Tracing the Democratic Deficit: An Actor-Network Theory Approach to an Urban Governance Network in Madrid

  • Guillén Hiram Torres Sepúlveda


This chapter traces the role played by the Democratic Deficit during the deployment of an Urban Governance Network in the City of Madrid. The Deficit is considered as an actor—rather than a feature of Urban Governance- that helps authorities, private actors and citizens, to contest or sustain configurations of power, politicise or de-politicisice topics related to urban life, and ultimately to produce the materiality of the City.


  1. Barry, Andrew. 2013. Material Politics: Disputes Along the Pipeline. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Blakeley, G. 2010. Governing Ourselves: Citizen Participation and Governance in Barcelona and Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (1): 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge 32: 196–223.Google Scholar
  4. Chhotray, Vasudha, and Gerry Stoker. 2009. Governance Theory and Practice. A Cross- Disciplinary Approach. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Farias, Ignacio, and Thomas Bender, eds. 2010. Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Hajer, Maarten. 2003. Policy Without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences 36 (2): 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harman, Graham. 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Prahran, VIC: Re. press.Google Scholar
  9. Harvey, Penelope. 2005. The Materiality of State-Effects: An Ethnography of a Road in the Peruvian Andes. In State Formation, ed. C. Krohn-Hansen et al. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  10. Keil, R. 2009. The Urban Politics of Roll‐With‐It Neoliberalization. City 13 (2–3): 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Latour, Bruno. 1986. Visualization and Cognition. Knowledge and Society 6: 1–40.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1990. Technology is Society Made Durable. The Sociological Review 38 (S1): 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 1993. The Pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2003. What If We Talked Politics a Little? Contemporary Political Theory 2 (2): 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social-An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Laurent, Brice. 2011. Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marres, Noortje. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Marres, Noortje Suzanne. 2005. No Issue, No Public: Democratic Deficits After the Displacement of Politics. Diss., Universiteit Van Amsterdam. UvA-DARE, Amsterdam, Web, August 7, 2015.Google Scholar
  21. McFarlane, Colin. 2011. Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  22. Metzger, Jonathan, Phil Allmendinger, and Stijn Oosterlynck. 2015. The Contested Terrain of European Territorial Governance. In Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance, ed. Jonathan Metzger, Philip Allmendiger, and Sitjn Oosterlynck, 1–28. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mouffe, Chantal. 2005a. On the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2005b. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  25. Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oosterlynck, Stijn, and Erik Swyngedouw. 2010. Noise Reduction: The Postpolitical Quandary of Night Flights at Brussels Airport. Environment and Planning A 42 (7): 1577–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rancière, Jacques. 2007. Hatred of Democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  28. Rubio, Fernando Domínguez, and Uriel Fogué. 2015. Unfolding the Political Capacities of Design. In What is Cosmopolitical Design? ed. Albena Yaneva and Zaera Polo Alejandro, 143–160. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Schmitt, Carl. 2008. The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sørensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfing. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Swyngedouw, Erik. 2005. Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-The-State. Urban Studies 42 (11): 1991–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2007. The Post-Political City. In Urban Politics Now: Re-imagining Democracy in the Neoliberal City, ed. BAVO. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2009. The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (3): 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2010. Impossible Sustainability and the Post-political Condition. In Making Strategies in Spatial Planning, 185–205. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2011. Interrogating Post-Democratization: Reclaiming Egalitarian Political Spaces. Political Geography 30 (7): 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2014a. Depoliticization (‘The Political’). In Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, ed. G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, and G. Kallis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2014b. Insurgent Architects, Radical Cities and the Promise of the Political. In The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, Specters of Radical Politics, ed. J. Wilson and E. Swyngedouw. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2015. Depoliticized Environments and the Promises of the Anthropocene. In International Handbook of Political Ecology, ed. R. Bryant. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Swyngedouw, Erik, and Guy Baeten. 2001. Scaling the City: The Political Economy of ‘Glocal’ Development- Brussels’ Conundrum. European Planning Studies 9 (7): 827–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swyngedouw, Erik, F. Moulaert, and A. Rodriguez. 2002. Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large–Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode 34 (3): 542–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, M. 2007. Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces. Urban Studies 44 (2): 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillén Hiram Torres Sepúlveda
    • 1
  1. 1.Media Studies, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations