IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v32y2017i7p617-639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

They never said ‘Come here and let's talk about it’: Exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Amore
  • C Michael Hall
  • John Jenkins

Abstract

Decision-making in urban contexts is increasingly characterized by a depoliticized environment that has normalized neoliberal urban policies. These are further pursued in post-disaster contexts across the globe with narratives that overshadow the views and demands of the affected communities. Spatial contestation, exclusion of certain groups from key decisions and episodes of non-decision-making thus shape urban redevelopment through top-down governance. This paper provides a Lukesian narrative on post-earthquake Christchurch, where the redevelopment of the city has been characterized by a strong command-and-control rebuild agenda emanating from the national government, regardless of the feedback and criticisms from the affected community.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Amore & C Michael Hall & John Jenkins, 2017. "They never said ‘Come here and let's talk about it’: Exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(7), pages 617-639, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:32:y:2017:i:7:p:617-639
    DOI: 10.1177/0269094217734326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269094217734326
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0269094217734326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patsy Healey, 2004. "The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 45-67, March.
    2. Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton S., 1975. "Power and Its Two Faces Revisited: A Reply to Geoffrey Debnam," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 900-904, September.
    3. Divya Chandrasekhar, 2012. "Digging deeper: participation and non-participation in post-disaster community recovery," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 614-629, December.
    4. Geddes, R. Richard & Wagner, Benjamin L., 2013. "Why do U.S. states adopt public–private partnership enabling legislation?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 30-41.
    5. Carole Johnson & Stephen P. Osborne, 2003. "Local Strategic Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal, and the Limits to Co-governance," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 147-154, July.
    6. Dominique Duval-Diop & Andrew Curtis & Annie Clark, 2010. "Enhancing equity with public participatory GIS in hurricane rebuilding: faith based organizations, community mapping, and policy advocacy," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 32-49, January.
    7. Roger Keil, 2009. "The urban politics of roll‐with‐it neoliberalization," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2-3), pages 230-245, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kristian Olesen & Carsten J Hansen, 2020. "Introducing business regions in Denmark: The ‘businessification’ of strategic spatial planning?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(2), pages 366-383, March.
    2. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. He, Lulu, 2019. "Identifying local needs for post-disaster recovery in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 52-62.
    4. Ronit Mukherji, 2023. "Risk Sharing in Public-Private Partnerships," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Simeng Li & Zhimin Liu & Chao Ye, 2022. "Community Renewal under Multi-Stakeholder Co-Governance: A Case Study of Shanghai’s Inner City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Melika Levelt & Leonie Janssen-Jansen, 2013. "The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Challenge: Opportunities for Inclusive Coproduction in City-Region Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 540-555, June.
    7. Pauline McGuirk & Robyn Dowling, 2011. "Governing Social Reproduction in Masterplanned Estates," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(12), pages 2611-2628, September.
    8. Roger Keil, 2011. "The Global City Comes Home," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(12), pages 2495-2517, September.
    9. Van den Hoek, Duncan & Spit, Tejo & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Zhilin Liu & Sainan Lin & Tingting Lu & Yue Shen & Sisi Liang, 2023. "Towards a constructed order of co-governance: Understanding the state–society dynamics of neighbourhood collaborative responses to COVID-19 in urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(9), pages 1730-1749, July.
    11. Jean-Paul D. Addie & Roger Keil, 2015. "Real Existing Regionalism: The Region between Talk, Territory and Technology," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 407-417, March.
    12. Oto Potluka & Judit Kalman & Ida Musiałkowska & Piotr Idczak, 2017. "Non-profit leadership at local level: Reflections from Central and Eastern Europe," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(4), pages 297-315, June.
    13. Achard, Paola Olimpia & Di Berardino, Antonina, 2018. "Public Private Partnerships: Strategic Assets and Managerial Models," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184925, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    14. Ripoll Servent, Ariadna and Amy Busby, 2013. "Introduction: Agency and influence inside the EU institutions," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 17, July.
    15. Federico Savini, 2016. "Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1152-1169, November.
    16. John Lauermann, 2016. "Temporary projects, durable outcomes: Urban development through failed Olympic bids?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(9), pages 1885-1901, July.
    17. Emadul Islam & Haris Bin Abd Wahab & Odessa Gonzalez Benson, 2022. "Community Participation in Disaster Recovery Programs: A Study of a Coastal Area in Bangladesh," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(5), pages 2438-2462, October.
    18. Nicolas Lewis & Laurence Murphy, 2015. "Anchor organisations in Auckland: Rolling constructively with neoliberalism?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 30(1), pages 98-118, February.
    19. Edwin Buitelaar & Maaike Galle & Niels Sorel, 2014. "The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Allan Cochrane, 2012. "Making up a Region: The Rise and Fall of the ‘South East of England’ as a Political Territory," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 95-108, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:32:y:2017:i:7:p:617-639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.