Sezione I – Il tema
transformation [Turnhout et al., 2020]. As Mitlin [2008]
shows, it is easy to find cases of co-production which foster local governments’ political visions from the top, while assigning a marginal role to citizens.
Following this stream of criticisms, our paper enquires into the transformative potential of co-production, meaning by that its capability to contrast structural causes at the basis of urban injustice. It considers production as a combination of design, co-management and co-governance and observes its transformative impacts by adopting the lens of spatial justice. With its focus on geographical, distributive,
and political aspects, spatial justice can help analysis and hopefully orient the debate on the transformative potential of co-production for the better.
In what follows we explore the transformative potential of co-production in relation to the MNP (Magdolna Neighbourhood Programme – Budapest). After the end of the socialist regime, the rehabilitation of Magdolna – one of the most deprived and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods of Budapest – became a priority of the local government. In 2005, an Integrated Urban Regeneration Programme which lasted 10 years was started to regenerate it. We describe the programme
Fig. 1. Budapest: unemployment rate in the different districts (KSH, 2011).
and next, drawing on interviews carried out with some local actors who were involved in the programme, we discuss the impacts of co-production on urban justice.
The Magdolna Neighbourhood Programme
Magdolna is one of the most deprived and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods of Budapest. The Hungarian capital has around 1.7 million inhabitants and is composed of 23 districts with councils and mayors which have a relatively high level of autonomy. Magdolna is located in the middle part of the Józsefváros district, which, in turn, is a highly problematic district in the capital. It is characterized by a decreasing population, high criminal, and unemployment rates [Fig. 1], shortage of green spaces. Significant inequalities are noticeable within it with regard to the access to decent housing and job, healthcare and education.
In Magdolna neighbourhood, almost 12000 people from different ethnic groups live in precarious living conditions. According to national and local statistics, in 2001 in it only the 40% of dwellers aged 15-60 had a maximum of 8 years primary school education.
The unemployment rate was around 13 % of the active population, twice the unemployment rate of the capital and 1 out of 10 families was grappling with unemployment. 55% of the homes were single-room apartments. 40% of flats were overcrowded, a rate much higher than the 28% in Hungary and 23% in Budapest. 35% of all homes were social rental flats owned by the local government [Horváth et al., 2008].
To change the status of deprivation and decay of Magdolna, in 2005 the city of Budapest started a long-lasting Integrated Urban Regeneration Programme:
the Magdolna Neighborhouhood Programme (MNP).
It is part of an important urban transformation which begun in the ’90 after the change of the political system
and that aimed at making Budapest a European Capital through regeneration projects.
One of the first projects was the rehabilitation of the Corvin Promenade in Józsefváros which was carried out through a newly set up public-private partnership.
Like other urban rehabilitation programmes in Budapest, the Corvin Promenade project led to gentrification. It brought about privatisations and mostly physical, profit-oriented interventions, such as a shopping centre and new flats that targeted the middle-class, thus accruing existing inequalities inside the district and in Magdolna. Unlike the Corvin Promenade project, the MNP aimed to improve the living conditions and the social status of the settled dwellers [Figg. 2 - 3]. However, the Corvin Promenade project drew the attention of investors: had that not been the case, the MNP would have probably been unable to garner the resources and the motivation needed for its conceptualisation [Czirfusz et al., 2015]. The MNP was conceived by the local government as a truly integrated and socially sensitive programme inspiring an alternative approach towards local development.
The overall objective of the programme was to transform a deprived neighbourhood into a liveable, inclusive and diverse one through actions aimed at slowing segregation, decreasing unemployment, enhancing economic activity and improving the living conditions. To be effective, the MNP was carried out through four sub-programmes: housing refurbishment;
public spaces revitalisation; social programme and community building; crime prevention and employment programme. Nevertheless, it was characterised by a holistic vision regarding goals and actions to be implemented. Each of the sub-programme used different form of co-production to engage local residents.
Unlike the Corvin Promenade project, it emphasized
Fig. 2. The MNP programme: challenges to be faced (Guide to Magdolna Neighbourhood Programme).
the active involvement of residents in a process of co-production of regeneration including co-design, co-management and co-governance. Its approach implied the use of different forms of coproduction in each different sub-programme, and, accordingly, of different forms of citizens’ engagement and social, cultural and technical tools [Magdolna Neighbourhood Programme, 2007]. Hence, different procedures of co-production were chosen depending on the initiative carried out through the programme and the tackled problem.
The rehabilitation of public housing -that in 2001 amounted to 42% of the 5500 housing units- was undertaken in co-production between the inhabitants and RÉV8. The latter is a public urban development agency created in 2004 as part of the District Development Strategy. It involved the local government of Józsefváros (51%), the government of Budapest (39%) and a bank (19%). According to a previously set contract signed by all actors, the process and the financial details were controlled by RÉV8, while the inhabitants received all the necessary resources and information for carrying out the rehabilitation process. Through a co-design process, this sub-program allowed to refurbish 30% of the stock owned by the municipality and 10% of the semi-private condominiums. Within the sub-programme aimed at the revitalisation of public spaces, co-production implied the involvement of citizens and associations.
The Partners for Teleki Square Association was created in 2013 to manage the actions of revitalisation. Another programme named “Living Courtyards” was initiated to promote community-building processes. Citizens were involved in a participatory process and in activities like community planting, and painting buildings.
The social programme and community building led to the creation of a community centre, called Kesztyűgyár (Glove Factory Community Centre) which is located at the centre of Magdolna, at Mátyás Square. Kesztyűgyár is an important place for the neighbourhood: moreover, it is in an iconic building. It was meant to become a multi-ethnic community centre, offering various courses and programmes for dwellers and people from outside of Magdolna. It should have been a meeting point for inhabitants, an attractive destination for young people and the middle-class too, a place of social inclusion and integration, and the symbol of the programme’s commitment to social justice. Currently, the Center hosts events and other several activities including training in different fields.
Some of the participants of training activities found a durable job out of MNP. The social sub-programme was also carried out through schools which used tools for the resolution and management of the conflicts to create a diverse but inclusive neighbourhood.
Finally, the programme implemented actions for crime prevention and for improving the sense of safety in the neighbourhood. The MNP developed through three main phases. The first phase took place from 2005 until 2008. It started in 2005 as a Pilot Project funded by the Municipality of Józsefváros and the city of Budapest. The second phase was completed between 2008 and 2011, while the third was developed from 2013 until 2015 with the support of ERDF (European Fund for Regional Development). The implementation of the programme was in charge of a public urban development agency called RÉV8 created in 2004 inside the District Development Strategy. It involved the local government of Józsefváros (51%), the government of Budapest (39%) and a bank (19%).
Fig. 3. Goals of Magdolna Neighbourhood Programmes.
Experiencing co-production
In order to examine how co-production has been practiced in the case of MNP, we have chosen to adopt the lens of spatial justice. According to Soja (2010) spatial justice is not only based on the fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and the opportunities to use them, but also on the promotion of more progressive, participatory forms of urban politics and social activism. Therefore, spatial justice, which draws on a stream of thinking that focuses on the dynamics of production of space [Harvey, 1973; Lefebvre, 1991], highlights both spatial aspects of social justice [Madanipour et al., 2021] and crucial aspects concerning the creation of democratic political spaces [Soja, 2010]. Spatial justice embeds distributive and procedural justice issues which are related to the ways in which cities and regions are planned and governed. This conception of spatial justice is particularly useful to enquire into the transformative potential of co-production. It provides us with a framework of analysis which focuses on the redistribution of resources, the construction of active citizenship and social capital, the empowerment of local communities and the creation of autonomous political spaces. In our study of the MNP, we have specifically focused on distributive matters, the creation of social capital, community empowerment and the enlargement of spaces of participation.
In this paper we report the results obtained through eight in-depth, semi-structured interviews that were carried out with local inhabitants, political, technical and NGOs representatives who were deeply involved in the co-production process. In particular, we interviewed a local government official in charge of the decision-making process; one of the managers of the Kesztyűgyár Community Centre; a member of Rév8, who contributed actively to the programme from its onset; and a former member of Rév8, who also actively contributed to the programme; an activist from a local civil political organization involved in the programme, who current plays an important political role in Józsefváros too;
and local residents who participated in the MNP.
The interviews focused on each actor’s perception of the extent to which co-production fostered spatial justice; the efficacy of citizens’ involvement and empowerment; co-production’s possible impact on future democratization of decisions making processes and urban policies concerning Magdolna and Józsefváros.
The Interviews Distributive matters
For the interviewed, the initial program did not fulfil its commitment to social justice due to several reasons including political changes at the national and local level. After 2010, the local government’s commitment to regeneration changed towards more neoliberal goals. In particular, one of our interviewees mentioned the political change in 2009: the election of the new mayor implied a new, more neoliberal attitude towards urban development. According to the member of the local government that we interviewed, this change
«killed a lot of projects in some ways. Funds had to be dedicated to already approved plans, which made it impossible to work with the population step by step».
This political change implied the withdrawal of support from initiatives such as the refurbishment of public housing. As a result, the programme was no longer able to significantly improve the housing conditions for the most fragile and vulnerable households. After the first phase, the programme used European funds, and for this reason, it changed its original approach, which triggered a soft gentrification.
Social Capital
The sub-programmes made significant progress in the establishment of fairer and more accountable relationships between the local government and dwellers. At that time, Hungarians were not used to having the opportunity to interact with governmental institutions, nor to turn to others with trust, as they had to be silent for decades. Thus, in that context of action, the MNP was an experimental learning programme.
In particular, the several co-creative activities that were carried out in cooperation with housing tenants -such as the rehabilitation of the public housing stock or the redesign of the common courtyard- favoured more trustful interactions between local inhabitants and the local government. An employee of Rév8 maintains that the programme has open up «a completely different relationship between the municipality and the residents. Residents have become more sensitive to the environment because they have put their work in and want to preserve it.
If there is a problem, they do not hesitate to report it to the municipality straight away, they have much stronger advocacy».
Before the implementation of the MNP, the needs of
low-income households had been rarely considered as relevant by the local government. After the end of the MNP, citizens -even the most fragile- interact with, public administration to find solutions to their problems. Nowadays, they are used to communicating with the local government and have channels for being listened to in one-to-one interactions.
Creation of a community
Relations between dwellers hardly have become stronger, neither Kesztyűgyár has become a multi- ethnic social community centre. A member of the Community Center said: «There is no sign of community organization, no mother group, nothing like this». Initially, Kesztyűgyár facilitated the encounter between the middle class and lower-income status groups. Later, this community centre somewhat lost its identity and creativity. Again, according to the interviewees, the reasons for such a change have to do with the political change that occurred in the national and local government. After this change, the management staff of the Centre chose to follow another path: they preferred to organize big events, and training courses free of charge, thus undercutting the aggregative potential of the centre in the everyday life of the neighborhood. Children attended these training courses free of charge, but the youth and adults were hardly keen on doing so. Furthermore, these activities did not stimulate local residents to come together to generate innovative ideas and projects which might satisfy the basic needs of an extremely deprived neighbourhood.
Interviewees confirm that the co-production process in each sub-programme did not support the emergence of a sense of community. Concomitant causes were the existing conflicts and prejudices dividing citizens, the lack of adequate approaches and tools for dealing with differences. A local resident said: «Some think it is a place where the scrap goes, there are Roma communities who don’t set foot. It’s hard to find someone who would be keen on coming».
At the beginning of the programme, which was driven by local governments, only some civil organizations contributed to the planning and implementation phases. Several civil organizations were excluded, with special attention to Roma or migrant organisations. The public housing rehabilitation sub-programme -and specifically the renovation process of common spaces within it seemed more able to create social capital and community.
It started promisingly, even though at the beginning
residents didn’t understand the goals of the whole process. Later, they were able to form groups:
moreover, they could apply by themselves to the renovation call of Rév8. Residents held a mandatory annual forum where they could talk about the pros and cons of the programme, but no forward-looking ideas emerged. The forums were usually about fixing technical problems. From the point of view of a leader of a local NGO «residents were amazed when someone deals with them. They were not used to being listened to or being considered as human beings. However, their mistrust in local governments prevented the poor inhabitants of Magdolna from rebelling». After an initial fruitful period of joint work between local residents and Rèv8 (2007-2008), in which co-production also depended on trust among the actors and dynamics of interaction at the micro-level, dominant actors emerged. This was particularly evident in the housing sub-programme. Besides putting pressure on their community, some residents of the condominiums started to act like landlords, without any real consensus. These actors went against the community, having just their individual interests in mind. A local government representative argued that «In the end, no one loved anyone, there was no communication. It was also because they are very poor residents, looking for power when they meet. If he doesn’t get it, he will turn against them».
In 2008, meaningful initiatives were started to regain trust. According to the narratives, a special sort of identity was formed among dwellers, thanks to the initiatives in the district. In spite of the difficulties, a new political subject emerged among middle-class groups, called C8 Civils for Józsefváros with sensitivity for local social challenges. They were able to express and represent the Magdolna neighbourhood citizens’ needs in Józsefváros district, while their biggest success is having nominated the current mayor of Józsefváros in 2019. Since then, a local civic organization has stepped into the door of the local government, which marks a huge challenge for it.
Participation
Because during the interviews no one spoke about participation we directly asked the interviewees what the reason for them could be.
The leader of a local NGO explained that «The method of public participation is something to be learnt, it’s not about good intentions». Rév8 had no capacity and time for convincing poor to attend
training courses. The flow of events pushed the process forward. Therefore, in Teleki Square it all came together, and it went with the displacement of the poor».
The only participatory process which was organized aimed at listening to the needs of local people in relation to the regeneration of some public spaces.
However, the interviewed said that the Rév8 did not possess the knowledge and capacity concerning how to organize public participation. There were heated public debates related to the reduction of parking places, besides, minorities fought against the project to transform the Square into a place where children could play loudly, or homeless people spend time.
As a result, the co- design process did not cope with the creation of inclusive public spaces but focused on creating a play-free space to avoid a lot of children’s noises. The member of a semi-political association in Józsefváros argued that, in order to favour the emergence of a substantive contribution directly from the most deprived social groups on the inclusion of public spaces, the meetings should have been facilitated by a cultural mediator. «This kind of activity does not fit into the life of a person who is struggling to survive». Anyway, he admits that the existence of this association is thanks to the MNP and its members are keen on representing the same values as the programme did. Online spaces helped self- expression.
A group in a social media platform has been also created, in which people can share their problems and ideas related to everyday life.
It might seem to be not much, however, the social media platform shows the need of vulnerable groups to be represented and involved in decision-making processes. In October 2019 a significant political change has occurred in the local government of Budapest and Józsefváros too. The eighth district established a community participation office in its local government structure, so as to make room for
It might seem to be not much, however, the social media platform shows the need of vulnerable groups to be represented and involved in decision-making processes. In October 2019 a significant political change has occurred in the local government of Budapest and Józsefváros too. The eighth district established a community participation office in its local government structure, so as to make room for