truth about the natural state of the world. Understanding them as such creates opportunities to challenge such representations, as well as to explore alternative ones with different social effects (Lawson 2007).
Here again, key conceptual resources and geographical imaginaries can be found within critical development studies. On the one hand this work has troubled depictions of neoliberal global governance as emanating from the global North (Ward and England 2007). Key aspects of supply-side approaches to economic governance were in fact worked out in Chile, just as the current reregulations now visible in North America and Western Europe take inspiration from heterodox approaches developed in China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan (Sheppard and Leitner 2010). Tracing the intellectual and practical networks underpinning the global reach of neoliberal ideas expands our geographic reference points and reveals multiple centers and peripheries of global governance. It also reveals the struggles over “permission to narrate” the terms of global governance, such as attempts by Japanese economists to institutionalize heterodox market rules at the World Bank in the 1990s (Wade 1996) or the alternative posed by the populist “Bangladesh consensus on poverty” (Roy 2010).
On the other hand, scholarship on development as a form of global governmentality has attended to the dynamics of neo-colonialism and the complicity of liberal benevolence in ongoing projects of empire (Roy 2006). Much of the scholarship in this tradition derives from the foundational work of Edward Said (1979), tracing how discourses of development from the global North construct justifications for, and terrains of, intervention in the global South (Crush 1995; Escobar 1995; Ferguson 1990). Here we see the continuities between colonial administrations and development projects that aim to enlist biopolitical categories for the improvement of well-being – “native culture,” “social capital”, and the like – in a manner that organizes consent to ruling political rationalities (Li 2006). And we can recognize development as “empire’s frontier,” working iteratively with military exploit to secure American dominance through a neocolonial will to improve (Roy 2010: 139).
The hierarchical orderings that become apparent through this kind of analysis suggest an understanding of place not in spatial terms, but as a “rank in a system of social categories, a place-in-the-world” (Ferguson 2006: 6). Tracking the uneven “placings” within discourses and technologies of global governance would seem an important research agenda and a key antidote to prevailing flat-world ontologies (Sheppard and Leitner 2010). Governmentality studies place considerable stock in the possibility that deconstructing such categorical systems can “make [them] stutter,” dislodge their discursive dominance, and pose a political challenge (Larner and Walters 2004: 510). It might also foreground the discursive multiplicities that comprise global governance (along with its orthodoxies) and that could animate alternative trajectories (Gibson-Graham 2006; Larner and LeHeron 2002; Roy 2010; Sparke 2006). Focusing analytically on the Third World, however, brings into focus a related, but slightly different imperative – to conduct an immanent critique of global governance norms in order to reveal contradictions with actually-existing globalization (Marcuse 2004). It is precisely this interface of the discursive and regulatory formations of global governance, with the situated material processes of actually-existing globalization, that the articulation approach addresses – and that offers particularly promising new directions in economic-geographic scholarship.
Articulation Approach
A Gramscian “articulation approach” probes the “material effects” or the “reception” of global governance while rejecting a top-down “impact study” model that would replicate unhelpful global/local binaries (as well as a related set of binaries – male/female, active/passive, colonizer/colonized – that map all too easily onto it; Hart 2001). In so doing it shares with regulationist and governmentality approaches a commitment to denaturalize neoliberal global governance. An articulation approach shifts the emphasis away from the “family resemblances” in regulatory systems and governmental technologies around the world however (Peck 2004), in order to avoid “politically paralyzing pictures of inevitable social shifts ensuing from inevitable economic shifts in regimes of accumulation” (Sparke 2006: 358; see also Larner 2003; Leitner et al. 2007). An articulation approach attends instead to the interrelations of global governance regimes with cultural practices and social histories in particular space–time conjunctures.
Critical development and agrarian studies have engaged this approach since the 1980s to examine the political economic processes through which the center and periphery continually make and remake one another (for a review, see Lawson 2007). This work examines how a capitalist mode of production joins together with preexisting non-capitalist arrangements as well as ideologies of gender and race to produce specific class configurations and institutional forms of capital, labor, gender, and race. These social formations “rework modernity”; they contour the way capitalist development takes shape in specific time–space conjunctures (Pred and Watts 1992; Carney 1991; Hart 1986; Watts 1983). In a series of “Progress Reports” on Geography and Development, Gillian Hart (2001; 2002a; 2004) specifies the derivation of this approach from Gramsci via Stuart Hall (1980). It begins (à la Althusser) with an examination of the diverse elements that constitute “societies structured in dominance” – modes of regulation, governmentalities, cultural ideologies, political-economies, and so on. However, it also attends to the ways in which any given conjunctural assemblage of diverse elements is given meaning through everyday practice – to forge the common sense of hegemony or the critical consciousness of a dissenting worldview.
For scholarship on development, and global governance too, this framework opens up several key analytical and political possibilities. It invites an exploration of the “gaps,” as anthropologist Tania Li (2006:1) puts it, “between what is attempted and what is accomplished in practice” – as governmental programs bump up against the “messy conjunctures” of inhospitable material conditions, subverting populations, and indeed sedimentary layers of older, often contradictory, governmental regimes. A governmental program may disarticulate significantly from an originating global governance regime, as component parts get hijacked to alternative purposes; we can think, for example, of microfinance in Vietnam serving purposes of market socialism (Rankin and Shakya 2007) or of privatized production being enrolled in the reproduction of state power in China (Wang 2003). Or, when people find their conduct being mismanaged and their livelihoods compromised, the articulation of global governance regimes can result in the production of social groups sharing a common experience and capable of mobilizing for change (Li 2006). The real political potency of this framework lies in the possibility of tracing “relational comparisons” across connected historical geographies (Hart 2004) – as in Hart’s (2002b) own research on Taiwanese industrialists in the South African countryside. Hart links the widespread Taiwanese presence to the 1950s land reforms in Taiwan, which provided the social wage to underwrite such a massive mobilization of Taiwanese peasant labor into the industrial sector of a postcolonial transitioning economy. Tracking diverse and interrelated trajectories of sociospatial change requires critical ethnographic approaches and “quirky case studies” – engaging the expertise of scholars with long-standing area-studies commitments and geared toward identifying unexpected similarities in experience across space and scale (Pollard et al. 2009). Politically, the key question that arises is, under what conditions could these combinations of specificity and connection offer common ground for critique and the construction of feasible alternatives?
Elements of an articulation approach are gaining increasing traction in economic geography, with the emerging interest in policy mobilities and contingent neoliberalizations (Peck and Theodore 2010a; England and Ward 2007; Larner 2009; Leitner et al. 2007; McCann and Ward 2010). This work, too, begins with an understanding of place, à la Doreen Massey (1994), as open to and constituted by situated combinations of forces and relations that extend beyond specific locales. Geographers have placed considerable emphasis on the role of place-specific struggles in shaping actually existing neoliberalism and revealing its “vulnerabilities and zones of overextension” (Leitner, Peck, and Sheppard 2007: 315). Particular progressive potential is vested in cities as a site for immanent critique and an “undefended flank” of neoliberal global governance (ibid; England and Ward 2007). For all the appeals to “variegation” (Brenner, Peck, and Theodore 2010) and the dialectics of “fixity and flow” (McCann and Ward 2010), however, little empirical attention has been paid to the question of articulation, and the making and unmaking of hegemony. Analytically, this work tends to focus more on the arc of policy transfer, with recourse to methods that trace connective flows. To the extent that “culture” enters the equation, it is typically read off structures of social relations or the induced subjectivities of governmental programs. Missing are grounded accounts of the ways in which neoliberal global governance articulates specific classed, gendered, and racialized histories of dispossession (Pollard et al. 2009). Attending to these conjunctural specificities and related processes of spatial interconnection not only challenges understandings of neoliberal global governance as unfolding teleology or immanent process. It also broaches the concrete historical possibilities and constituencies for transformation.
With its emphasis on cultural politics, an articulation approach is thus particularly well poised to take up the key issue of resistance to neoliberal global governance, in a manner that neither diminishes nor romanticizes subaltern agency. There is an important role for geographic accounts of transnational social movements that can trace the “counter-topographies” forged through solidarities among diverse struggles against the dispossessions wrought by neoliberal global governance (Katz 2004). Political and development geographers have explored the WSF as a “big tent” connecting and strengthening a network of diverse regional, national, and subnational social movements (Sparke, Brown, and Corva 2005); movements organized at the scale of the state on the grounds of multiple grassroots origins (e.g. Perreault 2006; North and Huber 2004); regional transnational advocacy networks that have successfully mobilized international laws and treaties (the technologies of global governance) to protect their interest and shape national-scale policy making (Andolina, Laurie, and Radcliffe 2009); and subnational mobilizations that seek on the contrary to delink from existing regulatory frameworks for the sake of constructing a grassroots alternative to neoliberal development models (Chatterton 2005; Faulk 2008).
The articulation approach opens up several important directions for future work on resistance to neoliberal global governance. These include finer-grain accounts of political subjectivity that attend not only to articulated resistance movements but also other modes of nonconformity and contradictory consciousness (Katz 2004; Rankin 2010). The primary methodological act here becomes one of identifying the conditions under which those in marginalized social locations might recognize the arbitrary foundations of neoliberal governance as well as interests in common with those who are differently marginalized within it (Comaroff and Comaroff 1991). New research must also foreground the ways in which resistance movements themselves articulate specific racialized, gendered, and class-based practices of exclusion, inevitably reproducing some forms of injustice even as they challenge others (Andolina, Laurie, and Radcliffe 2009). Economic geographers have a particular role to play in probing more comprehensively the alternative market formations arising in the vortex of resistance movements as well as in the less perceptible everyday subversions of neoliberal formations (Rankin 2004; Shakya and Rankin 2008; Laurie and Bondi 2006) – including the rationalities, modes of regulation, and alternative political subjectivities of those alternative market formations. Finally, as anthropologist Jim Ferguson reminds us (2006: 14) in relation to the mobilities and interconnections that have become the focus of critical scholarship on global governance, there is another side of the coin: “selective forms of global connection combine with widespread disconnection and exclusion.” Disinvested places and surplus populations require the attention of economic geographers. What are the mechanisms and dynamics of disconnection? How, on the one hand, are these dynamics constitutive of global capitalism and how, on the other hand, do these dynamics articulate specific social histories? How could such investigations of spatial disconnection and exclusion contribute to the task of imagining and building alternative political economies?
Global Governance and Critical Reflexivity
The concept of “relational comparison” offers a further analytical possibility and political imperative. The field of economic geography, along with its institutional homes and disciplinary canons, has its own concrete historical geographies, through which it becomes possible to trace relations of complicity with the regulatory frameworks and political rationalities of neoliberal global governance. Beginning “at home,” as the classic feminist adage reminds us, is the first step to building a praxis of critical reflexivity that might account for the legacies of imperialism and colonialism comprising geography’s present history (Roy 2006). This personal anchoring also provides the ethical ground for reframing “home” itself as an illusion of coherence and safety that excludes the histories and perspectives of “others” for whom the site of the university is also home (Martin and Mohanty 1986) – academics trapped in their disciplinary silos, the professoriate’s own temporary and precarious workers, students, staff servicing the university, including daycare workers, custodial staff, and technicians, many of whom are themselves looped into transnational networks of migration, finance, and development. Such problematics require a more reflexive notion of comparative relationality than is typically explored in structuralist accounts of core-periphery articulations. They open up possibilities for identifying webs of interconnection within the academy that could become the basis for a powerful ethic of “critical reflexivity” – of collective accountability and political agency (Rankin 2010; Ramamurthy 2003; Silvey and Rankin 2011).
Responses to the G20 summit on Toronto university campuses prove instructive in this regard. Administrators at the University of Toronto (U of T) announced a decision to close the university in order to “protect” students, staff, and property from the violence that was expected to spill over from nearby Queens Park, which the City had specified as a “designated protest area.” Employee and student associations articulated a joint response. Together, they – we – organized a petition, a press conference, and proposals for an alternative stance that would respect legitimate concerns about security in some sections of the campus, while also preserving the symbolic function of the university as a space of free assembly, critical analysis, and public deliberation (Silvey and Rankin 2011). The university campus remained closed for the duration of the summits, Queens Park was heavily surveilled, and peaceful protests were disbanded by the police. But University of Toronto, York University, and Ryerson University faculty and students together played a prominent role in the campaigns against the surveillance of public spaces of dissent and the unprecedented police brutality that developed elsewhere in the city. Several months after the summits, a coalition of student, staff, and faculty unions and associations collaborated to protest – and successfully cancel – a “G20 Debriefing” training seminar on the U of T campus. The training was organized by the Toronto Association of Police and Private Security (TAPPS) – a public–private partnership that had facilitated an on-campus raid of the U of T Graduate Students Union by the Summit’s Integrated Security Unit (ISU) and the arbitrary arrest of 75 student visitors from Quebec. The collaborations on this front have forged deeper relationships among these labor associations at the University of Toronto, which have subsequently begun to work together in advocating a more democratic mode of governance at U of T more generally, in these times when the idea of the public university is under assault around the world.
This instance of critical reflexivity – one among many that can be found within academia and in which economic geographers are actively involved (e.g. Allen 2007; Hutnyk 2010) – raises two key points with respect to the economic geographies of global governance: first, geographers have had a key role to play in providing the analytical tools with which to challenge the false separation of “the economy” from politics and everyday life (to emphasize instead the co-constitution of economy and politics – and spatiality, environment, gender, culture, and so on); second, the engagements across different positionings within academia have produced both stronger critical analysis of global governance and new, more potent, forms of collective political agency.
Notes
1 Heartfelt thanks go to Nehal El-Hadi, Nina Laurie, Jamie Peck, Matthew Sparke, and Kathryn White for comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
2 Thanks go here to Jamie Peck for helping to articulate this point.
References
Agnew, J.A. (2005) Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Allen, K. (2007) Reed Elsevier Pulls Out of Organising Arms Fairs. The Guardian, June 1. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jun/01/citynews.business1 (accessed June 23, 2010).
Amin, S. (1998) Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. Zed Books, New York.
Andolina, R., Laurie, N., and Radcliffe, S. (2009) Indigenous Development in the Andes: Culture, Power, and Transnationalism. Duke University Press, Durham.
Bebbington, A. (2003) Global networks and local developments: Agendas for development geography. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94, 3, 297–309.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., and N. Theodore (2010) Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10, 2, 182–222.
Carney, J. (1991) Disciplining women? Rice, mechanization and the evolution of Mandinka gender relations in Senegambia. Signs, 16, 4, 651–681.
Chatterton, P. (2005) Making autonomous geographies: Argentina’s popular uprising and the Movimiento de Trabajadores Descocupados (Unemployed Workers Movement). Geoforum, 36, 5, 545–561.
Christopherson, S. (1993) Market rules and territorial outcomes: The case of the United States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17, 2, 274–288.
Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. (1991) Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness in South Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Crush, J. (1995) Power of Development. Routledge, London.
England, K. and Ward, K. (2007) Conclusion: Reflections on neoliberalizations. In K. England and K. Ward (eds), Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples. Blackwell, Malden, pp. 248–262.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Escobar, A. (2008) Territories of Difference: Place∼Movements∼Life∼Redes. Duke University Press, Durham.
Faulk, K. (2008) If they touch one of us, they touch all of us: Cooperativism as a counterlogic to neoliberal capitalism. Anthropological Quarterly, 81, 3, 579–614.
Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-politics Machine: “Development”, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ferguson, J. (2006) Global Shadows: Africa in the New World Order. Duke University Press, Durham.
Ferguson, J. and Gupta A. (2002) Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29, 4, 981–1002.
Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and the power. In H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds), Michel Foucault:Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 208–226.
Frank, A. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Fraser, N. (2003) From discipline to flexibilization? Rereading Foucault in the shadow of globalization. Constellations, 10, 3, 160–171.
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and The Last Man. The Free Press, Boston.
Gertler, M. (2004) Manufacturing Culture: The Institutional Geography of Industrial Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006) A Post-capitalist Politics. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Gilbert, E. (2005) The inevitability of integration neoliberal discourse and the proposals for a new North American economic space after September 11. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 1, 202–211.
Gill, S. (1998) New constitutionalism, democratisation and global political economy. Pacifica Review, 10, 1, 23–38.
Glasmeier, A.K. (2001) Manufacturing Time. Guilford Press, New York.
Goonewardena, K. and Kipfer, S. (2006) Spaces of difference: Reflections from Toronto of multiculturalism, bourgeois urbanism and the possibility of radical urban politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 3, 670–678.
Hall, S. (1980) Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance. Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. UNESCO, Paris, 305–345.
Hart, G. (1986) Power, Labor and Livelihood: Processes of Change in Rural Java. University of California, Berkeley.
Hart, G. (2001) Development sritiques in the 1990s: Culs de Sac and promising paths. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 4, 649–658.
Hart, G. (2002a) Geography and development: Development/s beyond neoliberalism? Power, culture, political economy. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 6, 812–822.
Hart, G. (2002b) Disabling Globalisation: Places of Power in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hart, G. (2004) Geography and development: Critical ethnographies. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 1, 91–100.
Hart, G. (2010) Redrawing the map of the world: Reflections on the world development report 2009. Economic Geography, 86, 4, 341–350.
Hussan, S. (2010) Toronto’s Communities Prepare for the G8 and G20 Summits. The Bullet, Socialist Project E-Bulletin, no. 360, May 27. Available at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/360.php (accessed June 3, 2010).
Hutnyk, J. (2010) Counter/Mapping QMary: The University and Border Technologies. Available at http://hutnyk.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/countermapping-qmary-the-university-and-border-technologies/ (accessed June 24, 2010).
Jameson, F. and Miyoshi, M. (eds) (1998) Cultures of globalization. Duke University Press, Durham.
Katz, C. (2004) Growing up Global: Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Larner, W. (2003) Guest editorial: Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, 5, 509–512.
Larner, W. (2009) Neoliberalism, Mike Moore, and the WTO. Environment and Planning A, 41, 7, 1576–1593.
Larner, W. and LeHeron, R. (2002) The spaces and subjects of a globalising economy: A situated exploration of method. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20, 6, 753–774.
Larner, W. and Walters, W. (2004) Globalization as governmentality. Alternatives, 29, 5, 495–514.
Laurie, N. and Bondi, L. (2006) (eds) Working the Spaces of Neoliberalism: Activism, Professionalisation and Incorporation. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Lawson, V. (2002) Global governmentality and graduated sovereignty: National belonging among poor migrants in Ecuador. Scottish Geography Journal, 118, 3, 235–255.
Lawson, V. (2007) Making Development Geography. Hodder Education, London.
Leitner, H., Peck, J., Sheppard, E. (2007) Squaring up to neoliberalism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck, and E. Sheppard (eds), Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 311–327.
Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., Sziarto. K., and Maringanti, A. (2007) Contesting urban futures: Decentering neoliberalism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck, and E. Sheppard (eds), Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 1–25.
Li, T. (2006) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Politics of Development. Duke University Press, Durham.
Marcuse, P. (2004) Said’s orientalism: A vital contribution today. Antipode, 36, 5, 809–817.
Martin, B. and Mohanty, C.T. (1986) Feminist politics: What’s home got to do with it? In T. de Lauretis (ed), Feminist Studies, Critical Studies. Indiana University Press, Indiana, pp. 191–212.
Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place, and Gender. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Mazer, K. and Vitale, P. (2010) City under Siege: The University of Toronto Joins the G20 Security Ring. The Bullet, Socialist Project E-Bulletin, no. 361, May 28. Available at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/361.php (accessed May 31, 2010).
McCann, E.J. and Ward, K. (2010) Relationality / Territoriality: Toward a conceptualization of cities in the world. Geoforum, 41, 2, 175–184.
McMichael, P. (2005) Globalization. In T. Janoski, R. Alford, A.M. Hicks, and M.A. Schwartz (eds), A Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 587–606.
McMichael, P. (2008) Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. 4th ed. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks.
McNally, D. (2002) Another World is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism. Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Winnipeg.
Morphet, S. (2004) Multilateralism and the non-aligned movement: What is the global south doing and where is it going? Global Governance, 10, 3, 517–537.
North, P. and Huber, U. (2004) Alternative spaces of the “Argentinazo.” Antipode, 36, 5, 964–984.
Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation–State. HarperCollins, London.
Peck, J. (2002) Political economies of scale: Fast policy, interscalar relations, and neoliberal workfare. Economic Geography, 78, 3, 331–360.
Peck, J. (2004) Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 3, 392–405.
Peck, J. (2005) Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 4, 740–770.
Peck, J. and Sheppard, E. (2010) Worlds apart? Engaging with the World Develoment Report 2009: Reshaping economic geography. Economic Geography, 86, 4, 331–340.
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010a) Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41, 2, 169–174.
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010b) Recombinant workfare, across the Americas: Transnationalizing fast welfare policy. Geoforum, 41, 2, 195–208.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1992) Local modes of social regulation? Regulation theory, Thatcherism and uneven development. Geoforum, 23, 3, 347–363.
Peet, R. (2009) Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO. 2nd ed. Zed Books, New York.
Penttilä, R.E.J. (2003) The Role of the G8 in International Peace and Security. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perreault, T. (2006) From the Guerra Del Agua to the Guerra Del Gas: Resource governance, neoliberalism and popular protest in Bolivia. Antipode, 38, 1, 150–172.
Podur, J. (2010) The G20 Debacle. The Bullet, Socialist Project E-Bulletin, no. 380, July 2. Available at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/archive4.php?f_arch=4 (accessed May 18, 2011).
Pollard, J., McEwan, C., Laurie, N., and Stenning, A. (2009) Economic geography under postcolonial scrutiny. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 34, 2, 137–142.
Prashad, V. (2007) The Darker Nations. New Press, New York.
Pred, A. and Watts, M. (1992) Reworking Modernity: Capitalisms and Symbolic Discontent. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
Ramamurthy, P. (2003) Material consumers, fabricating subjects: Perplexity, global connectivity discourses, and transnational feminist research. Cultural Anthropology, 18, 4, 524–550.
Rankin, K. (2001) Governing development: Neoliberalism, microcredit, and rational economic woman. Economy and Society, 30, 1, 18–37.
Rankin, K. (2004) The Cultural Politics of Markets: Economic Liberalization and Social Change in Nepal. Pluto and University of Toronto Press, London and Toronto.
Rankin, K. (2008) Manufacturing rural finance in Vietnam: Contested governance, market societies, entrepreneurial subjects. Geoforum, 39, 6, 1965–1977.
Rankin, K. (2010) Reflexivity and post-colonial critique: Toward an ethics of accountability in planning praxis. Planning Theory, 9, 3, 1–19.
Rankin, K. and Shakya, Y. (2007) Neoliberalising the grassroots: Microfinance and the politics of development in Nepal. In K. England and K. Ward (eds), Neo-liberalisation: Networks, States, Peoples. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 48–76.
Roberts, S., Secord, A., and Sparke, M. (2003) Neoliberal geopolitics. Antipode, 35, 886–897.
Roy, A. (2006) Praxis in the time of empire. Planning Theory, 5, 1, 7–29.
Roy, A. (2010) Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. Routledge, New York.
Said, E. (1979) Orientalism. Vintage Books, London.
Shakya, Y. and Rankin, K.N. (2008) The Politics of subversion in development practice: An exploration of microfinance in Nepal and Vietnam. Journal of Development Studies, 44, 8, 1181–1202.
Sheppard, E. and Leitner, H. (2010) Quo Vadis neoliberalism? The remaking of global capitalist governance after the Washington consensus. Geoforum, 41, 2, 185–194.
Silvey, R. and Rankin, K. (2011) Development geography: Critical development studies and political geographic imaginaries. Progress in Human Geography, 35, 2, 1–9.
Smith, S. (2005) States, markets and an ethic of care. Political Geography, 24, 1, 1–20.
Sparke, M. (2004) Political geography: Political geographies of globalization (1) – dominance. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 6, 777–794.
Sparke, M. (2006) Political geography: political geographies of globalization (2) – governance. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 3, 357–372.
Sparke, M. (2008) Political geography: Political geographies of globalization (3) – resistance. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 3, 423–440.
Sparke, M. (2011) Introducing Globalization: The Ties that Bind. Blackwell-Wiley, Oxford.
Sparke, M., Brown, E., and Corva, D. (2005) The world social forum and the lessons for economic geography. Economic Geography, 81, 4, 359–380.
Stiglitz, J. (2006) Making Globalization Work. W.W. Norton, New York.
Swyngedouw, E. (2002) The Marxian alternative: Historical-geographical materialism and the political economy of capitalism. In E. Sheppard and T.J. Barnes (eds), A Companion to Economic Geography. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, pp. 41–59.
The 2010 People’s Summit (2010) Building a Movement for a Just World. Rabble.ca, 2010. Available at http://rabble.ca/whatsup/2010-people%E2%80%99s-summit-%E2%80%9Cbuilding-movement-just-world%E2%80%9D (accessed June 8, 2011).
Tickell, A. and Peck, J. (2003) Making global rules: Globalization or neoliberalization. In H. Yeung and J. Peck (eds), Remaking the Global Economy. Sage, London, pp. 163–181.
Viswanathan, L. (2009) Contesting racialization in a neoliberal city: Cross-cultural collective identity as a Strategy among alternative planning organizations in Toronto. Geojournal, 75, 3, 261–272.
Wade, R. (1996) Japan, the World Bank, and the art of paradigm maintenance: The East Asian miracle in political perspective. New Left Review, 217, 3–36.
Wang, H. (2003) China’s New Order. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ward, K. and England, K. (2007) Introduction: Reading neoliberalization. In K. England and K. Ward (eds), Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples. Blackwell, Malden, pp. 1–22.
Watts, M. (1983) Silent Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. University of California, Berkeley.