Author Archives: A Youngson

The injustices produced by urban “development” and “revitalization”

1 Reply

This post was contributed by Dr Joel McKim, is lecturer in Media and Cultural Studies at Birkbeck and co-organizer of the Architecture, Space and Society Research Centre. Here, Dr McKim reports on the recent BIRMAC (Birkbeck Interdisciplinary Research in Media and Culture) event led by Dr Isabelle Anguelovski, titled: “New directions in gentrification studies: From inequities in neighborhood greening to emerging injustice(s) in new urban food spaces”

Isabelle-Anguelovski

Isabelle Anguelovski

It’s perhaps no surprise that an event on gentrification attracted a large and engaged audience at Birkbeck on the evening of Friday, 3 June. The term “gentrification” has its origins, after all, here in London, it being coined by the UCL sociologist Ruth Glass in her introduction to the 1964 book London: Aspects of Change.

There are also few places where the impact of contemporary gentrification has been more pronounced – the forms of property speculation, community displacement and uneven economic development that characterize the urban phenomenon have long been defining elements of London life.

Isabelle Anguelovski’s visit to Birkbeck encouraged both a global consideration of gentrification and an awareness of the potentially overlooked role that environmental justice movements and food spaces play within these larger urban processes.

New Directions in Gentrification Studies

Anguelovksi is a senior researcher at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona where she leads a number of major research initiatives, including the “Cities and Environmental Justice” and “GREENLULUS” projects. Her aptly titled Birkbeck talk, “New Directions in Gentrification Studies,” highlighted the inequalities and injustices produced by processes of urban “development” or “revitalization” in the diverse cities where her research has been conducted, contexts ranging from predominantly black and Hispanic neighbourhood of Jamaica Plain, Boston to marginalized informal settlement communities in Medellín, Columbia.

Food networks and environmental resources lie at the centre of Anguelovski’s case study research and her work uncovers the ways in which green-oriented neighbourhood “improvements” often fuel the very processes of gentrification that threaten the communities living within these areas. Her talk highlighted the manner in which the benign surface appearance of green, environmental or ecological development schemes can serve to mask the negative impact these projects may have on marginalized populations.

Case studies: The processes of gentrification

Isabelle Anguelovski presents a the BIRMAC event

Isabelle Anguelovski presents a the BIRMAC event

In the case of Jamaica Plain in Boston, the arrival of the organic Wholefoods Food Market has also involved the closing of the Hi-Lo Supermarket, not only an affordable source of Latino food staples, but also a focal point of the community. Meanwhile, improvements in park and leisure spaces have led to rising rents and the influx of wealthier residents.

In Medellín, Columbia, the development of a 75 kilometre green belt around the city will also initiated the process of displacing the informal settlement communities that have long been using this land for farming and sustenance. To characterize these deceptively damaging new forms of gentrification, Anguelovski has coined the term GreenLULUs, an adaptation of an acronym (Locally Unwanted Land Uses) usually reserved for unwelcome urban spaces like landfills, prisons, and power plants.

The troubling political paradox that emerges from Anguelovski’s insightful work is that the negative impact of green or ecological gentrification leaves environmental justice movements in an extremely difficult position – attempts to improve quality of life for poor or marginalized communities may well have the unintended consequence of raising property values, exasperating social inequalities and pushing out the very people these activist movements are attempting to help. If a solution to this paradox exists, Anguelovski suggests it must come in the form of alternative networks and resources that involve the community directly in their organizational and, perhaps most importantly, ownership structure.

Academic responses

The global complexities of green or food-based processes of gentrification were further explored by two excellent responses to Anguelovski’s talk. Dr Daisy Tam, a prominent researcher of food culture in Asia visiting from the Hong Kong Baptist University, brought forward the particular ecological and food dynamics of the city of Hong Kong, where massive areas of farm land surrounding the city lay deliberately fallow in order to facilitate a change in regulations that will allow them to be used for property development.

Aaron Vansintjan, a PhD candidate here at Birkbeck and the recipient of the college’s Technologies of Sustainability doctoral scholarship, commented on the complexities and contradictions in urban politics and food culture he has witnessed during his first few months in London. Vansintjan, whose PhD project will study food networks and gentrification in Montreal and Hanoi, highlighted the difficult political position faced by young people within the city, a population that is often itself precarious and impoverished, while simultaneously serving as the first wave of gentrification in many areas of London.

Q&A

Gentrification5The thought provoking talk and responses were followed by a number of insightful audience questions and comments. The paradoxes and political difficulties raised by Anguelovski’s work on green gentrification certainly resonate for students and researchers confronting a number of issues involving uneven economic development and community displacement within London and beyond. Clear parallels can be seen, for example, with “smart-city” and “creative city” initiatives.

Whether these forms of green, technology, or culture-oriented urban development are designed to improve the social and economic life of the area residents, or to stimulate investment and demographic change, remains one of the key questions for contemporary gentrification studies.

Isabelle Anguelovski’s talk was sponsored by the Department of Film Media and Cultural Studies, the Architecture, Space and Society Research Centre, BIRMAC (Birkbeck Interdisciplinary Research in Media and Culture), and the Birkbeck Food Group.

Find out more

Law on Trial: Can the EU regulate a financial crisis?

1 Reply

This post was contributed by Daniele D’Alvia, MPhil Law student in Birkbeck’s School of Law. Here, Daniele reports on the Law on Trial 2016 event held on Thursday 16 June: “Can the EU Regulate a Financial Crisis?”

This year, Law on Trial – the School of Law’s week-long programme of free-to-attend public lectures and panel discussions – focused on the EU referendum. The annual showcase brought together academic staff, recognised internationally as authorities in their field.

Law on Trial 2016

Law on Trial 2016

The 16th of June 2016 has been a landmark event for the 2016 ‘Law on Trial’ series of conferences. Indeed, the 4th day of ‘Law on Trial’ has been specifically dedicated to the role of financial law in Europe. The main question that Professor Michelle Everson has posed for the panel discussion, namely ‘Can the EU regulate a financial crisis?’ has shown to be a popular topic for the high interest that the audience has manifested during the event.

In particular, Prof. Ellen Vos (Maastricht University) illustrates the regulation and the role of European agencies. She reminds of the importance of delegating powers to agencies in the EU in order to regulate risk and uncertainty (for instance, risks in the environment, food, health and safety and specifically in relation to financial crisis). On this line Prof. Michelle Everson introduces the concepts of moral hazard, risk management and systemic risk. These terms are exceptionally important in the understanding of the current financial crisis and pave the way for the speech of the third guest speaker, namely the head of the compliance office of Wells Fargo, Patrick Devine.

He gives an outstanding presentation by pointing out how the current financial crisis is global in nature, but the solutions provided therein are local. For instance, think of the EU banking insolvency procedures there is not a universal bank insolvency law, because insolvency law is national in nature. To this end, the Single Resolution Mechanism in Europe is a first attempt to provide a uniform regulation of bank insolvency through the operation of the Single Resolution Board. He outlines that the credit-crunch that occurred in America in 2007-2008 was only the trigger, but not the cause of the current financial crisis. Indeed, he concludes that the cause of the current economic crisis is just inside the same economic system, namely capitalism.

This has always been the cause in his view and the legislative frameworks have only tried to regulate the trigger and not the environment in which triggers stand. Finally, Dr. Matthias Goldmann presents the idea of Karl Polanyi on the utopia of the ‘self-regulating market’. Indeed, in 1944 Polanyi wrote the ‘Great Transformation’, which divided between a society that uses markets as one valuable tool, and ‘market society’ that places everything on the auction block, even labour. Therefore, Dr. Matthias Goldmann argues that the idea of ‘market society’ has been one of the causes of the current financial crisis and he, therefore, provides a re-interpretation of the phenomenology of contemporary financial markets, where the market itself should play a more prominent role.

In the end, the panel discussion has been dominated by the conception of risk in financial crisis and how risk can be prevented or regulated.

The conception of risk and financial risk between economic theories and philosophical arguments

I would like to introduce here the concept of the ‘past qualification’ of risk based on a possible re-interpretation of Professor Frank Knight’s book ‘Risk, Uncertainty and Profit’, which has developed a philosophical argument on risk instead of a pure economic theory on profit. The book has always been recognised for its outstanding contribution towards a distinction between risk and uncertainty, namely between objective and subjective dimensions of risk towards a theorisation of insurable form of hazards and true uncertainties.

Prof. Knight’s theory of risk is part of the remarkable story on risk.[1] Indeed, according to Bernstein risk management is a revolutionary idea where far from being an antagonist, as the mysterious fate or the voluntas dei, the future has become an opportunity. The concept of risk-taking has been developed in Western countries from Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci (1202), Cardano’s Liber de Ludo Aleae (1525) and Galileo’s Sopra la Scoperta dei dadi (1623) through the laws of probability framed, inter alia, by Pascal and Fermat,[2] and in particular the science of statistics of Graunt, Petty and Halley,[3] promoting the concept of insurance as a commercial tool in the eighteenth century. In other words, the story of risk has initiated by formalising its ontological meaning based on an objective dimension.

This was a necessary conclusion because from an epistemological point of view the discourse on risk can be complex. Risk under this new light is the probability of occurrence of an event that may or may not occur, but risk is always a measurable uncertainty. In Prof. Knight’s words:

‘the practical difference between the two categories, risk and uncertainty, is that in the former the distribution of the outcome in a group of instances is known (either through calculation a priori or from statistics of past experience), while in the case of uncertainty this is not true (….) the best example of uncertainty is in connection with the exercise of judgement or the formation of those opinions as to the future course of the events, which opinions (and not scientific knowledge) actually guide most of our conduct’[4].

So, it is possible to state that the knowledge about risk is the knowledge of a knowledgeable situation. In other words, the ontological discourse on risk is representing what is knowable in principle or a priori by virtue of laws of probability and the science of statistics. It is knowledge of objective facts. For this reason, in my view the real revolutionary idea of Prof. Knight is the categorisation of risk on the past line.[5]

The practical effect of the ‘past qualification’ of risk in global financial markets

Now, the words of our guest speaker Mr. Patrick Devine are even more intelligible: in his view capitalism has always been the cause of the current financial crisis. In philosophical terms we could say that the past qualification of risk in its objective dimension has always been the cause of every financial crisis because simply it has always been there, but it has never been regulated. In Patrick Devine’s words: ‘we regulate the trigger of a crisis (we could say what has caused the uncertainty), but not the environment in which the triggers stand (we could say the real risk).

Find out more

Footnotes

[1] Bernstein (1996). Peter L. Bernstein (1996) Against the gods: the remarkable story of risk (John Wiley & Sons)

[2] Bernstein (1996) pp 57-72.

[3] Bernstein (1996), p 92.

[4]   Knight (2002), p 233.

[5] Knight expressly said that uncertainty is the formation of opinions as to the future course of events (i.e. a subjective belief).

Law on Trial 2016: Brexit – Should the UK leave the EU?

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Birkbeck Law students Janet Cheng and Henrique Nobre. Here, Janet and Henrique report independently from the Law on Trial 2016 event held on Tuesday 14 June: “Brexit: Should the UK leave the EU?”. Speakers at the event, which Janet and Henrique moderated, were Professor Justin Frosini; Professor Christopher Lord; Professor Albert Weale; Dr Angela Ward; Dr Roch Dunin-Wąsowicz.

This year, Law on Trial – the School of Law’s week-long programme of free-to-attend public lectures and panel discussions – focused on the EU referendum. The annual showcase brought together academic staff, recognised internationally as authorities in their field.

Law on Trial 2016

Law on Trial 2016

Henrique Nobre’s report

The second evening of the Law on Trial event reflected the public expectation in discussing this extremely hot topic. The room was full of students, academics and members of the public eager to listen to our guest speakers’ arguments on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

The beginning of the session was very engaging, especially when Dr Angela Ward showed a copy of the tabloid The Sun full of scaremongering arguments and urging its readers to vote leave. Dr Ward shared with us her extensive experience and opinions on how a leave vote would endanger our economy and international relations.

Arguments were presented in relation to the position that the UK will assume in relation to trade agreements, the impact on freedom of movement, the possibility of national instability, e.g. a second Scottish referendum and the possible end of the United Kingdom, and the general uncertainty of a positive outcome.

The guests were outstanding in presenting positive and negative arguments without trying to compel the audience. The intention of the event was not to campaign for one side or the other, although it is difficult to hide personal views when talking about an issue that will affect all of us. The audience opinions were varied and contributed massively to a very fruitful discussion.

To moderate an event of such a high level and importance was a real pleasure. The panel was highly selected, the event was extremely well organised, the public was participative and there is no better company on stage than Janet Cheng (President of ELSA Birkbeck).

I felt that the event was a great opportunity to voice and discuss our concerns and that Birkbeck School of Law has chosen the right momentum to do it. As mentioned at the end of the event, independent of personal views, I urge everybody to exercise their democratic right and vote to the best outcome.

Janet Cheng’s report

The referendum coverage has been dominated by debate on immigration and trade in the media and national press from both sides of the campaign. These might be the voters’ greatest concerns, however, there are still many other issues we should be aware of.

Our panel was comprised of five outstanding scholars – Dr Angela Ward, Professor Christopher Lord, Professor Justin Frosini, Professor Albert Weale and Roch Dunin–Wasowicz PhD, all from different academic backgrounds. Through their expert presentations, looking at subjects including the review of the latest newspapers’ headlines; environmental ethnic concerns; political views in European countries and so on, the audience gained a better picture of the whole referendum.

When it came to the second part of the evening, the members of the audience were enthusiastic in expressing their views and questions to our panel. Although thoughts and opinions might differ, I think we had a healthy channel to express our views and opinions freely. And this is most important to our democratic society.

Tomorrow, we have to decide whether to leave or remain.

Looking ahead into an uncertain future the two sides weigh up the risks and opportunities and come to different conclusions. Is it safer to continue with our current multi-national arrangements, minimizing risk and change, or is the EU an outdated 1950s concept which ties the UK to the old world and which is dysfunctional and doomed to fail?

Are there realistically alternative modes of international co-operation in a more connected world? Are the advantages of a single market outweighed by regulation and the opportunities of trading with the rest of the world? What should our immigration policy be? From a legal perspective, how should our laws be made in today’s global society and how much democratic control of legislation do we want?

The decision facing us will have far-reaching consequences for the future of the UK. This is the most important decision voters are likely to be asked in our lifetime so we encourage everyone to reflect seriously and to exercise their right to vote.

Find out more

Displaced Children and Stolen Babies in Contemporary Spain

Leave a reply

This post was contributed by Dr Diana Marre, visiting research fellow at the Birkbeck Institute for Social Research (BISR). Here, Dr Marre gives an insight into her BISR Event on 29 June 2016: “Displaced Children and Stolen Babies in Contemporary Spain”

ConcentracionOn 16 June, ten days before the forthcoming Spanish presidential election, several organisations that represent children and babies who were victims of enforced disappearances in Spain between the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and the 1990s, called for a public protest in Madrid using the slogan ‘Stop Francoist impunity’.

This call for public action is one of many that have followed the presentation of two reports to the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2014. The reports focussed on enforced or involuntary child disappearances during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975), and the transition to the restoration of democracy (1976-1990). They argued that the only efforts to investigate these enforced disappearances were by victims’ families or non-governmental organisations, and noted that not only was the state not contributing to such efforts they had in fact systematically blocked or ignored research into the disappearances. Consequently the total number who have fallen victim to these enforced disappearances remains unknown.

Both reports referred to three groups of victims. Firstly, those who are still in mass graves awaiting exhumation, which consists of around 120,000 unidentified bodies in more than 400 mass graves. Secondly, there are the ‘war children’, who were the sons and daughters of the dead, imprisoned and vanquished during the Civil War and who were either adopted or placed in orphanages or similar institutions. Due to the lack of research, there is no clear data on how many children were victims of this practice. Thirdly, the reports referred to the so-called ‘stolen babies’ of Spain. Most of these babies were born using the practice of ‘twilight birth’ between 1950 and 1990, and were declared to be stillborn or to have died immediately after birth. They were then removed from their families and adopted. These victims were the children of single, poor or illiterate women or young couples with multiple children. Again, it is difficult to know the precise number of ‘stolen babies’, but current estimates suggest there were between 200,000 and 300,000 victims.

About the event

This event will ask why, in Spain, the enforced displacement of children in the ways described above still remains unrecognized and unpunished. We will examine what is considered to be one of the biggest, long-lasting and most wide-spread abductions of underage people, loss of custody by biological families and loss of

Sign up for the FREE event here

Sign up for the FREE event here

identity in the West. As an ex judge of the Spanish National High Court has noted, these enforced disappearances were a result of a ‘peculiar Spanish form of ‘legal’ disappearance of people during the Civil War and post-war period through a pseudo-juridical system that gave ‘legal’ coverage to the systematic abduction system of children’ (Garzón 2008).

This event will examine the role of fear and public secrets – the “unknown knowns” (Simmel 1906) – to achieve the aim of “remembering to forget” (Mookherjee 2006), the objective of the post-Franco dictatorship amnesty laws (1976, 1977), often referred to as the “laws of oblivion”.

Find out more

Works Cited

  • Garzón, B. (2008), Auto, vol. 53 de 2008 E, Madrid, Administración de Justicia, Juzgado Central de Instrucción n.º 5 Audiencia Nacional.
  • Mookherjee, N. (2006), ‘Remembering to forget’: public secrecy and memory of sexual violence in the Bangladesh war of 1971, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 12, 433-450.
  • Simmel, G. (1906), The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies, American Journal of Sociology, 11(4):441-498.