Liberal cities in reactionary nation-states
A research agenda
This post was written by Nufar Avni and Tal Alster.
Our research project aims to unpack the trend of local governments seeking more autonomy in the face of rising tensions with the nation-state. In recent years, we have witnessed growing clashes between non-liberal, reactionary and neo-nationalist nation-states and major cities within these states. Cities like Warsaw, Istanbul, and Tel Aviv-Jaffa thrive as ‘islands’ of liberal and progressive regimes, demanding to influence ‘big’ policy issues, such as refugees, civil rights, energy and the environment that are usually considered the domain of the state. One striking political move that demonstrates such tensions was the formation of the Pact of Free Cities (Warsaw, Bratislava, Prague and Budapest) in December 2019, aiming to channel EU funding to the municipal level and share best practices to tackle urban problems. Another example was former US president Trump’s continuous fight against sanctuary cities in US locales. This raises the question as to why these cities challenge state policies since, ultimately, openly confronting these authoritarian or neo-nationalist regimes carries significant risks. Indeed, arguments about the liberal nature of cities have been raised in urban studies and related disciplines for several decades now. Until now, most explanations have focused on the global context or the city as a whole. Scholars have argued that under the circumstances of globalization, wealth depends on international cooperation, open borders and open trade (Castells, 1996; Florida, 2002; Sassen, 1991). Other explanations have addressed city life as a source for liberalism and progressiveness (Sandercock, 2000; Valentine, 2008), whereas others have noted that more liberals move to cities (Brown & Enos, 2021). While not dismissing the value of these explanations, our research shifts the spotlight to local elites’ political, economic and cultural interests, exploring their position in the growing polarization between (liberal) cities and (reactionary) states. We place emphasis on the role of previously hegemonic liberal elites who use the city as a mediating institution to promote their material interests and political values and negotiate with the national government on their behalf. As these groups internalize their diminished role at the national level, the concentration of power at the local level can serve as a way to both protect their current status and to regain a foothold in negotiations with the state and other social groups in the country. We aim to shed new light on not only the city structure that promotes liberalism on the one hand, and aggregates voters on the other hand, but also on the political, material, and value-laden interests of dominant groups that use the city as a political instrument. We understand urban autonomy to be a highly politicized, dynamic and relational process rather than as a static concept. We offer a study of the growing schism between cities and states from a multifaceted perspective that considers various logics such as class, capital, ethnicity and political affiliation. We ask what is the driving force behind the growing polarization between cities and states, what are the expectations of liberal urban elites from the city, and to what extent is the growing desire for autonomy reflected in policy-making? We believe that answering these questions will generate timely insights about urban autonomy at the present era. In the last year, we have been working on the case study of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Tel Aviv henceforth). Tel Aviv is an exemplary case of a liberal, leftist, progressive and secular city that is confronting a right-wing, reactionary, illiberal national government. This polarization has accentuated since November 2022, when the newly-elected national government began to promote a judicial reform or overhaul, and Tel Aviv became the epicenter of the protest movement, supported by Mayor Huldai (Avni, 2023). Yet the city’s relative independent stand, in the highly centralized Israeli system, is not new (Alfasi & Fenster, 2005). Its strong position as the country’s economic engine has allowed it to initiate and fund projects that complement, or contradict, existing governmental policies and services. For example, in 1998, the city took a pioneering step by hosting Israel’s first annual pride parade, which has grown to become one of the world’s largest. The following year, the municipality established Mesila, a local agency offering welfare, health, and education assistance to the city’s 33,500 asylum seekers and work immigrants—contrary to national policy. Since 2019, the municipality has also defied national regulations and status-quo by providing free public transit on Saturdays (Shabbat, the Jewish day of rest). Our research in Tel Aviv is comprised of several phases. We aim to test our hypothesis regarding a liberal (post) hegemonic group that influences policy-making to protect its values and lifestyle. We conducted a survey with 450 respondents and are in the process of analyzing the results. We hope to characterize this group and understand its expectations and priorities from the municipality. We also began a policy analysis in different areas where the municipality demonstrated demands for more autonomy, such as the provision of public transportation on Shabbat and LGBTQ+ rights. We plan to also conduct in-depth interviews with respondents to the survey as well as decision-makers and activists to determine how these policies have evolved and why and to evaluate the role of residents in shaping municipal policy-making. In the future, we plan to expand this research to international cases and study these processes—with their unique dynamics—in other cities such as Budapest and Istanbul. We would very much appreciate feedback and discussion on our topic and invite scholars with similar interests to get in touch with us and exchange views. Through this exchange, we hope to generate innovative and timely insights about urban autonomy, highlighting how urban liberal elites negotiate with the city amidst growing illiberal tendencies at the state level, as well as bigger questions about the clashes between cities and states. References: Alfasi, N., & Fenster, T. (2005). A tale of two cities: Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in an age of globalization. Cities, 22(5), 351–363. Avni, N. (2023). Cities fight for autonomy: A view from an ongoing protest in Israel. European Urban and Regional Studies. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764231201563 Brown, J. R., & Enos, R. D. (2021). The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01066-z Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture (3 volumes). Blackwell. Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic books. Sandercock, L. (2000). When strangers become neighbors: managing cities of difference. Planning Theory and Practice, 1(1), 13–30. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press. Valentine, G. (2008). Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133308089372
You may also like
Unpacking urban power
How justice for some ends up jeopardizing justice for all
