Social Polis Social Platform on Cities and Social Cohesion

1. Social PolisSocial Platform on Cities and Social Cohesion www.socialpolis.eu

2. From Focused Research Agendas to a Short List of Research Priorities … … followed by a long list Frank Moulaert and Davide Cassinari

3. Items covered in this presentation • What is expected from us today concerning the selection of a research agenda? Our bloody duty … • Focused Research Agendas: their logic, their content • Missing topics: amendments from lead-partners • Suggestions from the Innercircle of Stakeholders • Comments from Stakeholder Workshops • Short-list, long-list ….: FRA today, long-list as of today

4. What is expected from us today concerning selection of research agenda? • A shortlist of 2 topics and 2 challenges • A first sketch of long-list of research priorities, well argued and packaged (not as toxic products, but as honest inquiries), pre-conceived today, matured tomorrow, finalised by IC stakeholders?

5. Logics of the 2 FRA • FRA1 more systemic and methodological? More academic as one stakeholder workshop pointed out? It especially puts more stress on changes in the urban system within its wider spatial dynamics. Also looks at views of a more cohesive future, ways of governance of cohesion and diversity. Less oriented toward action, more toward understanding. • FRA2 more thematically and more oriented toward the definition of new collective action and policy. Dynamics are considered a challenge and a lever for collective action, public policy and participation. FRA2 – 1 could be considered a methodological bridge between FRA 1 and FRA 2.

6. Focused Research Agenda 1 • Urban social cohesion in the face of global changes • Rethinking cities in the ecological age • Developing a plural economic approach to tackle the urban economic divide • Governing cohesion and diversity • Understanding urban behaviour, community initiatives and neighbourhood development

7. Focused Research Agenda 2 • Reuniting research on urban social cohesion • Social exclusion dynamics as a challenge to social cohesion • Redefining welfare in cities, sustainability and social justice • The governance of the private and public domains • Participation, democratisation and socially creative strategies

8. Missing topics: amendments from Social Polis Lead Partners • How the diversification of services is governed; defamilialisation & (re)familialisation of services and their link to changes on the housing markets. • Relationship between housing, social cohesion and social bonds; housing and neighborhoods in Eastern Europe; sociopolitical metabolism of neighborhoods. • Research on education (accessibility, resources needed to access education, exclusion from schools); issues of vocational training. • Salient discourses on diversity; diversity and human rights and citizenship; multiple identities.

9. Missing topics: amendments from Social Polis Lead Partners • Cities as a multiscalar /and multicultural learning platforms; community-based learning and social cohesion in urban environments. Learning spaces as urban landmarks. • The impact of urban regeneration projects on social cohesion. • How social polarisation and fragmentation are institutionalized; How grassroots initiatives can be integrated into local networks of social service provision; how bottom-up initiatives can be considered as co-producers of debate on urban agenda.

10. Intermediate conclusion on ‘integrability’ of FRA /EF proposals • When privileging one FRA, include strength of other • Many EF themes focus on specific urban subsystems, social relations, social practices, institutions, … can therefore be connected to FRA. • Specific process dimensions: social learning across the city; institutionalization of polarization, fragmentation, exclusion, integration, cohesive strategies, etc.

11. Suggestions from the Inner Circle of Stakeholders • Position of Social Polis in debates on Social Cohesion should be put in front of FRA : “To foster research that will promote processes and strategies leading to greater social cohesion in the city.” • Relationships between structure – governance – agency should be stressed, as well as between formal and informal initiatives. • Impacts (also unpredicted) of urban restructuring programmes on social cohesion. • ‘Splitting' the focused research agenda into two closely related but distinct 'agendas'/documents would facilitate the debate.

12. Suggestions from Stakeholder Workshops • Overview of workshops • Types of comments/suggestions • Conclusions for the improvement of the Research Agenda

13. Overview of stakeholder workshops Polis International Workshops organised by Stakeholders • 21st October  2008 – Malmö : “Intercultural Competence” (1)‏ • 25th - 26th November 2008 – Santiago: “New Covenant in building social cohesion in Latin American cities”.(2)‏ • 12-13 January 2009 – Paris : “Think differently: Supporting local socioeconomic initiatives in the city for strengthening social cohesion?”.(3)‏ • 29th - 30th January 2009 – Barcelona : “Global and local dynamics in cities from a gender perspective: the case of Barcelona”(4)‏ • 11th February 2009 – Manchester : “Nature, social cohesion and the city” (5)‏ • 6th March 2009– Milan :"Social cohesion in city, local welfare and social services”(6)‏ • 30th April – 2nd May 2009 – Brussels: "Micronomics"(7)‏

14. Overview of stakeholder workshops Local Stakeholder Meetings and Workshops organised by Lead Partners • 17th October 2008, Lisbon (8)‏ • 11th December 2008, Leuven (9)‏ • 11th December 2008, Barcelona (10)‏ • 17th December 2008, Naples (11)‏ • 13th January 2009, Vienna (12)‏ Twelve apostolic messages?

15. Types of comments and suggestions – Approaches used at stakeholder workshops • Stakeholders involvement • General structure of the FRA1 and FRA2 • Which topics from FRA are more important? • New research topics suggested by stakeholders: as to EF and as to FRA themes

16. Feedback on Stakeholders involvement • Their association to a specific EF is not clear enough for some stakeholders • Benefits from the involvement in Social Polis remain unclear • Website: online documents should be relatively short • Stakeholders ask that Social Polis objectives and their time-frame should be clearly defined and stakeholders be made aware regularly about the progress made (Lisbon)‏ • Appreciated short term benefits (grants for workshops and for paper writing, Wien conference) (Naples)‏ • Mailing list and newsletter appreciated (Leuven, Lisbon)

17. General structure of FRA1 and FRA2 • FRA2 is more appreciated and seen as more linked with an action type or action oriented type of research. FRA1 is considered as more academic. Some stakeholder workshops proposed to merge both agendas. • Revising FRA given the world economic crisis (Leuven) • Some stakeholders found the language and the structure of the FRA not clear. Some of them proposed different structures (Vienna, Malmo)‏

18. Which topics from FRA are more important? The choice of the topics to be covered should focus on dynamics of inequality and take into account the spheres where the city has possibilities to regulate and intervene (Vienna). This is quite close to FRA 2.

19. New research topics suggested by stakeholders: themes linked to FRA • Privatization of public space, social cohesion and the rich, good and bad practices (Leuven)‏ • Intercultural competence (Malmo)‏ • Family-based model in southern Europe and social cohesion (Naples)‏ • How to institutionalize forms of governance based on networking and partnership as ways to govern conflicts ? (Naples)‏ • Depersonalization, flexibility and individualization of work careers in labour markets (Naples)‏ • Insecurity in cities as related to neoliberal policies in Latin America (Santiago)‏ • Worsening conditions for women, ethnic minorities and youths in Latin American cities? (Santiago)‏ • New cohesive actors and decline of the ‘traditional’ ones (Santiago)‏

20. New research topics suggested by stakeholders: EF themes • Gender and migrations: care workers and sex workers EF2, EF9 (Barcelona)‏ • Stakeholders excluded top-level decisional process: how does that proceed and how may the city be a linkage between stakeholders and the decisional processes ? EF6 (Vienna)‏ • What are the most symbolic local and dynamic initiatives in the urban environment? What are their characteristics and under what conditions are they able to foster change? (Paris) • What are the added values of the grassroots initiatives? How can we evaluate the impact on social cohesion initiatives and processes? Are indicators useful? (Paris) • What is the role of the social economy in the construction of urban public policies for social cohesion in cities? EF11 (Paris)‏

21. Shortlist, longlist … • Shortissimmo: 1 topic and 1 challenge • Shortlist: 2 topics and 1 challenge • Longlist (from 100 to 24 topics… and how to integrate them into ‘wider’ themes…): EF workshops and post Vienna

22. Shortissimmo: 1 topic and 1 challenge 1 Topic: Patterns of local welfare favouring social cohesion in the city International and inter-regional comparative research should investigate the different patterns of local welfare systems, considering their effects on social inequalities, and examining which are the most favourable to social cohesion and sustainability. Local welfare systems can be identified according to : a) the role of local policies in relation to regional and national welfare systems; b) the local political and institutional culture oriented to recognition of social rights; d) the relative presence of third sector organisations working in social welfare fields and d) the ways of coordination between state agencies, third sector organisations, private firms and families and communities that formally and/or informally constitute the components of a local governance culture.

23. 1 topic continued … This research implies looking extensively at the role of different providers of welfare services (public providers, third sector, not for profit, and for profit sector) and their partnerships, the role of public policy, the governance of the local welfare systems, the relationships between formal and informal initiatives, etc. To this purpose inclusion and exclusion effects of local welfare systems will be examined (e.g. access to services, quality of services and conditions of labour in the services). Urban policy recommendations for local welfare system improvement will be part of the research.

24. One challenge? No final decision made, here but ranked by IC stakeholders: Urban social cohesion in the face of global changes The decision on the second challenge and the remainder of the research topics on ‘Social Cohesion and the City’ should be left to the Vienna stakeholder conference to be held in May 2009. [Challenge 2: Urban social cohesion and the environmental challenge –from FRA1]

25. Shortlist? The purpose is to provide the European Commission, SSH, with two more Challenge and Two more topics. Here are some suggestions:

26. Shortlist …. • Topic 1: How participation processes can foster democratization, socially creative strategies and community initiatives. • Topic 2: Governing cohesion and diversity • Challenges: two to be picked from: Suggestion 1: Urban social cohesion in the face of global changes Suggestion 2: Urban social cohesion and the environmental challenge Suggestion 3:How can a plural economic approach contrast an exclusive labour market while at the same time promoting sustainable cities and providing public goods.

27. Topic 1 How participation processes can foster democratization, socially creative strategies and community initiatives (from FRA 2.5, less from FRA 1.5 and from stakeholder workshops specified here)

28. Topic 1 As cities have been shaken up by significant restructuring in most of the existential fields and arenas of collective action, numerous opportunities for new activities, models of association and governance have emerged. Research can play a key role in exploring these challenges and opportunities, understanding how they link with the current social changes, which lead to new and old forms of solidarity, and translating them into plausible proposals for governance and collective action.

29. Topic 1 The research needs to analyze experiences in the fields of social innovation, social economy (from Paris workshop), civic culture and creativity as vectors of social inclusion, assessing when and how they can foster political change and promote social cohesion (and when they do the contrary). A special focus should be given on how bottom-up initiatives can link with high-level decisional processes (from Vienna workshop). Another research sub-topic will be the role of creativity and arts and the impact of particular features of urbanity in community-based learning and socialization dynamics. The topic should also cover the analysis of: social and environmental civic movements; tools for territorial participation; the roles of new and old cohesion actors (latter topic is from Santiago workshop). Structure of topic from FRA 2.5.

30. Topic 2 Governing cohesion and diversity (based on FRA 1.4 together with some stakeholder workshop suggestions)

31. Topic 2 Governing diversity in fragmented and polarized urban areas is a key issue for analyzing, within various research themes, the institutional arrangements and mechanisms in constructing social cohesion in the city. Tensions between diversity and cohesive development of the city as a whole is not systematically researched. There is a need for comparative research on the political and social impacts of the distinctive modes of urban multi-scalar governance, the inter-actions between central and local governments, on the restructuring and transformation of inequalities and segregations between ethnic, gender and inhabitants’ social categories. Formal and informal citizenship practices help to reinforce the social fabric as well as to incorporate alternative views of societies’ well-being. (FRA 1.4)

32. Topic 2 The research will include the following sub-themes: - How minorities can be strongly affected by insecurity produced by neoliberal policies: women, youths, ethnic minorities (Santiago workshop). - A wide-scope understanding of diversity including not only questions of ethnicity, gender and lived citizenship, but also inequality, segregation and socio-ecological fragmentation (FRA 1.4). A special focus should be given to migrant women, as they are one of the most excluded social groups (2nd Barcelona workshop). -The gap between discourses and collective practices regarding social exclusion; the history of thought and policy-making regarding poverty, social polarisation, spatial equity, justice, exclusion and cohesion. - The role of conflict in urban development agenda building. The importance of governance dynamics in empowering disadvantaged groups as well creating democratic mechanism for conflict resolution, with a special focus on the importance of (and how to promote) intercultural competence (Malmo workshop).

33. Challenges: as described in FRA (available from website) Challenges: two to be picked from: Suggestion 1: Urban social cohesion in the face of global changes Suggestion 2: Urban social cohesion and the environmental challenge Suggestion 3:How can a plural economic approach contrast an exclusive labour market while at the same time promoting sustainable cities and providing public goods.

34. Expected output from this conference as to research suggestions: • 2 topics and 2 challenges • 25 additional research topics, ‘packaged’ and ‘(re)directed’ • Prepare a meeting where