We’re looking for an administrative assistant to join our editorial team at Urban Studies Journal. The work is remote and home-based. This is a full-time position for 5 days (35 hours) per week (job-share will be considered). The starting salary will be £33,000 per annum.
Applications should include a 1-2 page cover letter outlining how you meet the essential and desirable criteria as outlined in the Job Description, along with a current CV. The successful candidate will be provided with training reflective of the specialist nature of the role.
Applications should be submitted to Ruth Harkin (ruth.harkin@glasgow.ac.uk) by 2 June 2025.
Sub-Saharan African cities have experienced significant spatial transformation in recent years. This transformation, in part, has been characterised by the proliferation of new cities and the privatisation of urban spaces. Yet, an understanding of how the growing trend of privatised urbanism is producing marginalisation and exclusion hurdles for the majority of urbanites in the context of self-organisation remains limited. In response to this knowledge gap, this article investigates patterns of self-organisation in new cities. We demonstrate how the production of new cities and the privatisation of urban spaces have shaped land use planning and led to the marginalisation of local communities. Using the Greater Accra Region, Ghana as a case study, fieldwork involving interviews with urban planners, community leaders and key informants was conducted. The findings show that the forms of self-organisation inherent in new cities tend to perpetuate and deepen inequalities and exclusion in the peri-urban area. Rather than being an avenue for the marginalised to intervene in space and realise their ambitions, self-organisation serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. We conclude that self-organisation may not always be a means to promote an inclusive and just society. Recommendations for creating a more equitable and inclusive urban futures are proffered.
Read the full article here.
This work pursues a new explanatory framework for understanding some of the variance and homogeneity of informal work between cities in the Global South. Rooted in a materialist approach to informality, it seeks to explain the dynamics of informal work in different urban contexts via a novel application of the global division of labour, termed the global division of urban informal labour. Through a comparative analysis of the urban labour regimes of Freetown, Sierra Leone, and Mexico City, Mexico, the work argues that each city’s respective location within the global capitalist system largely determines the nature of their informal economies. It posits that a city’s informal labour regime is shaped by whether a city’s economy is predominantly defined by financial, industrial or extractive capital, and explores the ramifications of the financialised economy of Mexico City and the extractivist economy of Freetown for shaping informal work in each city. Such an approach attempts not only to explain urban and labour regime variance but also to highlight the essential and foundational nature of informal work in global capitalism today. It also seeks to aid in the task of recentring capitalism and class considerations into understandings of the internal and external dynamics of Global South cities in general.
Read the full article here.
The manuscript submission deadline for The Urbanisation of Conflict and Conflict Urbanisation call for papers has been extended to 1 September 2025.
In this inaugural series, which focuses on armed conflict, the Journal invites both empirical and conceptual papers on the urbanisation of conflict and conflict-driven urbanisation. Submissions should emphasise innovation in urban research and offer a clear, substantive contribution to global urban studies debates is essential.
Further details including submission guidelines and a list of suggested topics can be found here.
What defines China’s urban governance today? With tightened state control in economic, spatial, and social management and a decline in the real estate sector, is China reverting to pre-reform state socialism? Or has it shifted to urban governance under ‘state capitalism’? Our answer is neither. In this article, we engage remotely with Wu’s (2002) observation at the turn of the millennium: China witnessed private entrepreneurship, economic devolution, and housing commodification after the economic reform. They have been portrayed as urban or state entrepreneurialism (Wu, 2018). In the bigger picture, they echoed neoliberalism at the time in the world. We ask what has changed today after more than two decades.
We summarise new trends of urban governance transformation in China as ‘managerial statecraft.’ Managerial statecraft is the Chinese party statecraft of financialised governance, recentralised spatial governance, and social co-governance. The transformation occurred after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and has been exacerbated by pandemic urgency, post-pandemic economic downturn, and greater geopolitical tension.
The statecraft of financialised governance has seen state actors from different levels deploying new financial techniques to fund urban development. The methods are moving away from conventional land finance. The state credit is replacing land credit. Two pivotal financing methods are Local Government Bonds (LGBs) and ultra-long-term special state bonds, reflecting the central state’s tightened and direct regulation of local state borrowings. Regarding new agents, central state-owned enterprises (SOEs) become business partners to the local state in urban development projects. State ownership replaces local and private entrepreneurship.
The statecraft of recentralised spatial governance aims at strategic intentions prioritising territorial logic over capital-driven objectives. New practices, including Territorial Spatial Planning, new city-regional plans, National New Areas, and institutional reconfigurations, reflect a transformation from bottom-up entrepreneurial city-regionalism to top-level design. These efforts are needed for ‘dual circulations’—domestic and international—to secure supply chains and enlarge domestic markets amid growing geopolitical tensions.
The statecraft of social co-governance replaces the old ‘social management’ model by proactively mobilising community participation and funding co-governance experiments. State initiatives include building grassroots party organisations, supporting community planners, and institutionalising participatory activities. Despite the lack of democratic participation tradition, the party-state now seeks collaboration with society and cultivates citizens with a collectivist mentality. The transformation differs from the trend of capital dominance in financial austerity or the societal changes seen in radical municipalism.
These new trends in China broadly echo changing capital-state-society relationships in the world today. Our main contribution is empirical and theoretical. Reflecting on the emerging managerial statecraft of financialised, spatial, and social governance, we argue that entrepreneurialism is too restrictive a term for a more visible state in governance. Rethinking entrepreneurialism beyond economic dimensions, we highlight its multiple roles in state financing innovation, spatial territorial regulation, public management, and social governance. Entrepreneurialism has evolved into new managerialism as a form of statecraft – the art of governance and state survival. As such, governance transformations highlight persistent tensions between capitalist and territorial logic (Wu et al., 2024).
References
Wu F (2002) China’s changing urban governance in the transition towards a more market-oriented economy. Urban Studies 39(7): 1071–1093.
Wu F (2018) Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism. Urban Studies 55(7): 1383–1399.
Wu F, Deng H, Feng Y, et al. (2024) Statecraft at the frontier of capitalism: A grounded view from China. Progress in Human Geography 48(6): 779–804.
Read the full open access article here.
Urban Studies Journal is delighted to announce our 2025 Annual Lecture will be given by Professor Gautam Bhan (IIHS, India) and held at the City Debates conference at the American University of Beirut. The topic is: ‘New Directions for Southern Urban Praxis’.
Date/Time: 2.30pm – 4pm on Wednesday 16 April 2025
Location: City Debates conference at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
Further details about the City Debates conference are available here.
See our previous Annual Lectures here.
In our recent research, we explored how urban residents navigate the growing divide between liberal cities and illiberal nation-states, focusing specifically on the experiences and expectations of residents in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. As researchers interested in the politics of cities, we were intrigued by how urban residents perceive their municipality’s role in advocating for progressive policies amidst a backdrop of political turbulence. We suggest that Tel Aviv-Jaffa reflects a global trend, where many municipalities increasingly position themselves as liberal strongholds, while their respective national governments become more right-wing, populist and/or illiberal. While much of the academic discourse has centred around macro-level explanations of the political polarisation between cities and states, we recognised a significant gap: what do residents think about their municipality’s role in promoting progressive agendas?
Through an original survey of 426 residents, we developed a typology categorising the respondents into three main groups: “Liberals,” who prioritise progressive policies; “Municipalists,” who appreciate liberal agendas but prioritise core municipal responsibilities; and “Conservatives,” who resist the expansion of liberal issues into local governance.
Our key finding revealed that nearly 80% of the city’s population express support for municipal involvement in “big” progressive issues, such as LGBTQ+ rights and public services on Shabbat. Importantly, about 28% of residents identified as Liberals, highlighting their expectation for the municipality to take a stand on these progressive issues, rather than confining itself to traditional local governance. However, more than half of the city’s population (53%), marked as Municipalists, still prioritises classical municipal responsibilities over such initiatives. This distribution highlights a notable gap between residents’ liberal tendencies and their practical preferences for municipal action. Moreover, we found that adopting a progressive agenda correlated with a pessimistic view of the country’s direction and future, implying that residents dissatisfied with national politics wish to expand the political role of municipalities.
By considering both residents’ broader worldviews and policy preferences, the novel typology we have proposed refines the traditional liberal-conservative distinction at the local level, thereby contributing to the ongoing academic discussion surrounding urban governance. Our findings also hold relevant implications for policymakers and city leaders. They suggest that the legitimacy of urban policies may hinge on public expectations, illustrating how residents increasingly look to their local governments to defend their values during politically turbulent times. Our research emphasises the importance of local governments engaging with their residents’ beliefs and preferences in a polarised environment. By bridging the gap between traditional municipal roles and the broader desires of their constituencies, a nuanced understanding of local governance can emerge—one that may inherently adapt to the evolving needs of urban populations who seek recognition and representation in municipal agendas.In conclusion, our work brings to light the complexities surrounding urban governance in the context of national political shifts, shedding light on the significant role municipalities can play in addressing these challenges. Tel Aviv-Jaffa serves not only as a unique case study but also as a potential point of reference for other urban areas grappling with similar political dynamics and dilemmas. Understanding urban residents’ policy preferences and expectations of their municipality is important today, more than ever before, considering the growing importance of municipalities in setting agendas on a national and global scale, as well as the power urban residents wield to legitimise or challenge municipal actions.
Read the full open access article here.
How Should We Understand and Conceptualise Urban Phenomena in Diverse Global Contexts?
Urban studies faces a persistent challenge: should theories and terms coined in the Global North, particularly gentrification, be applied across diverse contexts? Does such an application risk oversimplifying local dynamics and imposing a foreign framework that misrepresents urban phenomena? Or, on the contrary, does the attempt to construct entirely new, context-specific conceptual frameworks undermine the foundations of social science research, including our ability to theorise, generalise, and create comparative global knowledge?
These questions are especially pressing when analysing urban processes in societies marked by ethno-national and religious conflicts, such as Israel. For example, how should we understand and conceptualise the migration and settlement of Zionist-religious middle-class groups, organised as settlement associations, into mixed Israeli cities? Backed by government support, these movements displace marginalised groups, particularly Arab residents.
This research bridges the gap between theories of planetary urbanisation, which emphasise global capitalist trends, and postcolonial perspectives, which focus on local and context-specific dynamics. It proposes a dialogical approach, advocating for a balanced analysis that integrates both local contexts and the capitalist logic of urban development.
Introducing State-Led Ethno-Gentrification (SLEG)
This research proposes a new framework of state-led ethno-gentrification (SLEG), arguing that gentrification terminology is vital for characterising urban phenomena in conflictual geographies. SLEG integrates the distinctive ethno-national, religious, cultural, economic, and state-led dynamics shaping these contexts.
Key Elements of SLEG
1. The State as Catalyst and Supporter
The state plays a central role in initiating and supporting ethno-gentrification projects. It merges nationalistic discourse with economic development, providing incentives for settlement.
2. A Multifaceted Project
The settlement project has a mix of nationalist, economic, and cultural goals and implications, serving both as a socio-economic and nationalist project.
3. Economic, Nationalist, and Cultural Incentives
Affordable housing, rent-gap exploitation, a communal lifestyle, and diversity are pivotal incentives for urban settlement projects, alongside the nationalist-religious one.
4. Economic Advantages of Ethno-Gentrifiers
Affordable housing, rent-gap exploitation, a communal lifestyle, and diversity are pivotal incentives for urban settlement projects, alongside the nationalist-religious one.
5. Grounded in Fieldwork
SLEG framework and discourse is supported by extensive fieldwork, which captures the perspectives of residents and ethno-gentrifiers regarding class, economics, and nationalism.
Major Contributions to Urban Studies
As an epistemological contribution, SLEG emphasises the importance of examining economic logic and incentives, including the discourse of gentrification, in understanding nationalist projects and the displacement of minorities beyond Euro-American contexts. The gentrification framework enriches explanations of the arrangements, incentives, and economic infrastructure that support and intensify nationalist projects, which at times could not exist without them. Secondly, it underscores the significance of recognising nationalist and religious dimensions in studying urban redevelopment and gentrification in conflictual geographies and ethnically mixed cities. The theory of state-led ethno-gentrification critically addresses the intersection of class and ethno-nationalism in urban processes, linking local dynamics to broader national politics as tools for spatial control and state sovereignty. These perspectives are essential not only for a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the urban phenomenon but also for identifying ways to address its multi-dimensional consequences.
A Call for Global Engagement
I invite scholars to adopt the SLEG theory, its epistemological arguments, and apply gentrification terminology to study urbanisation and nationalist projects worldwide, particularly beyond Euro-American contexts. By doing so, we can foster a global, comparative understanding of capitalism’s impact on cities while acknowledging the distinct local dynamics—ethno-national struggles, territorial control, gendered power relations, religious issues, and other unique elements shaping urban processes.
Read the full open access article here.
As researchers with extensive experience in urban design and planning, we have observed how cities use defensive urban design elements to shape public spaces, influencing who feels welcome and who is deterred. While defensive design features like anti-homeless benches and strategic lighting are often seen as exclusionary tools, our work has shown that these design choices are part of a complex, sometimes contradictory, process of valuation among diverse stakeholders.
Aims and Key Insights
Our paper, Defensive for whom: The valuation of users and uses in public space design in Gothenburg, Sweden, delves into how different groups—including city officials, designers, and community members—assess and assign value to users and activities in public spaces. Using a valuation studies framework, we examined the ways these evaluations shape both design and governance, revealing an array of perspectives that extend beyond simple exclusionary tactics.
We conducted detailed interviews and analysed public documents surrounding the redesign of Brunnsparken, Gothenburg’s central square, to trace how defensive design decisions are influenced by a wide range of valuations. Rather than presenting defensive urban design as purely exclusionary, our study shows that these spaces embody a spectrum of assessments, from safety concerns and social order to accessibility and aesthetic considerations.
For example, we found that certain design elements were implemented to discourage specific behaviours like loitering and open drug use. At the same time, these changes were also seen as opportunities to enhance accessibility and enjoyment for families, elderly residents, and commuters. This complex balancing act of values challenges the notion that defensive design exclusively targets marginalised groups. Instead, it demonstrates how defensive urban design reflects competing visions of what a public space should be, often resulting in design decisions that seek to accommodate multiple user groups while maintaining order.
The Broader Impact and Future Directions
While we acknowledge that defensive design can be used in ways that are morally objectionable and may lead to negative outcomes for the most vulnerable, our findings reveal that this is not always the case. Defensive urban design can also reflect more nuanced, context-dependent decisions that balance a range of social, safety, and accessibility considerations.
Our research highlights the importance of recognising these varied intentions and outcomes when assessing urban design. We see an opportunity to move beyond a purely exclusionary framework and consider how defensive design can be informed by broader, more inclusive social valuations. Moving forward, we envision a path toward equitable urban environments that balance safety with the complex ways people engage with public spaces.
This study invites urban planners and policymakers to rethink defensive design’s role in urban spaces. While vigilance is needed to prevent harmful impacts on vulnerable populations, embracing a spectrum of valuations in design decisions can lead to urban spaces that thoughtfully accommodate the needs of all city residents.
Read the full article here.
The Covid-19 pandemic unsettled many assumptions about cities and urban life. Even discounting media fears about urban ‘collapse’, the pandemic and its aftermath have led to real uncertainties about the trajectory of urban development. While the struggles of ‘superstar’ cities in the Global North have attracted significant attention, here we shift focus onto the experiences of regional second cities in an attempt to capture a different perspective. In doing so, we avoid both the sensationalism of ‘doom loop’ projections that herald the end of major cities and the uncritical embrace of new ‘opportunities’ for peripheral cities in the wake of pandemic turmoil. Instead, we offer a more critical view that acknowledges some new possibilities while highlighting both their constrained parameters and the related threat of regional gentrification. As cities around the country begin to recover from the turmoil of pandemic disruption, we accordingly question the applicability and consequences of some of the more prominent recovery strategies beyond the context of major cities and suggest careful consideration of alternative development paths for regional second cities. To illustrate the regional second city experience, we explore recent outcomes in Tacoma, Washington, where the city’s post-pandemic development strategy embraces a reliance on luxury residential growth and associated consumer amenities, defined in relation to the dominant neighbouring city of Seattle. Cautioning over working-class displacement, regional gentrification and other vulnerabilities associated with this version of recovery, we conclude by looking at emerging housing activism in Tacoma for insights into how the present moment might generate new political organising for more equitable urban development.
Read the full article here.
