Planning Theory http://plt.sagepub.

com/

Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning

Ananya Roy Planning Theory 2011 10: 6 DOI: 10.1177/1473095210386065 The online version of this article can be found at: http://plt.sagepub.com/content/10/1/6

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Planning Theory can be found at: Email Alerts: http://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://plt.sagepub.com/content/10/1/6.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 11, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Article

Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning

Ananya Roy

Planning Theory 10(1) 615 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473095210386065 plt.sagepub.com

University of California, Berkeley

Abstract This special issue seeks to return the urban to the heart of planning theory. In doing so, it has three objectives. Firstly, it highlights particular urbanisms: how they are produced, lived and negotiated, from New York to Bogota. The articles thus draw attention to the multiplicity of urbanisms that constitute the contemporary world system, thereby disrupting the rather restricted analytics of global cities and world cities. Secondly, the articles pay careful attention to the forms of worlding at work in such urbanisms, demonstrating how the production of the urban takes place in the crucible of modernizing projects of development, regimes of immigration and governance and experiments with neoliberalism and market rule.Thirdly, this special issue seeks to explore the implications of such research and analysis for the field of ideas currently constituted as planning theory. How does the study of urbanisms allow a rigorous understanding of planning as the organization and transformation of space? How can planning theory make sense of seemingly unplanned spaces that lie outside the grid of visible order? In what ways is planning itself a worlding practice, such that models, best practices, expertise and capital circulate in transnational fashion, creating new worlds of planning common sense? Keywords development, globalization, space, politics, urban The field of the theory of planning remains amorphous. It is marked by fluidity and heterogeneity. Although it is possible to identify dominant theories of planning and to thereby trace paradigm shifts from rational-comprehensive models to advocacy planning to the more recent interest in communicative practice, it is not possible to argue that such dominant paradigms unite and define a community of inquiry. This may be the case because planning derives its theory from the philosophies of various social theorists:
Corresponding author: Ananya Roy, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 228 Wurster Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1850 Email: ananya@berkeley.edu

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Roy

from Habermas to Harvey, from Latour to Lacan. To apply such theories of the social world to the particular project that is planning is a creative enterprise. But it also makes for the lack of coherent theoretical form, such that it can be difficult even to reach agreement on the very object of theory: planning. What is planning? The answers to this question in planning theory are divided, contentious and at the very least multiple. Such multiplicity, I believe, is the strength rather than weakness of planning theory. It is also necessary because the project of planning itself is heterogeneous, even contradictory. On the one hand, planning is the face of power and order, expressing the interests of economic and political regimes. On the other hand, planning is social struggle and mobilization for justice and opportunity. On the one hand, planning is the knowledge of anointed experts, armed with microeconomic theories of land markets and toolkits of communicative mediation. On the other hand, planning is rowdy debate and a remaking of the very sphere of public discourse and its signs and symbols. In this special issue of Planning Theory we seek to make a contribution to the theory of planning by drawing attention to the making of cities, or what may be understood as the neglected sieve of space (Smith, 2003: ix). It is our intention to foreground urbanism in the theorization of planning. In doing so we argue that whatever else planning theory may be concerned with, it must take up as serious study the production of urban space. A focus on the urban problematic may not, and indeed should not, unite a community of inquiry and field of theory. But it is a necessary ingredient of how planning is conceptualized and practiced. A planning theory that ignores the question of urbanism is one that remains distant from the materiality of late capitalism and its political closures and openings. It is a theory that fails to speak to the human condition of much of the contemporary world. And it is a theory that runs the risk of remaining silent on the pressing question of the social constitution of planning, of how planning as an urbanistic practice is implicated in the struggles of the capitalist city.

Urbanisms in the world order

The concept of urbanism has been the central canon of much of the urban theory produced in the 20th century. In his definitive 1938 article Louis Wirth presented urbanism as an ecological order characterized by size, density and heterogeneity. For the Chicago School of urban sociology this ecology in turn produced distinctive forms of social behavior and patterns, including those of alienation and anonymity. But urbanism as ecology was a limited concept, an urban ideology, as Castells (1972) was to argue, that obfuscated the capitalist political economy that produced urban space. Such Marxist critiques contained echoes of a more complex argument about urbanism presented by Georg Simmel in his 1903 [1971] article, Metropolis and Mental Life Predating Wirth, Simmels analysis was concerned with a metropolitan way of life and its time-space disjunctures but ultimately situated metropolitanism in a money economy. It is this territorialization of capital that was absent in the ecological abstractions of Chicago School urbanism. But it was to become prominent in the analysis of French philosopher, Henri Lefebvre. In a series of publications Lefebvre makes the case that late capitalism is marked by an urban revolution. It is important to note that for Lefebvre the urban condition is not

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Planning Theory 10(1)

coincident with the venue of the city. Instead, Lefebvre uses the term urban to signal the processes through which the production of space becomes the prime engine of economy and society. Yet, in Lefebvres work urbanism is not overdetermined by capital accumulation. Urbanism is an assemblage of meanings and signs, of spatial memories and lived experiences. It is the politics of space and the spatialization of politics. Space, for Lefebvre, is radically open (Smith, 2003). Ultimately, Lefebvre is interested in what may be understood to be the epistemology of the urban: what are the theoretical practices through which we understand the urban? What is the discipline of urbanism? Do such practices engender a new politics of space? As Smith (2003: xii) notes, this was the task of Lefebvres early contribution, The Urban Revolution. It was meant to intervene in a field of knowledge production that was dominated by primarily descriptive sketches of the urban, those that Lefebvre saw as ideological blind fields, obscuring constitutive socio-spatial relations. Indeed, in the introduction to The Production of Space, Lefebvre (1974:7) makes a distinction between inventories of what exists in space, even discourse on space and what he terms knowledge of space (emphases in original). In this special issue we use the term urbanism to mean four interrelated processes. Firstly, urbanism refers to the territorial circuits of late capitalism. Following Lefebvre, we are interested not merely in objects in space but rather in the very production of space. This urban transformation is evident in the heartland of global cities like New York and Santiago as well as in the frontiers of capitalist and imperialist expansion such as Kabul. To understand the urban character of capitalism it is necessary to pay attention to how the city, as a platform of market rule and state practice, is implicated in various projects of neoliberalism, developmentalism, modernization and postcolonialism. To state that the production of space is a capitalist enterprise, then, is not sufficient, for capital accumulation co-exists, often in contradictory fashion, with other projects of space and power. It is thus necessary to pay attention to the particular conjunctures through which capitalism is consolidated and challenged. Such conjunctures have territorial manifestations: Kabuls global village that houses an apparatus of transnational aid and development; the designed, watched over public spaces of Bogota that seek to produce model citizens; the uneasy alliance of neoliberal calculation and developmentalist ambition in the infrastructure projects of Santiago; the highly differentiated hierarchy of regulation and rights in claims to space on the sidewalks of New York City. Secondly, urbanism indicates a set of social struggles over urban space. Lefebvres normative intervention of the right to the city an assertion of use value over exchange value is perhaps too demanding a concept for an analysis of these variegated struggles. The unceasing and minute tactics that both govern and negotiate the habitation of space on the sidewalks of New York, in the public spaces of Bogota, at the margins of highway projects in Santiago do not necessarily fit the prescription of revolutionary spatial practice. But they constitute a field of contradictions and antagonisms that can be understood as what Merrifield (2002: 17) has called dialectical urbanism, an urbanism of ambiguity and contradiction and conflict. Merrifield (2002: 9) rightly notes that urbanism is a political experience, political as it pertains to issues of power and conflict. Thirdly, urbanism is a formally constituted object, one produced through the public apparatus that we may designate as planning. It is thus that in Bogota violence and

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Roy

inequality are transformed into pedagogical urbanism, a planned social order. This face of urbanism is that which Lefebvre (1974) critically examines as representations of space the signs and symbols deployed by experts as they seek to control and order space. Indeed, Lefebvre (1974: 11) makes the case for the active the operational or instrumental role of space, as knowledge and action in the perpetuation of hegemony. It is in this sense that urbanism is pedagogical, as is the case of the model city, Bogota. As argued by Rachel Berney in this issue, here urbanism is an object constituted through planning and is thus implicated in the efforts to constitute model citizens and institute civic norms. Fourthly, urbanism is inevitably global. The global dimension can be understood in different ways. For example, it signifies what Brenner (2000: 362) designates as a scale question; how the restructuring of space repositions the urban scale as an important site of capital accumulation and governance. The global nature of urbanism can also be understood in the broad sense of the uneven geographies of late capitalism. Lefebvre (1974: 412) himself argues that space has to be understood on a world scale. In this issue of Planning Theory, we refer to a specific globality: the urbanism of the global South. Much of the urban growth of the 21st century will take place in the cities of the global South. In previous work I have argued that the production of theory must take account of these new geographies (Roy, 2009). This special issue makes visible some of these geographies: Bogota, Kabul, Santiago. But as a concept the global South must mean more than a collection of scattered sites that lie beyond the demarcated boundaries of EuroAmerica. The global South also indicates an unmapped space that is integrated into dominant forms of knowledge as the other, that which does not fully conform to known templates of urbanism. Often imagined as unruly megacities, the urban formations of the global South can thus be described, diagnosed, even reformed and fixed, but rarely do they become the evidentiary material for theory, for a universal system of generalizations. The articles in this issue stage an intervention in these spaces of knowledge and seek to outline a theory that is produced in the crucible of the cities of the global South. It thereby includes an analysis of urban sites that may in a philosophical sense, to borrow a term from Gregory (2002: 2) be considered unthinkable space. What more poignant example of unthinkable space can there be than Kabul? Seemingly unplanned, seemingly undecipherable, marked by unimaginable fragmentation and extraordinary violence, is this urbanism? Or is this only dystopia? Yet, by locating the question of cosmopolitanism and thus globality, in Kabul, Calogero argues in his article in this volume that such types of unthinkable space may speak to some of the most prevalent urban and thus human conditions of the 21st century. In order to generate a theory of planning that is attentive to the urbanism of the global South, the articles in this special issue rely on the concept of worlding. This concept serves as a counterpoint to the framework of global/world cities that has become commonplace in urban theory. Global or world cities, defined as command and control nodes of the global economy are, as Jennifer Robinson argues (2002), a regulating fiction. New York, London, Tokyo: they are seen to embody a successful formula of urban entrepreneurialism, that which guarantees a place on the global map of investment, development and economic growth. More recent mappings of world cities include some in the global South like Singapore, Shanghai and Sao Paulo. But, as Robinson has noted, in this

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

10

Planning Theory 10(1)

framework much of the urban life of the world remains off the map, deemed structurally irrelevant to the commanding heights of the global economy. In contrast, the concept of worlding seeks to recover and restore the vast array of global strategies that are being staged at the urban scale around the world. In some cases these urban experiments are closely tied to elite aspirations and the making of world-class cities; in other cases, they are instances of worlding from below (Simone, 2001) as laboring bodies circulate in search of survival, livelihood and hope. While such practices can be read in the register of urbanism, it is important to make note of their worlding character. The articles in this issue are especially concerned with a particular type of worlding practice: inter-referencing, a term I carry over from my ongoing work with Aihwa Ong (Roy and Ong, 2011) and that reveals how the production of urban space takes place through reference to models of urbanism. Thus, Giulianis policed New York or a revitalized post-industrial London are much circulated global referents of urbanism. But increasingly, forms of worlding cannot be understood merely as a globalization imposed by the West on the Rest. Instead, in the global South they are often examples of a homegrown neoliberalization, one produced to consolidate postcolonial sovereignty and territory. New practices of inter-referencing involve SouthSouth coordinates and emergent South-based global referents. It is thus that Bogotas public urbanism has emerged as a important urban model that circulates widely. In India, urban planners and city elites turn to Asian models of urbanism such as Shanghai and Singapore for reference and inspiration. Such forms of inter-referencing make possible the transformation of urban disorder, the dystopia of the global South, into civic order and postcolonial pride. Referenced urbanism is often brutal and violent. In India the Shanghaification of Mumbai has displaced thousands of slum dwellers and squatters and the national effort to create Chinese-style special economic zones has set into motion widespread dispossession and state-led land grabs. Such references circulate not only through the stateformulated plans but also through the urban aspirations of middle-class associations and elite NGOs all seeking to create the good city. Of course, there is no place for the urban poor in such a good city. This is the production of an Asian urban capitalism that selfconsciously presents itself as Asia, that deploys the motifs of the Asian century and that references other Asian models. In their crudest form, these worlding practices legitimize national projects of primitive accumulation, often deepening socio-spatial inequality and injustice. But the circulation of models of urbanism can also be a more complex process. In his article on street vendors in New York, Ryan Devlin makes note of how a more progressive referencing is possible, as New Yorks largest vendor organization, the Street Vendor Project, seeks to forge collaborations with those in the global South and to thus adopt a more radical approach to the question of space. Models themselves are constellations of dense meaning. For example, the Singapore model that has circulated throughout Asia often actively exported by the city-state of Singapore itself is that of urban developmentalism, civic order and green aesthetics. However, there are other aspects of the Singapore model its extensive public housing program that rarely circulate. Ironically, one of the worlds most comprehensive welfare states circulates as a model of free market rule. Yet, this disjuncture itself is a political opening, one that makes possible debate

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Roy

11

about what precisely constitutes a Singaporean, or Asian, model of urbanism and of the role of the state in producing and regulating such a model. Similarly, in India, as powerful peasant uprisings have recently called into question the land grabs associated with Chinese style special economic zones, so the Indian state has sought to interpret the Chinese model in a new way: as an authoritarian planning system that cannot be implemented in the worlds largest democracy. In India, this rejection of the Chinese model has set into motion a new national debate about the key instruments of planning: eminent domain, zoning and the public interest.

Lessons for a theory of planning

What does an analysis of urbanisms and their worlding character contribute to a (heterogeneous) theory of planning? The articles in this issue suggest three contributions. Firstly, they show that planning is itself a worlding practice. It is through the project of planning that urban models, development best practices, technocratic expertise and multiple types of capital circulate in transnational fashion. This circulation is not new. The colonial cities of the 19th century were also instances of plannings worlding practices, as French and British planners undertook the creation and reform of North African or South Asian cities, often referencing European models. In bolder versions of colonial planning the colony was the site of urban experiments, with these experimental ideas then circulating back to Europe for implementation in cities such as Paris and London. This special issue highlights some unusual aspects of worlding. Although New York, especially revanchist New York, remains a much-referenced global model of neoliberal urbanism, Devlins article shows how New York immigrants may themselves reference various forms of Southern urbanism, legitimizing their street vending both in the language of American bootstrap entrepreneurship and Southern claims to space. Or, the circulation of the Bogota model, in other words the globalization of its urban pedagogy, demonstrates a SouthSouth referencing of urban models. Such forms of referencing consolidate rather than erode power and hierarchy. It is thus in the name of model citizenship that Bogotas political regime is able to govern space. These models in circulation necessitate the urgent question posed by Goonewardena (2005: 55):
What is the role played by the aesthetics and politics of space i.e. the urban sensorium in producing and reproducing the durable disjunction between the consciousness of our urban everyday life and the now global structure of social relations that is itself ultimately responsible for producing the spaces of our lived-experience?

As planning practice is increasingly implicated in these types of worlding practices, so planning theory must pay critical attention to the ethical claims that accompany models of urbanism. Calogero presents us with a provocation an ethics of agonistic cosmopolitanism. Such an ethics is quite different from the socio-spatial order that is usually pursued in cities through instruments of planning. What will it take to value such an ethical perspective? Secondly, the worlding practices of planning are closely linked to another form of worlding: the flows of capital. The production of space, while unfolding at the urban

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

12

Planning Theory 10(1)

scale, is a global process. Smith (2002) rightly argues that this is simultaneously globalism and urbanism, a gentrification as global urban strategy that has made urban real-estate development a pivotal sector in the new urban economies. It is in this sense that Lefebvre designated space not as the medium or arena of late capitalism but rather as its means of production, as the very stake of its politics. A theory of planning must take up the study of this new type of production capital: the production of space. But the production of space is entangled with other flows of capital, most of which get little attention in planning debates. There is the development capital that is disbursed by international finance institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian, African and Inter-American Development Banks that finance infrastructure projects. Development capital not only produces urban space but also brings with it conditions and reforms. These can range from the liberalization of economies to the implementation of environmental and social impact assessments. In other words, development capital is an agent of planning. Also entangled with the production of urban space is finance capital. This was made starkly evident during the recent financial speculation and its subsequent crisis, one that triggered a meltdown in US subprime housing markets. A similar crisis of financial and real-estate speculation brought frontier cities like Dubai and Las Vegas to a halt. Dubai, building the worlds tallest building as the anchor of what can only be understood as hyper-urbanism, is $100 billion in debt. It continues only through numerous bail-outs by another city-state: Abu Dhabi, rich in oil and boasting one of the worlds largest sovereign wealth funds. These forms of petro-urbanism not only exist elsewhere but are also found at home in the west. After all, the cities of North America and western Europe are instances of what Mitchell (2009) has called carbon democracy, systems of production and consumption dependent on petroleum. In the USA, just as the financial crisis has not shaken the edifices of high finance and its predations, so the countrys largest oil spill has not shaken the hunger for fossil fuels. If we are to better understand the production of space, then we also have to take account of multiple formations of capitalism, from development capitalism to petro-capitalism to finance capitalism. Thirdly, this special issue raises a simple but urgent question: who plans? Following Huxley and Yiftachel (2000) it can be argued that the role of the state is central in the project of planning. Huxley and Yiftachel (2000: 338) thus argue that planning is the public production of space. It is worth noting that Yiftachel (2006) consistently draws attention to not just the role of the state but rather the role of the nation-state. He is thus concerned with the agenda of ethnocratic nationalism and how this is expressed in discourses and practices of planning. State spaces, to borrow a term from Brenner (2004), loom large in this special issue as well. The role of the state in regulating and deregulating space is prominent, be it in the infrastructure franchises of Santiago or in the legal intricacy of New Yorks spatial controls. It is the state that produces what may be understood as citizen spaces in cities like Bogota planned spaces where model citizens can be nurtured and governed. But the articles in this special issue also call into question the public character of planning. Huxley and Yiftachel insert the term public into the Lefebvrian phrase, production of space. But is this necessarily the state? In the urban contexts analyzed in this special issue, private interests, regimes and associations often undertake the project of planning.

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Roy

13

Such processes cannot be understood only as the privatization of planning, for such forms of planning are often initiated and implemented on behalf of the public interest, in alliance with the state and in defense of the urban commons. From the American military in Kabul to the business improvement districts of New York, the task of urban governance exceeds and overflows the formal limits of the state. My own research in sites like Bangladesh and Lebanon demonstrates how much of the apparatus of service delivery what we may quite precisely call planning is managed by private forces, be it the feared militia, Hezbollah or the revered pro-poor non-governmental organizations, BRAC and Grameen Bank (Roy, 2010). If the public in Yiftachels public production of space does not hold, then is planning an unbounded, rather than a state-bound, practice? Is planning then synonymous with the production of space, unmarked by any special designation of public interest or the agency of the state? This issue suggests that such is the case. But this is a controversial claim and we thus invite planning theorists to take up the challenge of discussing and debating this point.

Locations
Theory is produced in specific sites. This materiality matters. Ideas in circulation like planning models in circulation emerge from the struggles and dilemmas of particular locations. Too often theory and theorists tend to obscure the parochial geographies within which they are located and from within which they speak. In closing, I must therefore acknowledge two locations from within which I write this brief introduction to this special issue on urbanisms and worlding. The first is Shenzhen, Chinas first special economic zone, a carefully planned and regulated space. Shenzhen, with its rows of industrial parks populated by eager rural migrant workers, has long epitomized the global assembly line. In Shenzhen the dream that eludes many other cities industrial jobs is real. But Shenzhen is also a carefully guarded enclave, the open economy city to which entrance for most Chinese workers is impossible and where the life of the migrant, the floating body rendered illegal by Chinas governance of space, is impossibly difficult. In a noplace hotel at the intersection of multi-laned high-speed boulevards lined by glass towers, I attended a conference on the making of global cities and the world economic crisis. In Shenzhens financial district landscape there does not seem to be a crisis; only endless speculation on an urbanism whose towers and highways stretch to the horizon. This is the Asian urbanism to which my native country, India and its planners, aspire. It is the worlding model that may just dominate the urban century that lies ahead. Shenzhen returns me to Simmel, for here all urban life seems to float in a common denominator. This is no longer money, no longer space, but rather something yet more abstract than both, time: time compressed and condensed as development. Time speeded up such that planners of the massive Pearl River Delta region, perhaps the worlds largest urban agglomeration, boldly state that cities like Hong Kong must high speed themselves or risk being left behind by success stories like Shenzhen. Space, Lefebvre argued, is now the stake of politics. I am used to studying struggles over space in cities around the world. But in recent times this struggle has unfolded in the most intimate of spaces, that of the university. Neoliberalism has caught up with the public university, the University of California, Berkeley, at which I teach. The financial

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

14

Planning Theory 10(1)

crisis of Americas bankrupt state, California, has also become a crisis of the public character of higher education, a crisis of the social contract that once promised opportunity. The mobilizations to save public education are also struggles over space. They have played out in the hallowed spaces of Berkeley on the Mario Savio steps of Sproul Plaza, taking up the fading inheritance of the Free Speech movement and the 1960s. The radical edge of the student movement has sought to territorialize this struggle by occupying buildings, often referencing and live-streaming of videos of student occupations in Europe. This is their global scale, a counter-worlding of sorts. In November 2009 a failed attempt at occupying Berkeleys Capital Projects building (since students have been particularly furious at the use of their tuition to securitize the universitys construction bonds) led them to academic buildings and then to arrests and the county jail. A new journal, launched by graduate students at UC Berkeley, is thus titled Reclamations an effort to emancipate the commons in the face of aggressive expropriations of the public domain (Reclamations, n.d.). Reclaiming the commons, the editors note in the introduction to the first issue, requires not only claiming space but also claiming time, a laying claim to the future. The latter, this orientation to the future, is how we often envision planning. But it is also the claim of student insurgencies such as that unfolding at Berkeley, those that face off lines of riot police and refuse to give consent to a future of bonded indebtedness. A theory of planning is ultimately about such vectors of space and time. Such formations are not externally constituted objects of study waiting to be documented and described. Instead, borrowing one more time from Lefebvre, planning itself must be understood as both an everyday and interplanetary practice of discipline and profession that is constituted through struggles over space and time. Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Jean Hillier for her intrepid leadership of Planning Theory and for her encouragement and support of this special issue.

References
Brenner N (2000) The urban question as a scale question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(2): 361378. Brenner N (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford University Press. Castells M (1972) The urban ideology. In: Susser I (ed.) The Castells Reader on Cities and Social Theory (2002 reprint). Malden, MA: Blackwell, 3470. Goonewardena K (2005) The urban sensorium: Space, ideology and the aestheticization of politics. Antipode 37(1): 4671. Gregory D (2002) The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Huxley M and Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(XX): 333342. Lefebvre H (1974) The Production of Space. Cambridge: Blackwell (1991 edn, transl. D. Nicholson-Smith). Merrifield A (2002) Dialectical Urbanism: Social Struggles in the Capitalist City. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013

Roy

15

Mitchell T (2009) Carbon democracy. Economy and Society 38(3): 399432. Reclamations (n.d.) Homepage. Available at: http://www.reclamationsjournal.org/about.html Accessed 25 September 2010. Robinson J (2002) Global and world cities: A view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(3): 531554. Roy A (2009) The 21st century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies 43(6): 819830. Roy A (2010) Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. New York: Routledge. Simmel G (1903) [1971] The metropolis and mental life. In: Levine D (ed.) Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms Chicago; IL: University of Chicago Press, 324339. Simone A (2001) On the worlding of African Cities. African Studies Review 44(2): 1541. Smith N (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34(3): 427450. Smith N (2003) Foreword. In: Lefebvre H The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Transl. R Bononno), viixxiii. Yiftachel O (2006) Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/ Palestine. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 124.

Author Biography Ananya Roy is Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where she co-directs the Global Metropolitan Studies Center and holds the Friesen Chair in Urban Studies. Roys research is concerned with themes of social inequality, urban informality, and postcolonial capitalism. Her most recent book is titled Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development (Routledge, 2010).

Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at EHESS on March 18, 2013