Abstract
Urban problems are increasingly at the heart of political debate in industrial capitalist societies. The Italian Left obtained a majority in the 1975 municipal elections in all the large towns, in part on the basis of urban protests and partly on the strength of being an alternative form of local government. The same phenomenon occurred in Japan, where socialists and communists, because they have given priority to urban and environmental issues, govern the most important cities. In the United States, the crisis of New York is only the most spectacular manifestation of a series of social contradictions which question a model of urban development which nevertheless remains indispensable for the organisation of an existence centred around the dominant interests of American society. In France, urban and regional policies are one of the clearest indicators of the cleavages and struggles between different political forces, as could be observed during the debate on the Galley Bill (which in 1975 tried to tax more heavily speculative use of land and triggered widespread opposition from the business circles), or yet still, in the successive measures which have been adopted with respect to public transport and urban-renewal programmes. The middle classes are living increasingly in the grands ensembles and some observers have gone as far as to attribute the success of the Left in the 1976 district elections to their dissatisfaction with the lifestyle in these new residential milieux. As we shall see, this process is in fact more complex.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
This has been quite clearly revealed in the case of France due to the development of research on urban policy. For a synthesis of the results of these researches, see the collective volume of the Dieppe Colloquium, Politiques urbaines et ploniftcation des villes (Ministry of Equipment, 1974).
See M. Castells, ‘La crise urbaine aux Etats-Unix’, Les temps modernes (February 1976).
See P. Grevet, Besoins populaires et financement public (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1976).
See E. Préteceille, Equipements collectifs, structures urbaines et consommation sociale (Paris: Centre de Sociologie Urbaine, 1975);
and C. Pottier, La logique dufinancement public de l’urbanisation (Paris: Mouton, 1975).
C. André, R. Delorme and A. Kouévi, Etude analytique et numérique des tendences significatives et des facteurs explicatifs de l’évolution des dépenses et recettes publiques françaises au cours de la période 1870–1970, mimeo (Paris: CEPREMAP, 1974) 2 vols.
See M. Castells, La question urbaine (Paris: Maspéro, 1972).
See M. Castells, E. Cherki, F. Godard and D. Mehl, Crise du logement et mouvements sociaux urbains (Paris: Mouton, 1978).
In the sense defined by Nicos Poulantzas in Social Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (London: New Left Books, 1975).
See M. Dagnaud, Ideologie urbaine de la technocratie, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris, 1976.
Copyright information
© 1978 Manuel Castells
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Castells, M. (1978). City, Class and Power. In: City, Class and Power. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27923-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27923-4_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-22555-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-27923-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)