AbstractWhat roles do cities play in fostering general social movements? This article maintains that cities facilitate particular types of relations that are good at making high-quality resources available to mobilizations operating at a variety of spatial scales. However, while large and complex urban systems may be well suited for these types of relations, whether they actually develop depends on the nature of local power relations between political authorities and civic organizations. In certain cities local configurations of political power may favor the growth of these relations, with these cities becoming important nodal points in geographically extended social movement networks. In other cities, by contrast, local configurations of political power may hamper the formation of these relations. This is a theoretical article that draws on network theory to inform the conceptual framework and a variety of empirical cases for illustrative purposes.What roles do cities play in fostering general social movements? This article maintains that cities facilitate particular types of relations that are good at making high-quality resources available to mobilizations operating at a variety of spatial scales. However, while large and complex urban systems may be well suited for these types of relations, whether they actually develop depends on the nature of local power relations between political authorities and civic organizations. In certain cities local configurations of political power may favor the growth of these relations, with these cities becoming important nodal points in geographically extended social movement networks. In other cities, by contrast, local configurations of political power may hamper the formation of these relations. This is a theoretical article that draws on network theory to inform the conceptual framework and a variety of empirical cases for illustrative purposes.RésuméQuels rôles les villes jouent-elles dans l’alimentation des mouvements sociaux généraux? Elles facilitent des types particuliers de relations qui réussissent à rendre des ressources de qualité accessibles à des mobilisations opérant à divers échelons spatiaux. Pourtant, si les grands réseaux urbains complexes sont sans doute bien adaptés à ces types de relations, leur développement effectif dépend de la nature des relations de pouvoir locales entre les autorités politiques et les organisations de citoyens. Dans certaines villes, les configurations locales du pouvoir politique peuvent favoriser l’intensification de ces relations, ces villes devenant d’importants points nodaux au sein de réseaux de mouvements sociaux de grande ampleur géographique. Dans d’autres, en revanche, les configurations locales du pouvoir politique peuvent gêner la constitution de ces relations. Cet article théorique utilise la théorie des réseaux pour éclairer le cadre conceptuel et plusieurs cas empiriques à titre indicatif.Quels rôles les villes jouent-elles dans l’alimentation des mouvements sociaux généraux? Elles facilitent des types particuliers de relations qui réussissent à rendre des ressources de qualité accessibles à des mobilisations opérant à divers échelons spatiaux. Pourtant, si les grands réseaux urbains complexes sont sans doute bien adaptés à ces types de relations, leur développement effectif dépend de la nature des relations de pouvoir locales entre les autorités politiques et les organisations de citoyens. Dans certaines villes, les configurations locales du pouvoir politique peuvent favoriser l’intensification de ces relations, ces villes devenant d’importants points nodaux au sein de réseaux de mouvements sociaux de grande ampleur géographique. Dans d’autres, en revanche, les configurations locales du pouvoir politique peuvent gêner la constitution de ces relations. Cet article théorique utilise la théorie des réseaux pour éclairer le cadre conceptuel et plusieurs cas empiriques à titre indicatif.

This essay examines how geography affects the different types of networks underlying social movements. The principal argument of the paper is that networks forged in particular places and at great distances play distinctive yet complementary functions in broad-based social movements. Not only does the articulation of these different types of networks result in complementary roles, but it also introduces key relational dynamics affecting the stability of the entire social movement. The purpose of the paper is therefore threefold: to provide a conceptual framework for interpreting the complex geographies of contemporary social movement networks, to stress the contributions of place-based relations in social movements and to assess how activist places connect to form ‘social movement space’.

This article aims to provide a review of how geographical concepts can help us better understand the development and effects of social movements. Geographers have been rather slow to analyze the specific processes and mechanisms that make it possible for people to cooperate and engage in sustained political struggles with rich and powerful adversaries. Not only has this inattention to social movements deprived the discipline of robust conceptual tools for analyzing contentious politics, it has also limited the discipline's abilities to contend with broader theoretical issues concerning collective action and agency in the political arena. Recent research into social movements has begun to fill this void. The article maintains that the most fruitful strategy for conceptualizing the geographical underpinnings of social movements would be to examine how issues of space, scale, and place affect the processes already identified in the established sociological and political science literature on social movements.

AbstractIn recent years there has been a growing interest in new participatory forms of urban governance. This introduction provides readers with a basic review of current debates in the literature and a summary of the articles presented in the symposium. The introduction highlights two major tensions in the literature. First, many scholars operate under an assumption that plural actors can achieve a lasting and rational consensus on certain issues. Others believe that where there is consensus, there is also a silenced margin. For these critics, rather than focusing on building power-laden consensus, it is better to recognize and respect conflict and difference as normal parts of the governance process. Second, the introduction considers some of the possibilities for cross-national comparisons of participatory governance regimes. Scholars should not limit their analyses to institutional designs across countries but assess the importance of particular sociopolitical contexts in giving formal institutions their actual meanings and functions.In recent years there has been a growing interest in new participatory forms of urban governance. This introduction provides readers with a basic review of current debates in the literature and a summary of the articles presented in the symposium. The introduction highlights two major tensions in the literature. First, many scholars operate under an assumption that plural actors can achieve a lasting and rational consensus on certain issues. Others believe that where there is consensus, there is also a silenced margin. For these critics, rather than focusing on building power-laden consensus, it is better to recognize and respect conflict and difference as normal parts of the governance process. Second, the introduction considers some of the possibilities for cross-national comparisons of participatory governance regimes. Scholars should not limit their analyses to institutional designs across countries but assess the importance of particular sociopolitical contexts in giving formal institutions their actual meanings and functions.RésuméDernièrement, les nouvelles formes participatives de gouvernance urbaine ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt accru. Ce texte introductif présente un bilan rapide des débats qui animent la littérature actuelle, ainsi qu'une synthèse des articles proposés pour le symposium. On trouve deux lignes d'opposition principales dans les publications. En premier lieu, de nombreux chercheurs partent du principe qu'une pluralité d'acteurs peut atteindre un consensus durable et rationnel sur certains sujets. D'autres sont convaincus que s'il y a consensus, une minorité est également réduite au silence ; selon eux, au lieu de se consacrer à bâtir un consensus dans un rapport de force, il vaut mieux admettre et respecter conflit et différence comme des composantes normales du processus de gouvernance. En second lieu, cette introduction envisage certaines possibilités de comparaisons transnationales de systèmes de gouvernance participative; les spécialistes ne devraient pas limiter leurs analyses aux concepts institutionnels internationaux, mais évaluer plutôt l'importance des contextes sociopolitiques particuliers lorsqu'il s'agit de donner aux institutions formelles leur sens et fonctions réels.Dernièrement, les nouvelles formes participatives de gouvernance urbaine ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt accru. Ce texte introductif présente un bilan rapide des débats qui animent la littérature actuelle, ainsi qu'une synthèse des articles proposés pour le symposium. On trouve deux lignes d'opposition principales dans les publications. En premier lieu, de nombreux chercheurs partent du principe qu'une pluralité d'acteurs peut atteindre un consensus durable et rationnel sur certains sujets. D'autres sont convaincus que s'il y a consensus, une minorité est également réduite au silence ; selon eux, au lieu de se consacrer à bâtir un consensus dans un rapport de force, il vaut mieux admettre et respecter conflit et différence comme des composantes normales du processus de gouvernance. En second lieu, cette introduction envisage certaines possibilités de comparaisons transnationales de systèmes de gouvernance participative; les spécialistes ne devraient pas limiter leurs analyses aux concepts institutionnels internationaux, mais évaluer plutôt l'importance des contextes sociopolitiques particuliers lorsqu'il s'agit de donner aux institutions formelles leur sens et fonctions réels.

As high technology development has created important resources and opportunities for some residents of cities, it has also introduced a new set of barriers and constraints for others. The new inequalities resulting from this pathway of economic development present local public officials with important challenges for managing their cities. This article argues that local strategies to confront inequalities in high technology cities are dependent on how individual states have undertaken restructuring reforms over the last 30 years. In France, the state has ceded some control over the allocation of economic resources to markets while retaining some control over the allocation of welfare resources. The rising importance of markets and the continued centrality of a redistributive state in French cities have resulted in the formation of distinct types of policy communities in the areas of economic development and welfare. The former community operates according to an entrepreneurial logic and the latter community continues to operate according to a political/statist logic. These local policy communities are like two ships passing in the night, embedded in and responding to distinct institutional constraints that lead them in very different directions.

Polycentric forms of urban governance present urban actors with a wide array of new challenges. As many scholars have focused much attention on the challenges facing urban policy-makers, fewer have analyzed the challenges facing residents and associations seeking to influence the policy making process of their cities.