Post-Socialist city in the mirror of global governance transformation

Moskaleva Svetlana Mikhailovna ORCID: 0000-0003-1508-5599 junior researcher, Sociological Institute of the RAS – Branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) 190005, Russia, Saint Petersburg, 7th Krasnoarmeyskaya str., 25/14 smmoskaleva@gmail.com

IntroductionUrban governance is a complex process that takes place at different scales (global, country, city) and levels (state, grassroots).

Cities around the world are looking for suitable management methods that would take into account the ongoing institutional, social, economic and political changes.

In the global discussion, increasing importance is being paid to capitalist processes that create a new world geography ^[1]. In particular, the new geography is characterized by the following features. At the global level — in the creation of hierarchies between world cities, at the national level — the separation of the growth of world cities from national economic growth, at the urban level — the formation of polycentric zones and industrial areas. These global processes also influence the ways of managing urban development and the transformation of state territorial power ^[1]. According to Brenner, capitalist processes have so redefined the geographical, spatial vocabulary that existing definitions are not enough to describe multi-layered and contradictory spatial practices. Cities are embedded in many social, political, and institutional spatial scales. They are simultaneously influenced by global economic processes and national policies ^[1].

In the context of global transformation, post-socialist cities in such regions as Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) are an object of special research interest for the following reasons:

- experience of the transition period;

- political transformation (change of political regime);

- restructuring of the economy (changing the economic mode of production) and the formation of market institutions;

- ideological transformation, which can be traced through models of urbanization processes in the context of the clash of capitalist and post-socialist trends ^[2];

- transformation of urban forms of (post-)socialist cities ^{[3, 4, 5]}.

Recent studies of the patterns of urbanization, revealing post-socialist and capitalist trends, focus on the cities of Central and Eastern Europe ^{[5, 6]}, while the cities of the former Soviet Union are still quite rare as objects of analysis (for example, ^[2]).

The research question addressed by the author is the systematization of studies in which the influence of global processes on the management of post-socialist cities is conceptualized. The objectives of the study include:

1) identification of the main approaches to the analysis of transformations in the management of a post-socialist city under the influence of global changes;

2) description of the conceptual discussion around the concept of "post-socialist city" and the theoretical possibilities of its application;

3) discussion of these approaches in relation to the study of post-Soviet cities. The article presents an overview of theoretical and methodological concepts describing global transformations in urban management. The main thesis of the article is that post-socialist cities should be considered in their connection with global processes. It is assumed that the concept of a "post-socialist city" can become a driver for launching a research direction of post-Soviet cities, their analytical consideration in the context of a global discussion.

The first part of the article discusses the main approaches in research on global transformation in urban management. In the second part, the theoretical and empirical features of the description of transformations of post-socialist cities are considered. The third part presents a conceptual discussion about the term "post-socialist city", with which researchers propose to record transformational processes. Thus, the paper presents a discussion of theoretical ideas and concepts used in the research of post-socialist cities, their relevance for describing the transformation in the management of post-Soviet cities.

Transformation of the global paradigm of urban governanceIn the last thirty years, questions about the future of urban development have been discussed in the world.

Global agents and organizations (the World Bank, the UN) set the vectors of planning policy and set goals for the development of cities around the world. Competition between cities is increasing ^[7]. New cultural practices of urban revitalization are emerging ^{[8, 9, 10]}, new concepts in politics, such as "sustainable development", "smart cities", "public spaces", etc. The role of the state in urban development management is also changing. There is a transition from state regulation (English — government) to "governance", which includes new subjects in the management process: investors, businesses, citizens. The transformation of management models is explained by economic globalization, the emergence of a global economic sector. Cities are beginning to compete with each other and focus on attracting investment ^[11]. Researchers note the influence of economic restructuring, which is associated with the globalization of the economy, on the quality of life in cities ^{[12, 13]}. Competition between cities is also expressed in the borrowing of planning ideas and practices between countries, the influence of global ideas on planning practices ^[14-18] and management.

One of the key works in the discussion of urban governance is the work of David Harvey, dedicated to the transition from managerialism to entrepreneurship in the period of late capitalism ^[19]. In it, he introduces the category of "entrepreneurial practices" that contribute to local development and employment growth. They contrast with those that were distributed earlier (managerialist) and were aimed at providing services, services to the urban population. The focus of his analysis is the relationship between urban change and economic development, as well as the features of the political and economic context in which this transformation in management takes place ^[19]. This work contributed to discussions of global urban transformation, research on neoliberal, capitalist trends in cities around the world. Global urban transformation is characterized by the following features ^[20]:

1) internalization of megacities, formation of world ^[13] and global cities ^[12];

2) transformation of relations between the state and the private sector, transition from managerialism to entrepreneurship ^[19], from state regulation to "management", including new subjects in the management process: investors, business, citizens;

3) deindustrialization, industrial restructuring ^[12];

4) social and economic polarization, concentration of executive, professional, managerial technocracy and lower classes in the same places ^[21];

5) new forms of urban culture and consumption ^[22].

These signs reflect the processes of inclusion of cities in global economic relations and the struggle for investment, tourist flows, human capital.

However, countries react differently to the processes of urban reconstruction. Historical, political, and institutional factors influence how global processes are integrated into the management of urban areas.

Structural and cultural approaches can be distinguished in urban management studies. Representatives of the structural approach ^[23] explain the ongoing changes in management by such factors as: "capitalist development, market rationality, the formation of the state, secularization, political and scientific revolution and the acceleration of tools for communication and dissemination of ideas." However, such approaches do not pay attention to political, social, and cultural differences in governance between countries and cities ^{[24, p. 366]}.

Representatives of the cultural analysis of the city administration ^{[25, 26]} focus on the study of the culture of political systems ^{[25, 26, 27, 28]}. Using anthropological approaches, they show how historically formed systems of values, symbols and beliefs participate in the creation of social and political identity ^[29]. They explain how, with structural changes and transformation of existing institutions, certain management methods continue to be reproduced. In this process, globalization is of great importance, which affects the creation of a new political culture around the world ^[26]. The new culture differs from the old one in its attention to social issues, as opposed to economic ones. It also implies a weaker role of political parties, unions and organized groups and a stronger role of citizens, the media and external experts who contribute to political innovation ^{[26, p. 24]}. The disadvantage of this approach is that it explains the sustainability of practices, but not their transformation. Changes in urban governance practices can be explained in the context of changes in politics and economics ^{[24, p. 360]}. The problem with the above approaches is that they do not pay attention to the institutional aspects of urban governance in countries where the institution of urban development management is in a transitional state. To do this, it is necessary to turn to research on the transformation of post-socialist cities.

Transformation of post-socialist cities in the context of globalization: methods of theorizing and empirical analysisResearchers of global transformations in post-socialist cities are looking for ways to theoretically comprehend them.

One of them is suggested by Karin Wist, who identifies universalist and individualist ways of understanding global transformations ^[30]. Universalist approaches seek to find common features of global processes and to consider their relations within a common system. This approach presupposes the existence of a comprehensive theory capable of explaining all research cases. Individualistic approaches focus on differences, variations that can be traced within the same processes. Such theories are most often based on the materials of ethnographic observations, historical narratives ^{[30, p. 831]}. Whist argues that the transition from modernism to postmodernism symbolizes a change in spatial conceptualization and the application of comparative methods. There is a "transition from universalist theories, such as modernization theory, to individualistic ones, such as "multiple modernity" ^[31] and "intertwined modernity" ^{[32, cit. 30, 831]}.

With the growth of global interconnections, urban research is becoming less dependent on the characteristics of national states and cultures, and a more "cosmopolitan view of urban life is needed, with the help of which experience from different regions of the world can be extracted" ^[30]. The experience of post-socialist cities is described as a "mirror" of global changes ^[33]. Andrush notes that "in the future, a socialist city will be referred to as a paradigmatic form of a modern city, and a post—socialist city as capitalism without a human face" ^[34]. However, such justifications contain hierarchies: the experience of post-socialist cities is considered as a certain stage of development. In this context, Whist notes the value of postcolonial thinking, which rejects the idea of linear transition. "In response to this criticism of prototypical and one-line development in post-socialist urban studies, interest is increasingly focused on variations in the trajectories of national and local development in the context of urban restructuring, and on the interrelationships between development in different cities" ^{[35, 36 citations to 30]}. Thus, it is proposed to take into account the following principles for the theoretical understanding of post-socialist cities ^[30]:

- raising awareness of implicit comparative assumptions in urban studies;

- taking into account cultural and social contexts, which involves the analysis of institutions in their relationship with global processes;

- consideration of the concept of a post-socialist city is broader than a territorial community.

Turning to empirical works, it can be noted that studies on the patterns of urbanization, revealing post-socialist and capitalist trends, are focused on the cities of Central and Eastern Europe ^{[37, 38]}, while attempts to study the cities of the former Soviet Union are still quite rare [for example, 39]. In the Russian field of research, there are works that touch on this topic ^{[40, 41]}. The borrowing of political courses in the field of urban management is analyzed on the example of the Perm case ^[42].

The article "Local Urban Reconstruction as a Mirror of Globalization Processes: Prague in 1990" examines how Prague, through systemic transformations that formed the basis of the state-controlled transition to a market economy, becomes a capitalist city. The authors explore the links between modern restructuring in the Western world and the transformation of the Czech Republic. Systemic transformations in Prague include the following processes: deregulation of public administration, privatization processes and price liberalization. These processes establish new rules of the game, redistribute resources and power, and create prerequisites for a new stage of transition. Transformations are taking place in the urban environment: the labor market is changing, new consumption landscapes are emerging, there is a struggle for dominance over space. It is argued that the modern transition should be considered as internal transformations within the framework of the modern project ^[33].

Based on the concept of reterritorialization as a constant rethinking of urban identity, Mina Petrovic's article discusses the process of post-socialist transformation of Belgrade in the context of globalization. The article is based on Lefebvre's ideas about the production of space, Raffestin's concept of deterritorialization, Castells' concept of flows, Smith's idea of transnational urbanism and Strassoldo's ideas of glocalization ^[43]. The study shows that transnational agents are more attracted to places with a local flair. The practices of transnational actors are hindered by an insufficiently developed globalized environment, which is an important prerequisite for the development of Belgrade as an internationally recognized and attractive city ^[43]. In the article "Symbolic consumption of the city as a means of discrimination" Svetlana Batarilo, Milena Kordic, Ranka Gadzic show how the social and morphological space of the modern post-socialist city has changed under the influence of consumerism. They view urban spaces as a commodity that becomes an object of consumption. For these purposes, they use Debord's idea of how in a consumer society each element becomes a commodity for exchange, as well as Bourdieu's idea of the symbolic value of goods as a means of differentiation ^[44]. Ranka Peric Romic examines the transformations of the city of Banja Luka, which influenced the creation of new urban identities in it through changing the names of institutions, streets, and the transformation of the purpose of urban objects. This identity corresponded more to the political, economic, and cultural processes of the city's development within the framework of a market society. The change in urban space occurred through the inclusion of new economic entities, the formation of the service sector and new practices of citizens. Through these practices, new status characteristics of the population related to the specifics of consumption of urban services also began to form ^[45].

Thus, in this part of the article, the methods (universalist and individualist) are highlighted, as well as the principles that researchers are invited to take into account for the theoretical understanding of the transformation of the management of post-socialist cities under the influence of global processes. Examples of empirical analysis of ongoing transformations are presented, which combine various topics: from power and resources to symbolic consumption and the identities of post-socialist cities.

The concept of a post-socialist city in a scientific discussionIn the discussion about the socialist and post-socialist city, it is proposed to distinguish two schools ^[46].

Representatives of the first school adhere to the ecological model, in which socialist cities are considered as one of the models of industrial urbanization of the twentieth century, they go through the same evolutionary stages as capitalist cities, but with a delay ^[46]. The second school, the historical one, considered socialist cities as an autonomous urban model. Representatives of this school focused on the mode of production (neo-Marxist approach) or the political order (neo-Heberian approach). The main differences between representatives of these two schools, according to Hirt's description, consist, firstly, in whether socialism should be considered a unique model or one of the ways of developing capitalist cities, and secondly, in whether "a specific socio-economic order, and not some universal evolutionary forces, can create own space" ^{[46, p. 35]}.

Representatives of these approaches describe models of the development of societies, but do not address the question of the concept of a (post-)socialist city. In 2016, the journal Eurasian Geography and Economics published an issue in which a conceptual discussion on this topic was presented. The search for a definition involves the question of those parameters and characteristics that we present when we consider a (post-)socialist city as an object of analysis.

The following characteristics of socialist cities are distinguished: "a large area of public spaces in the city center reserved for ceremonial events, a shortage of spaces for residential areas, lack of class segregation, almost complete absence of signs of urban marginalization, a large area of urban spaces intended for industrial enterprises, a more uniform standardized architectural appearance" ^{[46, 47, 48]}. However, the question of the significance of these characteristics in comparison with the cities of Western and Southern Europe remains open ^[48]. Hirt does not find evidence of significance in existing studies.  For example, researchers point to the presence of segregation in socialist cities ^{[49, 50]}, but in form it differs from capitalist cities. This also applies to the characteristics associated with marginality, which was less noticeable compared to capitalist cities. The thesis of "architectural uniformity" is questioned, since residential projects in Western European cities also have the property of uniformity. Spatial characteristics, according to Hirt, only indirectly reflect social relations. For example, different countries use the same spatial structures or stylistic solutions ^[48] and at the same time their social composition differs. Accordingly, the question of the characteristics of a socialist city requires a certain degree of reflexivity and an idea of the goals that the study seeks to achieve: whether it focuses on the unique qualities of the city under study, or, conversely, it is considered in a global context in which there are no significant differences with capitalist cities.

Another issue is related to the temporal and spatial boundaries of a socialist and post-socialist city. Despite the fact that socialism was a general socio-economic order, the practices of its implementation differed depending on the country. This is also confirmed by the variety of political and economic trajectories that countries have followed after the fall of communist regimes and the collapse of the USSR ^{[48, p. 4]}. Hirt suggests paying attention to the signs of differences based on the national and global position of the city:

monumental projects in urban centers that remind us of the scale of ceremonial space under socialist regimes tend to arise as a function of the wealthy public or private sector (often in partnership). Consequently, we have the same new buildings both in Berlin and in Moscow, but there are not enough of them in such numbers in most other post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Informal settlements, similar to slums that were banned in socialist countries, most often appear in predictable places where the shadow economy is strong and municipal regimes are either weak or corrupt... Why then should post-socialist Berlin, Moscow, Tirana and Sarajevo be in the same category? ^{[48, c. 5]}

The term "post-socialism" refers to the past and does not offer meanings relevant to the present and future of such cities ^{[48, p. 5]}. Therefore, there are two ways out of this situation: either choose a different concept, or fill the existing one with new meanings.

Based on the postcolonial perspective in urban studies, sociologist Slavomir Ferenchukhova suggests studying the concepts of socialist and post-socialist cities themselves and including a historical dimension in the study of modern post-socialist cities ^{[48, p. 5]}. Ferenchukhova shows that the spread of the concept of a socialist city is closely linked to the history and ideology of the Cold War. The concept "was used in academic circles on both sides of the Iron Curtain in a (rather complicated) relation to the idea of a "western/capitalist city" ^{[48, p. 6]}. This term appears in academic discussion during a certain historical period and is used to refer to the "Other" from the Western and capitalist city. In academic discussion, this concept has been spreading since 1979 after the publication of the book "The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy" ^[51], as well as with the growing number of research articles written by scientists from both CEE and Western Europe. Since 1989, this meaning has been maintained in academic works, in which the socialist city "became a reference point for understanding post-socialist urban development." In addition to this, the socialist city assumed an additional role of "Other" in relation to the post-socialist city ^{[48, p. 6]}. Thus, she emphasizes that the concepts by which reality is described are historically constructed. The term "post-socialist city" inevitably carries with it a historical background associated with the concept of a socialist city. Knowing this history, researchers can redefine this term and adapt it to the modern discussion.

An attempt to rethink the term is proposed by geographer Tauri Tuvikene. It denotes the problem of the transfer of concepts coming from other countries for the analysis of specific local processes. Tuvikene suggests turning to the literature on comparative urbanism and developing new concepts that would be suitable for describing processes on the periphery. New theories should be based on examples of specific cases of cities or places in order to maintain a balance between theory and its reproduction in practice. To answer this challenge, Tuvikene suggests using a "conceptualization" strategy:

Conceptualization, unlike more rigid methods of developing concepts or theories, is a "dynamic and generative process, subject to the rules of experimentation and the possibility of revision ^{[48, p. 12]}.

The main idea is to deterritorialize the term "post-socialism", that is, to use it in relation to certain aspects of cities and societies, as opposed to specific spatial and territorial units. Post-socialism in this sense can mean the process of transition "from the ideas of a collective, socialist way of life and models of public administration towards individualism and market orientation with many accompanying shifts in segregation and changes in life opportunities" ^[48]. Tuvikene notes that the concept of post-socialism can be used for research focusing on the processes of transformation, transition from collective to individual forms of life and management, which are usually discussed in connection with neoliberalism ^{[48, p. 19]}. The analysis of the processes of management transformation and the formation of new practices becomes key to the discussion of the post-socialist city from a global perspective and allows us to deterritorialize this term, use it in relation to the processes of transformation, and not to territorial communities.

Thus, in this part of the article, a theoretical discussion was considered about the conceptual possibilities and meanings inherent in the concept of a post-socialist city. The researchers propose to revise the existing definitions and expand the categorical apparatus for describing the transformation processes of post-socialist cities.

Contours of urban governance transformation in post-Soviet citiesAfter discussing the theoretical and empirical features of the research of post-socialist cities and their management, this part of the article will highlight the signs of the transformation of the management of Russian cities in the context of global changes.

In 2015, Russia signed a UN resolution that includes sustainable development, improving the interaction of citizens and the state ^[52]. The UN methodology has been adapted to Russian realities. The list of national indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals includes "ensuring openness, security and environmental sustainability of cities and settlements". As part of this goal, by 2030, it is expected to "expand the scope of inclusive and environmentally sustainable urbanization and opportunities for integrated and sustainable human settlements planning and management based on broad participation in all countries."

There were projects on the inclusion of citizens in the regulation of urban issues, online platforms for interaction between citizens and the state and online participation mechanisms, as well as large investment partnerships between the state and business (VEB.RF, DOM.RF). All these changes affect existing institutions. In particular, one of such institutions is urban planning and related urban planning policy, which is designed to respond to emerging global problems and challenges associated with the transformation of cities.

The key characteristics of the transformation of urban governance in post -Soviet cities are:

- inclusion of new actors influencing the management process: business (developers, developers), residents, social movements that participate in the evaluation of urban development projects;

- the emergence of new management programs: federal programs in the field of urban environment transformation (under the auspices of Ministry of Construction), which are formulated in partnership with the expert community (national project "Housing and Urban Environment"), the creation of federal agencies (Dom.rf, VEB.rf), which work in cooperation with banks and private commercial companies on projects for the transformation of urban spaces in various Russian cities;

- development of new standards for the quality of the urban environment, development, improvement, new standards for the quality of life in cities.

- new management tools, such as measurements of the quality of the urban environment, the use of Internet technologies and opinion polls to interact and take into account the opinions of residents of territories;

- new interdisciplinary tasks and new specialists in the field of urban planning, in addition to urban planners and architects: economists, sociologists, programmers, etc.

- new tools and techniques for monitoring and managing the quality of the urban environment. In particular, the collection of statistical data for management decision-making. In addition, an urban environment quality index has been created, which takes into account the following parameters: safety, comfort, environmental friendliness and health, identity and diversity, modernity and relevance of the environment, effective management.

- new areas of urban development, such as landscaping, which appears in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in 2011. Landscaping is also a key aspect of the "Comfortable Urban Environment" program. This affects the formation of new professional competencies related to the theme of landscaping and design of public spaces.

- transformation of practices in the design of public spaces of Russian cities: the emergence of new types of landscaping, design and forms of urban objects, building materials.

All of the above processes reflect the formation of specific consumption practices, which are also reflected in the urban space. They influence the practices of managing this space. These transformations are taking place against the background of global changes and at the same time are specific to the Russian institutional context.

ConclusionsThe article presents an overview of the theoretical and methodological issues faced by researchers describing global transformations in city management.

The main thesis of the article is that post-socialist cities should be considered in their connection with global processes. It is assumed that the concept of a "post-socialist city" can become a driver for launching a research direction of post-Soviet cities, their analytical understanding in the context of a global discussion.

The existing idea of post-socialist cities, associated with their territorial and historical community, is criticized and is not always suitable for describing complex and multilevel capitalist processes that are reflected in spatial and social relations. The deterritorialized concept of a post-socialist city allows us to focus on the processes associated with the transformation of ideologies, the influence of capitalist principles on spatial and social changes.

The article discusses universalist and individualist strategies for theorizing the management of a post-socialist city in the context of globalization, empirical examples of the analysis of post-socialist cities under the influence of global changes. The importance of historical, political, and institutional factors that influence how global processes are integrated into the management of urban areas was noted.

Considering the concept of a post-socialist city, it is necessary to highlight the following aspects for further reflection:

- inclusion of studies of post-socialist cities in the global discussion;

- consideration of the term "post-socialist city", focusing on the analysis of social, spatial and capitalist processes;

- consideration of the post-Soviet city as an object of theoretical analysis

Of interest for future research is the specifics of post-Soviet cities in the framework of the global discussion on urban governance. In particular, this includes the specifics of planning institutions, market regulation, as well as stratification characteristics of the population. The specifics that distinguish post-Soviet cities may include: practices (transformation in the use of public spaces, bicycling, cave-walking); institutions (urban planning institute, landscaping), actors (activists, urbanists, developers, local businesses that are involved in the development of urban areas). Such processes as growing inequality, individualization, changing consumption landscapes, new actors and new professional tasks are markers of transformation in the management of a post-socialist city.