Co-production Practices in Neighbourhood Regeneration Policies:

The Dialogue Between the Invented Spaces and the Invited Spaces of
Participation Within “Quiero mi Barrio” Programme.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

MSc Building and Urban Design in Development

Sebastian Troncoso Stocker

10,985 Words

Development Planning Unit

University College London

01 September 2014
1
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would like to thanks my supervisor Alexandre Frediani for his key teaching during
the master and the dissertation.

Thanks to Camillo Boano for the inspiring lessons and the ludic motivation.

Thank my colleagues for the friendship and learning.

Special thanks to my wife Paula Valenzuela and my two children, Emilia and Ismael, for the
courage and support in this adventure.

And Finally thanks to Becas Chile for allowing me to be here.

2
3
CONTENT
List of Figures 5

Acronyms 6

Introduction 8

Chapter I

Contextual Frame

1.1 Santiago as a Neoliberal City 10

1.2 Neighbourhoods as an Urban Strategy 12

1.3 Neighbourhood Recovery Programme ‘Quiero mi Barrio’ 15

1.4 The Lenses 18

1.4.1 The Agonistic Model of Democracy 19

1.4.2 The Politics of the Encounters 22

1.4.3 The Invented and Invited spaces of participation 24

CHAPTER II

2.1 Analysis ‘Quiero mi Barrio’ programme. 28

Conclusions 37

References 39

Appendixes 41

4
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Conceptual Image made by the author.

Fig. 2 Dissertation Diagram, made by the author.

Fig. 3 Picture of Social Housing, ‘La Pradera’ neighbourhood, Quilicura District, Santiago, Chile,
taken by the author

Fig. 4 Picture of the square with activities of QMB Programme, 2010, taken by the author.

Fig. 5 Image made by MINVU, used in a presentation. Translated by the author.

Fig. 6 Conceptual Image made by MINVU, used in a presentation. Translated by the author.

Fig. 7 Three phases of the programme, made by the author.

Fig. 8 The component of PMP and SMP, Image made by MINVU, used in a presentation.
Translated by the author.

Fig. 9 Diagram of the Theoretical Framework, made by the author.

Fig. 10 Picture of a participatory design, take by the author.

Fig. 11 Pictures of ‘La Pradera’ neighbours using the public space: planting trees and activities
for kids, 2010, taken by the author.

Fig. 12 Conceptual Diagram of the relation between the Invented and Invited Spaces of
Participation, made by the author.

Fig. 13 Table of concept and scales, made by the author.

Fig. 14 Picture of the community in the Square of ‘La Pradera’ neighbourhood, 2011, taken by
the author.

5
ACRONYMS
CONAF: National Forestry Corporation

DNC: Development Neighbourhood Council.

JJVV: Neighbourhood Associations.

GDP: Gross Domestic Product.

MINVU: Ministry of Housing, Chile.

NRMP: Neighbourhood Recovery Master Plan.

NRP: Neighbourhood Recovery Programme.

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

PDI: Police of Investigations

PMP: Physical Management Plan.

PNDU: National Urban Development Policy.

QMB: Quiero mi Barrio (I Love my Neighbourhood).

SMP: Social Management Plan.

WHO: World Health Organization.

6
ABSTRACT
This work aims to reflect on the dialogue between the State and the citizens within a specific
policy of neighbourhood recovery implemented in Chile since 2006 called “Quiero mi Barrio”1,
which at has community participation its centre. The principal motivation of the author, who
has worked for several years in the programme, is to analyse the way that these two actors
interact and affect each other in terms of the capacities to build agreements and co-
production practices in the current governance context.

The starting point understands the State, within the Chilean reality, as a system that allows
spaces for co-production that can be used as an entry point for larger transformative processes
if the dichotomies of informal and formal actors are dismantled.

Building a bridge between these practices, showing strategies of co-existence that leave spaces
for the difference and the democratic dissensus, can help reframe and amplify the possibilities
of participation within Urban State Policies, thinking about the possible emergence of new
spaces of participation, especially in terms of co-production and collaboration, and overall to
identify any cracks in the actual implementation of the QMB Programme to improve the
performance and contribute to the democratization of the city.

Fig. 1 Conceptual Image.

1
I Love my Neighbourhood.

7
 “The neoliberal imagination has become the dominant way to imagine the urban future”
Mark Purcell, 2008

INTRODUCTION
“The city is the projection of the global society over the territory” (Lefebvre, 1978, p.10), in the
neoliberal context this is represented in the contrasts of the spaces of opportunities that allow
the expression and growth of the citizens and the spaces of the exclusion, where the poverty is
reproduced and the human condition is at risk. Within the city, as Bourdieu (2006) said, the
social distance is expressed in the spatial distances, shaping what we see every day, well
provided centralities and abandoned peripheries.

Despite this gloomy scenario during the last years we have seen clear signs of collective
resistance that have been successfully breaking down authoritarian models through the
streets, and the political use of the public spaces. Furthermore, it is interesting to assimilate a
shift of paradigms related to higher citizenship participation, universal human rights, diversity
and sustainability (Montaner & Muxida, 2010, p.17) stressing and redesigning the institutions
that govern the urban realm.

Nonetheless Latin America is one of the most urbanized regions of the planet with a 79.4% of
the inhabitant living in cities (UN-HABITAT, MINVU, 2013b, p.5) and also one of the most
unequal in terms of a strong urban and social segregation. Here raises a complex
developmental process that combines geographical particularities, institutional settings and
the presence of powerful social demands for a more participatory and democratic model.

Moreover, since the fierce dictatorship (1973-1990) Chile has been a star pupil in the
neoliberal model, privatizing key areas of society: education, housing, and health. In terms of
the production of the cities, the State has shared the responsibility in development with the
private sector, leaving important decisions in the hands of the market generating extremely
fragmented cities, with a high concentration of poverty and lacking public facilities. This
process of urban decay has slowly started to be assumed by the public policies.

Within this context the Neighbourhood Recovery Programme ‘Quiero mi Barrio’ began in 2006
as an institutional response to the neoliberal city. This programme was proposed to
reconstruct the city through neighbourhood regeneration and social cohesion, with the direct
participation of the inhabitants. A new deal between the State and the communities was
intended to generate participative, integral and sustainable processes of urban recovery.

After eight years of successful programme implementation and the definitive establishment as
public policy, it is necessary to again look at the original diagnosis and how it is reframed by
the actual policy, how these participative installed practices are democratizing the knowledge
and finally how precedent setting generates possible institutional changes.

This work is structured in two chapters. The first part consists of the construction of the
Theoretical Framework, which involves of: (1) compiling and updating the information about
‘Quiero mi Barrio’ (QMB) programme of the Housing Ministry of Chile, where the author
worked from 2007 to 2011; and (2) building a conceptual platform analysing through different

8
lenses the dialogues between the implementing institution of the programme and the
receiving citizenry.

Secondly the analysis will be made through the updated information on the state of the
programme in combination with the material generated by the application of the theoretical
lenses over the QMB.

The implication of the analysis is expected to be used to visualize possible adjustments to the
programme. These reflections could contribute to thinking on how to reshape some practices
and spaces of interaction between the State and the communities to contribute in the
collective effort to democratize the city, understanding that this is where the crises are
expressed (Harvey, 2009); but also where we start to overcome.

Fig. 2 Dissertation Diagram.

9
 “We can overcome the dominance of neoliberalism by working to democratize cities”
Mark Purcell

CHAPTER I
1.1 SANTIAGO2 AS A NEOLIBERAL CITY.

Chile has been labelled a successful model to follow by the international community because
of growth figures, politic stability and institutional design. However, one just needs to bring
the magnifying glass closer to see high levels of poverty and structural inequality.

Since the beginning of the dictatorship in 1973 a radical neoliberal model started in Chile that
privatized strategic areas of the country such as education, health, and housing. The central
idea was “the notion of a neutral state that leaves distributive issues to the invisible hands of
the marketplace” (Hecth, 1999, p.157) These decisions had a profound impact on the
development of cities, because the land was deregulated, the territory was fragmented3 and a
policy of eradicating poverty from the centres was established, concentrating on the margins.
In the capital the poverty was concentrated especially in the North, South and East, leaving the
West for the wealthiest.

Chile seemed , despite the dictatorship, heading for a direct path to full development with an
"economic growth, that led GDP per capita of $3,000 in 1982 to $19,000 in 2012” (MINVU,
2013a, p 13) and an effective reduction of the housing deficit that fell from almost 1,000,000
houses in 1990 to 490,000 today (Ibid, p.67). This, at the time, was a symbol of achievements
and recognition soon showing fissures inherited from the dictatorship model, for example in
terms of inequality where Chile, within the OECD, is the most unequal with a Gini coefficient of
0,494" (Ibid).

In terms of cities Chile also presents the global phenomena of urban concentration,
displacement and poverty on the fringes of its largest cities. With 87% Chile is in 12th place of
the most urbanized countries in the world (MINVU, 2009a, p.27).

The mass production of social housing in the periphery due to the low cost of land has
generated continuous processes of deterioration and high urban segregation. Defined by
Rodriguez (2005) as the problem of 'The with Roof', where houses with minimum quality
standards, without public infrastructure, poorly connected, overcrowding, lack of planning and
the abandonment of the State, begin to erode the city in a process of ghettoization4.

The case of Santiago within the decay urban areas there is “low educational levels, absence of
self-esteem, lack of nets to access to job opportunities and a stigmatized population because
of crime, violence and drug addiction” (Rodriguez, 2000, MINVU, 2013b, p.27).

2
Santiago is the capital of Chile and has about 6 million inhabitants according to the last census (2012) As a big city
express very clear the urban phenomena’s of the country.
3
Appendix Nº1.
4
“The –ghettoization- seems to be the last link in a process that begins with reducing opportunities” (Sabatini and
Brain 2008, p.10).

10
In this context the issue of public spaces, as a place to reduce ‘the urban divide’ through
“mutuality, friendship, pleasure and sociality” (Amin, 2006, p.10) also emerges as a
problematic dimension of this growth model without strategic planning, which has not
invested enough in public spaces such as green areas5. “Neoliberalism values individuals who
myopically pursue their material self-interest in the marketplace, not citizens who cultivate
their civic virtue in the public square” (Purcell, 2008, p.26).

Chile faces tremendous challenges in terms of comprehensive urban policy and planning with
stronger regulatory frameworks, incorporating "a look of system for understanding cities as
complex organisms in which the actions of some affect all" (MINVU, 2013a, p.68) As Fiori
states "acupuncture only make sense if there is a body" (McGuirk,2014, p.33).

The diagnosis and self-criticism is clear "there is consensus that our public system in urban
development is characterized by fragmented decision making, reactive, centralized and weak
mechanisms of participation" (MINVU, 2013a, p.69), so it is key the momentum the PNDU6
delineated in 2013, which aims to harness the various efforts being made in the public realm,
the private area and citizenship; if you want to seriously tackle the problems of poverty and
social injustice in cities.

One of the lines of interest of this dissertation is the urban regeneration through deteriorated
neighbourhoods as a strategy to retake the city, which has been addressed in the ’Quiero mi
Barrio’ programme and that the PNDU validates and emphasizes, acquiring new challenges for
this period.

"Eventually people it went enclosing,

as it was forgotten of the neighbour.
It started to live in one square meter"
Cecilia Quinteros, Villa La Pradera, 2011
(MINVU, 2011, p.18).

Fig. 3 Social Housing, ‘La Pradera’, Santiago.

5 2
In Santiago there is just 4m per person of green areas. Appendix 2.
6
National Urban Development Policy.

11
 “Segregation is not a definitive process”
Montaner and Muxi

1.2 NEIGHBOURHOODS AS A URBAN STRAEGY

“The problematic of the cities not only focuses on those informal settlements, but also in those
blocks of social housing that presents physic and social decline, and who lack of an adequate
integration to the city” (MINVU, 2013b, p.6)

With this diagnosis and the understanding of the urban as a critical factor to social stability
(MINVU, 2009b) is that the neighbourhood, as a territorial unity, emerges as a political concern
and as an urban tool the latest years. “In Latin America, several policies focused on the
neighbourhood scale have appeared, especially in relation to the renovation of the most
impoverished areas of the cities” (Tapia, 2013) trying to reduce the social tension.

These politics arise focused on neighbourhoods, on one hand, because of the idea of being a
limited and manageable territory (Kearns y Parkinson, 2001; Tapia, 2013), where the poverty
phenomena are spatialized as a “racial tensions, inequality, social segmentation, lack of social
cohesion and fragmentation of the urban landscape” (Ibid); and on the other hand, for the
conception that the neighbourhood brings associated ideas of democracy, participation,
community, identity and locality.

This contradiction in which the neighbourhood is the urban result of the neoliberal processes
and also as a strategic answer to democratize the conflictual city, establishes the need to
intend to define it through these notions:

The Neighbourhood as a System

The neighbourhood as a territorial unit is part of the complex fabric of the city. "The
neighbourhood is not an element of the city that can be explained by itself" (Lefebvre, 1974;
Tapia, 2013) because it reflects the virtuous and negative urbanization processes. Perhaps the
latter are shown with greater force, especially in the periphery, being a direct expression of
the lack of planning or neoliberal planning.

From time to time outbreaks of violence occur in suburbs, as an expression of circles of

reproduction of poverty, social and urban exclusion, those position the issue on the public
agenda and provoke reactions in terms of public policy, but showing that there is a fragile
equilibrium within the system that can be easily disrupt.

The latter makes the new governance frameworks assume the neighbourhood as one of the
starting points to try to mend the social fabric, but not always taking into account the systemic
complexity.

Moreover, it is also argued that the district allows the emergence of centripetal processes that
do not necessarily affect the larger structures, so they would not be transformative,
questioning the idea of system.

12
Neighbourhood=Community

There is a tendency to associate the neighbourhood with the place of community and social
cohesion (Forrest and Kennett, 2006; Tapia, 2013) homologating physical and social
boundaries. However, the district has spatial, political, social and cultural dimensions, which
are not necessarily coincident, so that the neighbourhood could be more associated with an
open7 and relational concept (Tapia, 2013).

Also, it is clear that the community is not a single entity, but rather diverse , which also “can
exist without sharing the same territory” (Massey, 1994; Tapia 2013), hence a vision of a
homogeneous groups living within a neighbourhood is a distortion of reality, more related with
the neoliberal social stigma and its project of poverty concentration.

On the other hand, it is also interesting to observe the dynamics of social exclusion present in
public policies, which often differ and point instead to include, installing imaginaries "shift
from neighbourhoods in difficulties to dangerous neighbourhoods" (Dikec, 2002, p.91) doing
the opposite to proposals made.

The Local Trap8

As a tendency to look favourably at lower scale interventions, attributing certain democratic

qualities. “There is nothing inherent about scale” (Purcell, 2006, p.1926), so that “any scale or
scalar strategy can result in any outcome. Localisation can lead to a more democratic city or a
less democratic one” (Ibid, p.1921). Though the scale appears to influence establishing certain
procedures related to the level of linkage between the State and citizens, the coverage and
efficiency of policy, levels of coproduction and speed of implementation.

While it is true that the scale would not ensure democratic practices, neither can we say that it
discourages (seems to have more clarity the latter), so it is important to focus on the design
rather than the space to tackle the potential threats.

Participation and Neighbourhoods

"Participation in planning has been considered a key factor in overcoming urban poverty
strategy" (UN-HABITAT, 2003; MINVU, 2013b, p.8), therefore a “central component in the
arena of social politics and development” (Gaventa, 2004; Kothari, 2001; Ibid, p.7).

However the current scenario seems to show a struggle between the old model of top-down
planning and the new glances where the citizens collaborate as co-producers of the urban
processes, a more bottom-up point of view. “In this context, is that the participation has been
associated with concepts such as ‘empowerment’, ‘sustainability’, ‘governance’ and ‘healthy
democracy’ (Cleaver, 2001; White, 2000; Ibid, p.8).

Several authors speak about how this new forms to produce the city helps to the
democratization and the local development, the increasing social capital, repair the social

7
This raises difficulties in defining physical limits to operate to see more (Tapia, 2013).
8
Concept defined by Mark Purcell (2007).

13
fabric, as well as “a mechanism that can reduce the inefficiency of the government, stopping
the clientelism, patronage and corruption” (Shah, 2007:1; Ibid, p.10).

Here it is important to take charge of certain threats to the design of public policies, such as
the “routinization of community participation depoliticizes communities struggles and extends
state control within the society” (Brown, 2003; Miraftab, 2009, p.34) according to neoliberal
discourse, existing clear risks of co-optation rather than promoting a collaborative process.

Moreover “democratic decision-making is seen as slow, messy, inefficient” (Purcell, 2006,

p.1923), it is important to note that here is the discussion between process and the product,
establishing different merits to each variable, but no doubt that policies involve communities,
how the product is obtained is essential.

“I learned to share with people, because we were not so close before

I learned to share with the neighbours"
Alvaro Veloso, kid of ‘La Pradera’ (MINVU, 2011, p.29).

Fig.4 The Square, ‘La Pradera’.

14
 “Can we still see the city as a place for a hopeful politics?”
Ash Amin

1.3 NEIGHBOURHOOD RECOVERY PROGRAMME “QUIERO MI BARRIO”

“More inclusive cities are built from integrated neighbourhoods. And we are going to add 200
new neighbourhoods to the programme ‘I Love My Neighbourhood’, in a participative way
allows neighbours to be part of the solutions to have more integrated neighbourhoods”9.

This policy which focuses on decaying neighbourhoods, as a strategy to improve in a

participative way the city from below, after 7 years of implementation, and also a
transformation from pilot programme to public policy in 2013, is still one of the main areas of
the city agenda in response to the “new tensions and urban demands that have emerged at
the same time which put our cities in a new phase of development.” (MINVU, 2009a, p.23).

The policy started with “20010 neighbourhoods with a high degree of similar conditions,
located in all 15 regions of the country, in a total of 80 districts on a national level,
representing a presence in the lives of nearly 500,000 residents or more than 3% of Chile's
population.” (MINVU, 2009a, p.55), by 2018 it is expected to reach 520 neighbourhoods.

Today the programme selects the intervention areas within the 25611 priority zones defined by
the PNDU (MINVU, 2013a, p.67), according also to these 4 lineaments:

Fig. 5 Four pillars of the programme.

The programme aims at involving the community into a collective dream. The first step is to
start the design of the Neighbourhood Recovery Master Plan (NRMP). Then “the programme
strives for cooperative definition of neighbourhood management plans focused on recovering
public spaces, urban environments and social networks” (MINVU, 2009a, p.47) through the
Social Management Plan (SMP) and the Physical Management Plan (PMP). These plans and the
communicational are developed in three consecutive phases, over 2 and 3 years12 with a
technical team working inside the area.

9
Last presidential discourse. 21/05/14 http://21demayo.gob.cl/pdf/2014_discurso-21-mayo.pdf
10
Appendix 3.
11
In the new policy, the neighbourhoods were chosen by a technical group and now a collective application of the
community and the municipality is needed. To see how these priority zones are selected see point 1.6
http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_20070212164909.aspx
12
Adjustment of the policy: 2011-2013 (32 months), 2014 (36 months).

15
Fig. 6 Conceptual image.

Fig. 7 Three phases of the programme.

16
Programme Milestones

Fig. 8 The component of PMP and SMP.

17
1.4 THE LENSES

Based on the contextual framework the idea is to build lenses to observe the spaces that this
innovative urban policy open, specifically in terms of the new possibilities of dialogue between
the state and civil society, during the execution and after.

The importance of this reflection is based on the conflicts that the neighbourhood strategies,
as urban tools demand and also the tension and opportunities visualized within the
programme.

The QMB is the only urban policy that includes the direct participation of the involved in it as
basal part of its execution, thus it is here where it is possible to see, in a concrete manner, how
this State-citizenry relation is conceived by the State and how it is possible to stretch.

In term of participation the programme set a vanguard discourse13 compared with other
policies of the city, that is why it is important to understand the meaning precisely to know
what to expect of it. For example in 2010 at the World Urban Forum and in the Urban Social
Forum in Rio they spoke about the ‘Right to the City’. “David Harvey, who spoke at both
events, said when he declared at the World Urban Forum that ‘the concept of the right to the
city cannot work within a capitalist system’, his fellow panelists fell embarrassingly silent”
(Merrifield, 2011, p.480), so it is important to re-politicize the concepts and demand them.

After eight years of operation of the QMB it is important to re-think the discourse and
practices of participation used in the execution. This is crucial because after the programme
became public policy there were no substantial changes in relation with participation at the
level of discourses, institutional design, dialogues or tactics within the neighbourhoods.

The idea of bringing closer positions about the real possibilities of collaboration and co-
production within State policies between civil society and formal institutions seems to be co-
opted by some radical discourses in the academia and social movements that avoid the
complexities and opportunities that are there.

The framework will be constructed around three main concepts: the Agonistic Model of
Democracy, the Politics of Encounter and the Invited and Invented Spaces of Participation. The
first intend to visualize a democratic frame to analyse the relation within this policy between
the State and the citizenry, in terms of power balance, knowledge shearing and the capability
to build agreements through the participation practices. The second aim is to conceptualize
and spatialize how this democratic frame engage whit the production of the city, in terms of
the “Public Learning” produced in the encounters within the QMB programme and third
visualize what kind of interaction is generated between the informal and formal spheres in
terms of collaboration and co-production. These ideas will allow having a general overview of
the QMB programme and the challenges, attempting to strength the democratic practices.

13
The use of languages as a way of constructing realities. In that sense is not only important to reflect on the
programme's statement but also what are the discourses build it inside the neighbourhoods.

18
Fig. 9 Diagram Theoretical Framework.

1.4.1 The Agonistic Model of Democracy, Chantall Mouffe (1999)

To approach the issues of citizenship, governance and participation in current neoliberal cities,
at first there must be an idea of the democratic framework needed to enable them to be
effective and progressive. In this sense it is necessary to build and gather a battery of theories
that challenge the “frame of thinking {…} reframing the understanding of poverty, inequality
and governance in cities” (Levy, 2007, p.8) to push the boundaries, and others more concrete
and practical to support meanwhile.

Mouffe will be the horizon with her idea of ‘Agonist Democracy’ and Healy will reinforce the
process with the notion of ‘Building Agreements’14 as a path that allows the construction of
new democratic practices.

Moving away from the representative democracy Mouffe develops the concept of ‘Agonist
Model of Democracy’. This concept takes distance from the premise that democracy
necessarily involves reaching consensus and stands the conflict in the middle of the discussion
as an inherent part of the human being (Miessen, 2010). By setting this raises the idea of
antagonism and agonism as the positions from which actors within a society interact in the
political exercise. The first defines the others as enemies and the second establishes as a
friendly-enemy, an adversary which “is a legitimate enemy, an enemy with whom we have in

14
The original concept “Consensus-Building” was changed.

19
common a shared adhesion to the ethico-political principles of democracy” (Mouffe, 1999,
p.755).

The idea of a new kind of subject is relevant that thorough new forms of dialogue, where the
power is divided more equally, a different processes of engagement can start, for example
between actors like State and citizens.

Therefore these agonist actors need to build a common space where the “conflictual
consensus” can exist (Miessen, p.109) understood as a “constructive expression of
disagreement” (Ibid.), between adversaries.

Agonic Public Space and Building Agreement

Mouffe speaks about a "productive engagement to disturb the consensus" (Ibid, 119.) it is
needed to start to produce the democratic transformations within society. This new
connection can only happen in the ‘the agonic public space’ where “there are many different
voices and people that all play a role” (Ibid). Here the public space is understood, not just as an
open space, but rather as the Greek Agora, a “center of attraction and life” (Lefebvre, 1991,
p.118), where the citizen interaction takes new forms.

However, a public space is not instantly an agora and here is where the idea of a process of
change is needed to start transforming the current situation. Assuming the complexity of
diversity, meaning different cultures, religions, political positions and power, the idea of ‘the
Building of Agreement’, is understood as the installation of the capacities at different levels to
be able to “discuss their common concerns, get to know each other across their divisions and
conflicts that many can ‘own’ and abide by” (Healey, 1996, p.207).

Including different kinds of democratic practices in a society is not a simple path; and it is
definitely a process that requires transformations in different scopes and scales. In this
scenario Mouffe thinks that it is fundamental to promote institutions where the conflict can
happen and generate the condition to transform the relationship with other actors, for
example through policies in an Antagonism to Agonism process (Mouffe 1999, p.755); without
destabilizing it. Therefore, it is part of the challenge to conduct the process of transformation
through “institutional mechanisms to develop some degree of social cohesion” (Healey, 1996,
p.212) considering as basis the idea of building trust and agreements.

Furthermore, it is necessary to develop “Pluralist politics {…} as a ‘mixed-game’ {…} in part

collaborative and in part conflictual and not as a wholly co-operative game” (Mouffe, 1999,
p.756) expressed also in policies that leave space for diversity and conflict that at the end
should amplify the scope of practices and introduce a nuance that allows us to bring different
practices closer.

Nevertheless, it is also important to take into account Mouffe’s idea of “agonistic mode of
participation” as a space where there is always going to be some degree of exclusion, because
all the positions are not always compatibles and not all the points of view are practicable. It is
“not simply participate in the creation of a consensus. It is necessary to have an alternative
that implies a decision between alternatives that can never be reconciled” (Miessen, 2010,

20
p.127), yet “participation can also mean participating in some form of consensus, which
nobody is really able to disturb, and in which some agreement is presupposed {…} participation
really depends on how you understand it. It is certainly not an innocent notion” (Ibid, p 121).

In order to understand these complexities there is a need to reframe the democratic

boundaries. These new avenues can start within “a pluralistic democracy that acknowledges
that the people is divided” (Ibid, p.129), that can incorporate the diversity, and it is capable of
managing the dissensus. Also when institutions can establish a new agreement on how to
interact and share the power, and understand that will always be an asymmetry that requires
the development of new skills and flexibilities (Miessen, 2010) to react in the collision of these
different spheres. Of course, this is not a lineal process, and should be tensioned from
different sides to conduct it to more progressive horizons, with a new democratic culture that
reconfigures the ways in which the dialogues are made.

The agonistic relation between different adversaries that are able to recognize each other but
also collaborate in coproduction in a way to reconfigure in a agonistic manner the institution
of the polis will be the scope that will be used to analyse the agonistic transformative
processes produced by the QMB programme.

Fig. 10 Participatory Design.

21
 “Everything is formed out of connections, densities, shocks, encounters,
concurrences, and motions”.
Lucretius

“Space is a doubt: I have constantly to mark it, to designate it. It’s never mine, never given to
me, I have to conquer it”.
Georges Perec

1.4.2 The Politics of the Encounters of Andy Merrifield (2012)

Considering the ideas of an agonistic reframing process of the institutions understood as the
mutation of “the ensemble of norms, rules and practices which structure action in social
contexts” (Giddens, 1984; Powell & Dimaggio, 1991, Healey, 2006, p.302); and the practice of
‘building of agreements’ as a the motor of transformation of the power relation between the
state and citizenry, the concept of ‘Politics of Encounters’ is assumed as the locus where these
new practices can be produced.

Merrifield’s approach to this idea from the reconceptualization of ‘the Right to the City’ of
Lefebvre(1991). He established that the radical slogan, today cannot articulate the necessary
struggle, because it is too vague and wide, saying that “If a concept didn’t fit {…} we should
always ditch that concept, abandon it, give it up to the enemy” (Merrifield, 2011, p.473), in our
case to the adversaries. However ditching the slogan does not mean that the struggle is not
relevant anymore, especially within neoliberal cities.

The Politics of Encounter go beyond the spatiality but concern the space; they are understood
as the place which leads to collectivity. Through the affinity and collision, in a succession of
moments, somehow the bonds are created (Merrifield, 2011). “The politics of the encounter is
when a ‘constellation of moments’ (Lefebvre’s term) assumes galactic proportions {…} the
moment is a political opportunity to be seized and invented” (Merrifield, 2011, p.479). It is a
political reconceptualization of the way that societies recognize each other, gather and create.

The successions of moments of encounter start to break the absorption and the isolation of
the neoliberal citizens breaking the individualistic logics, “rekindling a ‘habit of solidarity’
towards the stranger, based on recognition” (Amin, 2006, p.15). A new form of relation within
the society and the city that allows “us to encounter ourselves, concretely, alongside others; it
doesn’t make a facile, abstract claim for something that’s all around us and which is already
ours”. (Merrifield 2011, p.480) Therefore here the difficulty is to unpack this proposed space of
struggle and learn how to discover it, build it and use it, re-signify it.

The idea of Politics of Encounter has different dimensions of approach. It will be understood:

1- As a magnet, within a system of forces, connecting and rejecting through affinity and
complementarity (Merrifield, 2012).

2- As a Centrality (Lefebvre, 2003), the spatial expression of the inclusive city, the one that
offers the possibilities and the resources, rather than the antagonist periphery with the
absence essence.

22
3-As a place to build the agreement, a space of gathering, a political place where the practices,
the initiatives can be articulated and promote other ones. Innes mentions three shared
capitals in this process: Social, Intellectual and Political. The first as the ability for serious
discussion, the second as mutual understanding capacity and the third as the articulation of
knowledge. (Healey, 1996, p.213).

4-As formative space, where “public learning in order to nurture and strengthen strategic
action to challenge social injustice” (Levy, 2007, p.4) happens and grows, it gets dense and
develops a net that overlaps with others, leading to social cohesion.

The Political Articulation

Merrifield establishes that “the urban confers the reality of the encounter, of the political
encounter, and of the possibility for more encounters” (Merrifield 2012, p.279), therefore It is
in the public arena where this engagement can happen and the political engagement takes
form. However, it is important to assume what Althusser said “every encounter is aleatory {…}
not only in its origins (nothing ever guarantees an encounter), but also in its effects” (Ibid,
p.271).

Therefore, to incorporate these unpredictable dynamics into the production of the city must
include some new capacities of adaption and flexibility into the structures so they can be able
to facilitate as many encounters as possible and also provide the conditions for affinity
occurring on the other hand. Here, the ‘Agonistic Encounter’ appears as the result of multiple
engagements where knowledge is shared, where a process of public learning takes place and
where co-production manners are incorporated in the production of the city.

Hence it is in this system of public engagement, through the reshaping of the public notion and
the use of the public space, where new kinds of civil synergy start to model a more democratic
culture. These concepts will relate to the goal of QMB programme, recovering public spaces
for regenerating the city and recomposing the social fabric.

Fig. 11 The Public Space, ‘La Pradera’ 2010.

23
 “In contrast to cooperation, collaboration is driven by complex realities rather than romantic
notions of a common ground or commonality. It is an ambivalent process constituted
by a set of paradoxical relationships between co-producers who affect each other”.
Florian Shneider

Fig. 12 Invented and Invited spaces of participation.

1.4.3 Invented and Invited spaces of participation by Faranak Miraftab

The city is built for/by everybody, we all are city-builders or have the potential to be one.
Either on the deep periphery, the Gray City named by Yiftachel, “lying between full State
sanction and expulsion” (Roy, 2009, p.9); or in the strategic centre; from above or from below,
through collaborative actions or cooperative dynamics, in a more active or a passive manner;
there is a wide range of practices that shape our everyday life.

However, there are some practices that are not included, that are invisible in the neoliberal
agenda. According to the exclusion map of the neoliberal cities there are some spheres of
participation that do not fit. Here, it is clear that there is a disjunction between the new
governance discourses of inclusion and the multiplicity of practices that remain outside.

Conceptualizing this as confronted forces Miraftab used the idea of (Cornwall, 2002) of the
'invited spaces of participation' and complements it with the idea of the ‘invented spaces of
participation’ to define the spheres and the borders of action of different public actors and the
complexity of their relationship.

24
Definition

The “Invited spaces (Cornwall, 2002) are defined as the ones occupied by those grassroots and
their allied non-governmental organizations that are legitimized by donors and government
interventions. ‘Invented’ spaces are those, also occupied by the grassroots and claimed by
their collective action, but directly confronting the authorities and the status quo” (Ibid, p.1).

Furthermore Deluze and Guattari enrich the concepts with the ‘striated spaces’ (Invited) and
the ‘smooth spaces’ (Invented), the first are seen as “the sedentary, segmented space of the
state, with its codes, logical orders, piecemeal differences, identities and laws.” (Jill, 2012, p.7)
and the second as a “non-Euclidean space, ‘a field without conduits or channels’ striated and
smooth form a dialectical pair; one would not exist without the other {...} The space between
them is immeasurable; they are a mixture with blurring, slippage, and overlap” (Ibid).

Each one of these spaces of participation has its own logic, forms and imaginary. The Invited
Spaces are related with the state-centered citizenship, “perceived as a passively dormant,
becoming activated at periodic intervals {…} Obedience and loyalty to the state as the
collective representation” (Friedman, 2002, p.72), on contrary the Invented Spaces are linked
to the Insurgent Citizenship “that implies ‘oppositional’ collective actions by civil society, which
is attempting to change the terms of the relationship between civil society and the State
and/or the market” (Young, 1990; Holston, 1998; Sandercock, 1999; Levy, 2007, p.2).

The Invited Spaces approaches are from above; with top-down practices and the Invented
from below, more identify with bottom-up processes of definitions and horizontal ways of
organization. The first uses more formal practices and channels of communications closer to
the institutions, and the Invented Spaces are less dogmatic in the forms of the practices using
formal and informal manners, depending on the situation. However, there seems to be a range
of variety between both.

“For Miraftab space-making is a complex terrain of contestation and complicity, of protest and
co-optation” (Roy, 2009, p.9). The dichotomy established by the institutions defining the
included and the excluded has also a spatial expression in the city, as localizing the insurgent
practices (Invented) in the periphery, however the Invented practices sometimes “may utilize
central civic space and even overrun the center” (Holston, 2009 p.246). This draws a line in
relation with the proximity with the institutions but more importantly establishes an approach
to the idea of mutual dependency.

How to Amplify the Arena of Participation?

First and foremost is the idea of the recognition of all the actors. “The energy of civil society
does not replace the need for a State sphere and for well-crafted, capable and respected
institutions of formal government” (Sirianni, 2009; Healey, 2012, p.33). “However, these exist
within, and the need to reflect and interact with a political culture in which multiple civil
society voices and movements can find expression, and connect to the arenas of formal
government. This implies that political culture and the practices of government institutions co-
evolve, shaped by complex processes of mobilization, networking and persuasion. It is through

25
such interactions that the streets of daily life and the corridors of government activity move
nearer together” (Ibid, p.33).

Second, the system needs to provide the possibilities of political expression of all the practices
to develop and engage in a different manner. “The democratic theme is not the inclusion of
the excluded {…} it is the redefinition of the whole and its modes of governance” (Dikec, 2002,
p.94), for example, Perera uses the concept of ‘familiarization’ as “the process by which the
subaltern citizen comes to inhabit, reshape, and rewrite the spaces of the colonizer” (Roy,
2009.p.8) emphasizing the idea of capabilities of transformation.

Recognizing that “governance forms are also being ‘Invented’, in practices located in the ‘in-
between’ spaces between the overlapping and fluid spheres of the state and civil society”
(Healey, 2012 p.24). The diversity and a democratic culture of inclusion, as Sen (2006) define a
‘Pluralism Multiculturalism’ frame that first allows the recognition and understanding of the
other, and then a process of collaboration and co-production.

The process of identification of the wide practices of participation need to be complemented

by the inclusion of the flexibility of the related structures. This is a long process of change that
also needs to be nourished with civic tolerance. To start the transformation of the urban
policies these need to include the idea of collaboration, meaning shared responsibility and
power, co-producing the city, changing scale, rhythms and purposes if necessary. The new
spaces of encounter need to be filled with new a democratic culture based on new capacities
to build agreements that can open new avenues of governance.

Different Combinations

Current scenarios of governance tend toward a combination of the different spaces between
the Invited and Invented Spaces. Institutional approaches to the informal groups of
practitioners and also Invited Spaces that develop strategically formal skills so they can
participate in different spaces reconfigure the map of participation. Here the possibilities, like
the encounters become diverse. Semi-Invited Spaces that are created by Invited Spaces with
invented logic and Semi-Invented Spaces that start as grass root initiatives become
institutionalized to infiltrate the institutions or are able to use a mechanism.

Therefore “the solution is not to discipline all networks back into the shape of formal
organizations. Instead, if governance activity is becoming more diverse and often less
formalized, as suggested in the ‘network governance’ idea, the ethics of those who do
governance work and the mechanisms for holding them to account demand careful scrutiny as
regards to both institutional designs and the practices of a polity as a whole” (Healey, 2012,
p.33).

The policies in new scenarios of collaborative governance need to be open to leave space for
transformation and innovation of invented practices within the process, to start to change “the
relation between state and citizen, generating new legal frameworks, participatory
institutions, and policymaking practices” (Holston, 2009, p.257).

26
Fig. 13 Table of concept.

27
CHAPTER II
2.1 ANALYSIS ‘QUIERO MI BARRIO’ PROGRAMME

Since the inception of the Republic of Chile, public policies were developed on the basis of a
strong state model, which plays a major role as an engine of the main landmarks of political
and economic development, along with the establishing and delivering the basic living
conditions for the population.

The design and implementation of these policies has traditionally been characterized by a
centralized model (and therefore often superficial or inopportune), and by policies developed
from a technical and political elite, where the final recipients or intermediates are not
participating directly in the design or the implementation.

In the 90's, after the return to democracy, a process of strengthening the public system began
that lent towards a deepening of the state as guarantor of basic social rights, but mostly
without questioning the neoliberal framework inherited from the Military Dictatorship.

It is in this context that the QMB programme, which although arises from an institutional logic
(top-down), seeks to pioneer a strategy of rapprochement of social policies to citizens, as a
critical response to the model of producing the city implemented in recent years. Emblematic
is the case of ‘Bajos de Mena’15, in the district of Puente Alto, which in the last 20 years has
turned in the country's largest ghetto, housing 120,000 people in 600 Ha, devoid of all types of
public infrastructure.

The QMB Programme as a Vanguard Policy

In reviewing the design of the programme within the context, there are various forefront
themes regarding other urban policies, among them are:

The State’s decision of coproduce the city with its inhabitants, recognizing in them the ability
and importance of doing so. This scenario poses new challenges, opportunities and tensions in
this State-Citizenship relationship, but above all is established as the beginning of a new phase
in the way of making social policy.

Intervention in an intermediate scale between housing and the city, recognizing the
neighbourhood as an important space where it is possible to raise urban regeneration
processes and repair the social fabric. That is, a model of revitalization of the city from the
bottom up.

A model that puts the public space at the center of the discussion, since it is through the
recovery of the common good that recovery processes are triggered in the neighbourhood.
Thus, the program recognizes the importance of revitalizing meeting places such as squares,
community centres, sports fields or equivalents, as a strategy to generate the trust of the
various actors involved.

15
Appendix 4.

28
The creation of new spaces of participation in neighbourhoods through the conformation of
the ‘DNC’ creates new channels of communication and knowledge, through which new groups
and individuals who are usually excluded, because of a lack of interest or spaces are
incorporated into a process of local decision-making, interacting with formal organizations
such as neighbourhood committees. This creates new dynamics of inclusion and tolerance,
which despite being complex certainly contribute to increased participation and generate
greater co-responsibility, with new forms of dialogue and practices.

The development of a common plan or strategy, co-produced between different actors

(insiders and outsiders), about how to revitalize a neighbourhood (MPNR) is a key strategy to
engage with the programme. This project brings together and mobilizes more efforts towards
those common goals, a basic element to initiate a process of collective learning. Here, the idea
of a process with goals in the short, medium and long term is determinant, because of
contexts accustomed to welfarism of social policies, without participatory decision-making, to
see concrete results of this group plan encouraging reconciliation and confidence.

Interestingly to highlight that this new relationship State - Neighbourhood is reflected in

specific aspects such as the installation of the execution team within the district, modifying
behaviours on both sides. For example, through the bond with the team, the neighbourhood is
connected with all the public institutions, facilitating learning of the citizens themselves to
relate to the codes of the public system in the future. Meanwhile, the State also incorporates
new learning, to establish new forms of contact, flexibilize or modify processes, channels and
forms of communication with users. A clear example is the meetings and activities that from
now on are held in the evenings or at weekends, when people are at home, forcing officials to
adjust their calendar beyond the usual office hours.

The relationship with local government also creates significant opportunities for everyday
collaboration, especially through a technical meeting, where the inhabitants have an
important voice that influences their process of transformation. This proximity provides a link
that, under good conditions, tends to remain after the programme.

This analysis will reflect this programme under the three prisms made in the theoretical
framework, looking closer at the spaces that the programme opened to the community and
the challenges that have arisen from this new relationship between community and the State.
Also, the institutional adjustments that have been made, the issue of power relations and how
they have managed to generate sustainable processes of co-responsibility and coproduction.

The QMB as an Invited Space of Participation

A particularly valuable element of the QMB is the intention to build or rebuild trust, between
actors from the district and between the citizens and the State, an interesting goal of working
in marginal areas, where there is a sense of abandonment by the State and local governments.

From the logic of this analysis, it is clear that the QMB is an ‘Invited Space of Participation’,
because it arises from formal institutions. However, there is a special feature, since it considers
the participation of actors of ‘Invented Spaces’, sharing responsibilities in the decision-making,
thereby generating a new logic of operation. This peculiarity in its design generates that two

29
spheres that usually work in parallel and in an antagonistic way, here they begin to interact in
a process of co-construction.

Thus, this platform provides a model of Invited Space that is designed from looking closer at
the Invented Spaces logics, being a comfortable heterogeneous space for interaction for at
least the duration of the programme.

The start of the interaction of actors with agonistic logics is complex. This is mainly triggered
by the interest of those who have been invited to influence the outcome. This programme
includes the ‘Project of Trust’ in its initial stage as the key to delivering security to the actors
and a quick response. Unfortunately, this step does not include participation and often
produces exactly the opposite effect, distrust.

The programme through the construction of a map of actors and a shared diagnosis process
identifies the key players in the neighbourhood, but these often have different shapes and
logics that make it difficult to gather them at the beginning. Here, various organizations
converge such as: Neighbourhood Associations (JJVV), Scout groups, the elderly, sports clubs,
mentioning the most common (Invited), and cultural organizations, graffiti artists, youth
groups not organized within the Invented. The latter often operates from horizontality and
self-management logic, which facilitates their participation in this new space, however this
generates concern into Invited groups who sometimes feel threatened.

It is important to read the diversity of actors and their specificities and inter relations,
especially in terms of power. Here the role of the mediator is crucial.

In this context the meeting space that generates the QMB is particularly attractive, since
through the excitement generated by belonging to a collective project, despite this there is not
necessarily a unique point of view and it facilitates the start of the dialogue between
stakeholders, providing a process of generation and/or recovery of trust, creating a collective
learning.

In this sense the co-construction of the master plan requires a series of activities and decisions
that make this nascent decisions-space to quickly start taking charge of the process. This is a
stress point, because the initial response from the community is not always adequate, such as
the participation in activities, voting quorums, etc.

The programme sometimes lacks flexibility prioritizing the product rather the process, losing
focus on the difficulties of interaction between actors with dissimilar logical, not adjusting the
times early enough in the process. However, the emergence of conflicts is part of learning
processes.

The design includes evaluation processes slated to provide feedback to the implementers to
incorporate or plan new more relevant strategies, which does not always occur given that it
often simplifies the process of delivery of a report that meets the required formalities but is
not considered by the planner and the executing agencies.

From the central level often the ability to provide appropriate technical assistance to the
implementing teams is limited, which affects their ability to guide the neighbourhood process.

30
Thus, the success of the intervention is often influenced by factors such as the level of
democratic culture that neighbourhoods have or the capacity of specific recognized actors by
the community such as school teachers or priests.

New Space: Development Neighbourhood Council

As already stated, the QMB creates a new space for participation (DNC) with a mixed logic
between the Invited and the Invented Spaces. This new organization is created due to the
negative diagnosis in relation to the representativeness and inclusiveness of existing formal
social organizations in the district, particularly the JJVV16. The DNC emerges as the counterpart
of the programme, differentiated in functions from the JJVV, including old and new actors.

This initial bet might be questionable from the logic of strengthening existing organizations,
generating a break in the neighbourhood, which has positive elements worth checking out:

In a context where the collective does not always allow mobilizing a significant number of
actors; the emergence of new projects revitalizes the neighbourhood, in this case under the
specific programme frame, with a view to an idea of common good. However, the programme
suggests the need to strengthen this new space in order to generate an organization that
survives beyond the end of the programme, focusing in strengthen challenges in the longer
term (Future Agenda), an ambitious but significant goal. This does not always happen.

This new space raises broader calls than the usual when these materialize successfully, giving
space to regain trust, the creation of new networks of action, involving various minority
groups such as youths and children, and also the emergence of new leaders17 with new
democratic skills.

A scope to highlight here is the criticism raised that the programme promotes a participation
for convenience, because of easy implementation of social projects in particular, so that the
involvement could be associated with royalties, but with detriment of future projections.
Nevertheless, the movement generated in the neighbourhood during the two years of
intervention usually has been accompanied by a number of positive externalities such as
generating new collective projects related to housing, children, etc.

Regarding the survival capacity of these organizations after the deadline of the programme,
there are some related data18 that show the declining share of DNC after the team withdrew.
Overall the program fails to support the continuity of the work, despite still being linked to the
territory, allowing greater sustainability to the stated objectives as ‘future agenda’.

It is constituted as a space for collective work every day, with more inclusive learnings and new
practices. Therefore promoting a culture of participation within the decision-making of the
programme, breaking the logic of these interventions with top-down decisions and
standardized solutions.

16
Appendix 5, 2009, “The Dialogues of the Neighbourhood” (MINVU, 2009b, p.12).
17
Appendix 6, 2012, of the characteristic of DNC and the evolution (MINVU, 2013b, p.31).
18
Ibid.

31
The richness of the space is also displayed in the need to establish agreements, through
constant dialogues that promote respect for the diversity of looks. These encounters can
introduce ‘Invented logics’ into Invited Spaces, making them richer in form and speech,
however, the group often replicates ‘Invited logics’ of imposition and power domination,
rather than a process of making of agreement.

However, when the process is done successfully, this diversity obtained in daily work radiates
new principles and values into the neighbourhood that can modify the behaviour and
democratic perception.

Given the characteristics of DNC and its primary role as an intermediary between the State and
the district, a place of learning and connection between citizens and the public system19
understood in its broadest sense, which results in better preparation of neighbours as active
citizens to interact in other State service networks. Thus, it is common to see more
empowered neighbours, requesting, demanding things from the municipality through formal
mechanisms, or there is better knowledge of the State structure, knowing where to go
depending on the needs and transmitting 'public learning' to other neighbours .

Consequently, connecting the neighbourhood with external actors have a positive effect on
the incorporation of more complex ideas, expanding the boundaries of the district, which
facilitates the passage in isolation to a more inclusive life.

In short, this Invited Space creates a new space where all participants have the same
importance, which usually generates frictions in those participants who were leaders for a long
time in the neighbourhood, while producing a re-enchantment in the new actors, who receive
the democratic re-balance well. Thus, the boundary between the Invited and Invented Space
begins to fade to the extent that the work is achieving levels of co-production and starts
ongoing processes of construction of agreements, achieved around a strong commitment to a
collective cause.

The Tensions

Furthermore DNC presents various tensions during the process, such as the rigidity of some
aspects of the program, where the formal constitution of the organization is required at a time
when it is not necessarily mature.

Another obvious difficulty in this commitment to building this new organization is the conflict
that is generated with old organizations, especially with the JJVV, that are formal organizations
at district level and have, therefore, the support and recognition of local authorities but not
necessarily the legitimacy of the population.

Unfortunately the JJVV are often co-opted by local political powers as internal democracy and
transparency are quite questionable the public does not always support20 and participate in
these instances. Given these disputes of power, the JJVV often catch the DNC reproducing the

19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.

32
logic. At other times, this generates a collaborative work, facilitating the programme success,
adapting to the new dynamic and allowing for parallel development.

The DNC faces the challenge of being the organization that should continue working in the
neighbourhood on the co-constructed future agenda. Two years of the programme, do not
always seem to be enough to leave the organization in a position to follow an autonomous
process, so that the role of local government21 and Ministry are crucial, together with an
emphasize on social strengthening aspects during the process.

Politics of Encounter

The city is built in the encounter in the public space, through the inclusion in the recognition of
the diversity. It is the locus to build the agreement, to initiate the political articulation. In this
context, QMB is a policy that promotes encounter, collectivity, through the recovery of public
spaces of fragmented communities submerged in social and urban decay.

The interesting thing about this recovery of public spaces at the neighbourhood scale is that
they are associated with a comprehensive rehabilitation project that includes the social and
the urban, trying to recover or build a new the identity of the place. For this, specific areas like
sports and community centres are used as a process trigger.

The process of rebuilding community is constructed in three stages: ‘visualization’ of public

space (and State) where it identifies the existence of this, the 'occupation' of the same by part
of the community, re signifying the space in a collective process, and the ‘regeneration’, as the
spatial appropriation through participatory strategies within a larger project for a new
neighbourhood.

Reconstituting the Social Fabric Through the Encounter

The social fabric of targeted neighbourhoods is often deeply damaged, dismantled under
individual logic and the fear of others. The recovery of the streets, public spaces, also complies
with the objective of re-recognizing the neighbour, not only in the encounter on the way to the
shops, but as co-producers of a common project.

The opportunities open to these new public meetings have the potential to generate synergy,
which is strengthened by the diversity of actions that are created by the programme during
the time of the intervention (Invented and Invited). This certainly contributes to regenerating
social fabric, if it is a priority of the project, otherwise it just ends up being an urban makeup.
The emphasis that the program gives to the SMP is important but it is often relegated by PMP.

A Place of Public Learning

As discussed, the programme is a policy that promotes encounters through recovery strategies
of citizenship and city. These constant meetings enable public spaces to acquire new layers of
meaning and the incorporation of new complexities in uses and readings. For example, former
vacant lots are re signified, the square becomes central22 and the community dialogue place,

21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.

33
the headquarters reunite and articulated, so it can be said that the recovery of
neighbourhoods promote a agonistic transformation process of the public space, giving it new
meaning.

Reducing the Difference

The centralities and peripheries, although having a dialectical relationship, are dichotomous in
terms of the characteristics of existence. The neighbourhood is a platform that allows you to
open the locks on the periphery allowing the exit and entry of new actors through secure
channels. This everyday experience and the duration are formative for the participants of
these dynamics, which in turn transmit this learning to their own places, generating a
rapprochement between center and periphery despite sharp differences, contributing to a sort
of centralization of the periphery and a peripheralization of the center, which favours
infiltration of democratic institutions, creating new standards of governance.

From the Antagonism to the Agonism

The QMB have 8 years of operation, so it ought to be possible to visualize the impact that it
has generated on the neighbourhoods, participating institutions, and stakeholders where it
was executed. Nevertheless, any assessment ought to be read through the prism of a policy
even in consolidation, which has been adjusted, and will probably need to be strengthened in
various fields.

Available data23 shows that the program has significant impacts on neighbourhoods. Thus,
measurements in the completed neighbourhoods have provided information on what has
happened at the end of the intervention in terms of organizational elements, care of public
spaces, interpersonal relationships and other elements that could account for notions of
collaborative governance.

In terms of participation and involvement of residents and existing organizations, the studies
show that indeed this is achieved by expanding the core of pre-intervention participation. It is
also interesting to note that during and after the intervention period new social organizations
are created in addition to DNC, which somehow realizes a process of awareness,
empowerment and ownership that is generated by expanding the community challenges. It
also highlights the formation of housing committees undoubtedly responding to common
concerns in the neighbourhoods and access to ownership.

All these factors seem to account for a process of change of approach from antagonistic logics
to agonistic. This is due to the formation and recoveries of trust, and also in response to the
exercise of dialogue, where democratic practices are strengthened by the constructions of
agreements and democratic dissents.

Regarding the latter, the program promotes different ways of building agreements during the
process, either through voting, discussions and agreements, contracts with authorities,
negotiations, etc. This learning in communities that were previously not able to sit at one table

23
Ibid.

34
generates a significant agonistic learning space where former enemies, now adversaries, are
able to put forward common goals and collaborate.

In this new democratic and diverse space certainly a new democratic culture based on
tolerance and building of agreements, sets a process towards social cohesion.

The Infiltration of the Institutions

The issue of infiltration of state and private institutions24 is relative and is given as a process.
However, there are signs which suggest progress in governance. Infiltration is understood in
the sense of the mutual affectation, the way in which new practices arise from
neighbourhoods penetrates the institutions and also in the other direction, being on a
permanent basis or as a part of a gradual change.

In that sense, one could say that the transformations of agonistic relations within a
neighbourhood also can be extrapolated outside. The neighbour today is an individual with
more power than before, able to establish a relationship as an adversary with institutions,
understanding that the existence of these relationships not only involves the existence of an
interaction space but also the installed capacities for it.

Changes at the institutional level:

The establishment of clear communication channels among the different actors, these new
routes once learned are established with certain sustainability. Therefore, it is relatively
common to visualize how during and after the programme the neighbours go directly and
without intermediaries manage social demands to different institutions.

The co-definition of strategic projects with the community is still not a reality outside the
programme, so it remains to be seen if it can permeate the institutions or will only apply to
this programme, however there is still a space to move in terms of the role of neighbours in
the most important stages of the definition of the projects, the technical part, where they are
sometimes excluded.

The inclusion of new dimensions of comprehensive intervention such as the common

courtyards of condominiums25 is a fight won by neighbours who managed to make it clear to
the authorities that their houses are part of the neighbourhood and a cornerstone of their
lives. Today there is coordination of programmes for this issue.

In short, a series of precedents about positive practices have changed, and will continue to
impact the relationship between the State and citizens, looking favourably at the changes that
have come with the programme, understanding certain limits of scope through and from the
institutions.

While it is not possible to speak of a visible democratic change you can see a process of
infiltration inside institutions that allows them to be closer to the citizens.

24
Ibid.
25
Appendix 7.

35
From the neighbourhood perspective, bearing in mind that the neighbourhood has a limited
capacity of transformation and that cannot always create a bottom-up change; the changes
brought here seem to be substantial. To date, 350 districts have intervened and over 500 will
in 2018 benefiting more than 800,000 people. Each has different democratization processes
consolidating a new relation between the State and Citizenship in the way of implementing
public policies. The challenge now it is to interconnect these processes, systematize learning
and refine the programme for consolidation.

“The villa before to us did not have any brightness”

Daniela 17 years, (MINVU, 2011, p.29)

Fig. 14 The Square at ‘La Pradera’ 2011.

36
CONCLUSIONS
Chile is facing a new democratic era where the growth of the Neoliberal System has stopped
and is receding, leaving new spaces for opportunities to go forward in a process of
transformation of the reality in different scopes, this requires the involvement of all the actors.

This actual scenario of “unprecedented global democratization” (Holston, 2009, p.245) is

explained as new spaces of participation taken/invented by a citizenship more engaged with
their context and also a continuous process of institutional learning and changing.

In the case of Chile, since a student manifestation in 2011, there have been several changes
that show the power of the collective engagement, however there is still an undemocratic
frame inherited from the Dictatorship that needs to be overcome.

The cities also manifest interesting tensions where in, one hand, several organizations have
arised attempting to change the injustices of the system setting a new discourse in the agenda;
and on the other hand, the government has shown some interesting practices of co-
production of the city, where the QMB programme is the tip of the iceberg of these reframing
processes.

The QMB programme establishes a paradigmatic shift in terms of a new synergy between the
State and the citizens, sending a “powerful official signal for the public culture” (Ibid, p.18),
establishing the idea that inhabitant participation is fundamental to build the city, recalibrating
this relation, raising a new balance between the top-down process and the bottom-up
approaches, where knowledge and power is redistributed.

These suppose the idea of the inclusion of the excluded in a process of a redefinition of co-
responsibility in the management of the city that reaches at different scales, tensioning the old
structures of the institutions. The new spaces of coproduction install a new culture of
collaboration, where a new deal between the State, local government and the communities
create a virtuous circle.

The focus on the re composition of the social fabric of the programme reinforces the idea of a
new collectivity, where there are more equal opportunities to develop and grow. In a process
of learning and coexistence a new ‘habitat of solidarity’ (Amin, 2006) is promoted, starting to
redefine institutions, citizens and democratic frames.

The programme in the process of becoming public policy from a pilot programme in 2013
incorporate different learning of the experience as the extension of the during of the
programme understanding that the social processes need to be assumed as process rather
than a sequence of products. Also the inclusion of the priority zones shows the comprehension
of the neighbourhood included in a larger system, where the territory affects and is affected
by the ‘exterior’. Here the relation with the PNDU is a key factor for the sustainability of the
social and urban interventions.

Finally the reinforcement of the relation between the local government and the community
shows an understanding that this bond is a key factor to future of the DNC. This is reflected in

37
the collaborative application for resources and the savings that also the community need to
have for apply.

However there are also some oversights that are related basically with the need to consolidate
a more strong presence of the community in the key definitions on the process. This involves
the design of the policy, the implementation and after the intervention. It is fundamental
advance in areas as resource management and technical support.

The model of the programme still needs to prove the capacity to consolidate integral and
sustainable processes. The relation between the PMP and the PMS is an important factor in
the construction of a possible future agenda carried forward by the neighbours. Here, it is
important to focus on the participation methodologies that need to be constantly
strengthened to be effective.

Finally the QMB programme needs to be a progressive policy that is flexible enough to make
some adjustment during the process, but most of all reinforce the spaces of inclusion where all
the practices that shape the city can be involved in the design and execution of the policy,
because all the forces are needed to overcome the power of the Neoliberal System.

38
REFERENCES
Books

Bourdeau, Piere (2006) La Miseria del Mundo, Fondos de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires.

Cooke, Bill and Kothari, Uma (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny, London: Zed Books.

Lefebvre, Henri (1978) El Derecho a la Ciudad, Ediciones Península, cuarta edición. Originally
published in France under the title Le Droit a la Ville Editions Anthropos, 1968.

Lefebvre, Henri (2003) The Urban Revolution, Minnesota. Originally published in France under
the title La Revolution Urbaine, copyright 1970, Editions Gallimard.

MINVU

(2009a) Neighbourhood recovery Programme, Lesson Learned and Good Practices.

(2009b) Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Recovery.

(2011) Memories of my Neighbourhood La Pradera, 1993-2011.

(2013a) PNDU: Política Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano.

(2013b) Cuadernos de Barrio Nº4, La Organización Social en el Territorio.

McGuirk, Justin (2014) Radical Cities, Across Latin America in Search of a New Architecture,
Verso, London.

Montaner, Josep; Muxi, Zaida (2012) Arquitectura y Política, Ed. Gustavo Gili, Barcelona.

Hecht Oppenheim, Lois (1999) Politics in Chile, Democracy, Authoritarianism, and the Search
for Development, University of Judaism College of Arts and Science.

Perec, Georges (1997) Species of Spaces and Other Pieces, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
Middx.

Purcell, Mark (2008) Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative
Urban Futures, Routledge, London.

Rodríguez Alfredo & Sugranyes Ana (2005) Los con techo, Ediciones Sur.

Stoner, Jill (2012) Toward a Minor Architecture, London, The MIT Press.

39
Articles

Amin, Ash (2006) The Good City: Can we still see the city as a place for a hopeful politics?,
Urban Studies, 43, 5/6.

Dikec, Moustafa (2002) Police, Politics, and the Right to the City, GeoJournal 58: 91-98.

Dikec, Moustafa (2001) Environment and Planning A, volume 33, pages 1785 – 1805.

Friedman, John (2002) The Prospect of Cities, University of Minnesota Press, USA.

Harvey, David (2009) Crisis and Resistance in the Neoliberal City: A Conversation with David
Harvey, Max Rameau, Shiri Pasternak, and Esther Wang, Indypendent Reader, Issue:
Spring/Summer 2009 Issue 12, https://indyreader.org/content/crisis-and-resistance-
neoliberal-city-a-conversation-with-david-harvey-max-rameau-shiri-past Accessed on 25th of
August 2014.

Healey, Patsy (2007) The collaborative planning’ project in an institutionalist and relational
perspective: A note, Critical Policy Studies, 1:1, 123-130.

Healey, Patsy (1996) Consensus-building across Difficult Divisions: New approaches to

collaborative strategy making, Planning Practice & Research, 11:2, 207-216.

Healey, Patsy (2012) Re-enchanting democracy as a mode of governance, Critical Policy

Studies, 6:1, 19-39.

Healey, Patsy (2006) Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaption and a

New Politics of Space, European Planning Studies Vol. 14, Nº3.

Holston, James (2009) Insurgent Citizenship, in an Era of Global Urban Peripheries, City &
Society, Vol. 2, Issue 2, p. 245-267.

Levy, Caren (2007) Defining Strategic Action Planning led by Civil Society Organisation: The
case of CLIFF, India, 8th N-AERUS Conference, 6th-8th September 2007, London, UK.

Marcuse, Peter (2014) Reading the Right to the City, City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action, 18:1, 4-9.

Purcell, Mark (2006) Urban Democracy and the Local Trap, Urban Studies, Vol. 43, Nº11, 1921-
1941.

Sabatini, Francisco and Brain, Isabel (2008) La Segregación, los Guetos y la Integración Social
Urbana: Mitos y Claves, Revista Eure.

Tapia, Verónica (2013) El Concepto de Barrio y el Problema de su Delimitación, Bifurcaciones.

http://www.bifurcaciones.cl/2013/03/el-concepto-de-barrio-y-el-problema-de-su-
delimitacion/ Accessed on 18th of August.

40
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1

Source http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regi%C3%B3n_Metropolitana_de_Santiago

The capital was subdivided, “going from 16 to 32 municipalities, seeking local efficiency and
more homogeneous territories” (Hecht, 1999) and today there is 37.

41
Appendix 2

Santiago has 4 m2 per person, according to WHO at least 9m2 per person is needed for the
comfortable existence of the city dweller.

Source http://atisba.cl/categoria/prensa/areasverdes/

42
Appendix 3

Image made by the author that shows the nº of neighbourhoods during the execution of the
programme.

43
Appendix 4

Bajos de Mena, district of Puente Alto.

Initially a population of the area (Villa El Volcán) was part of the program but before long it
was understood that it required a major changes. Today this sector has strong intervention,
mainly through demolition and eradication through State subsidies.

Source http://diario.latercera.com/2011/10/02/01/contenido/pais/31-85522-9-estudio-
identifica--64-guetos-en-chile--y-critica-politica-habitacional-y-urbana.shtml

44
Appendix 5

“The Dialogues of the Neighbourhood” (MINVU, 2009b, p.12).

Survey apply to 300 neighbourhood delegates in january of 2009

45
Appendix 6

Source: National Survey of the DNC (2012) MINVU.

Research about the evolution of the DNC, focused in sustainability.

Total Sample: 185 Vulnerable Neighbourhoods

50 Neighbourhood in execution

45 Neighbourhoods with Delay

90 Neighbourhood Executed

Porcentage of NDC actives at national level

Activity of the DNC according of the state of the neighbourhood

46
 Example of type of DNC

The DNC as a motivator for participation

47
 Tipology of a DNC

Distribution for gender of the DNC

48
The emergence of new leaderships

Bond with public actors

Main public actors

49
 Bond with private actors

Bond with municipality actors

50
Care and use of public space by neighbours

51
Appendix 7

The majority of the social houses in Chile are social condos that mean that there is a
subdivision that defines public and private property. As the image show almost the entire
neighbourhood is private, so it is responsibility of the neighbourhoods the maintenance. A big
fight at the beginning of the programme was the petition of the neighbours to intervene in
those private lands that also are used as a public space. At the end, they made it.

One example is the neighbourhood of La Pradera that only has the center as a public space, all
the rest are private. At the end the succeed in have project inside the private areas.

The red parts are the interior yards that were part of the prioritized project f the La Pradera
Neighbourhood. These interior yards are private.

52
Appendix 8

Source http://welections.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/guide-to-chilean-politics-and-the-2013-
elections/

“Roxana Miranda, a social activist, was the candidate of the leftist Equality Party (Partido
Igualdad). Miranda, who proudly stated during debates that she had been arrested several
times during protests, drew attention because of her colourful, provocative and outspoken
personality”.

Emblematic example of popular organization that for the first time a leader of the housing
movements run for the president election: Roxana Miranda’s campaign poster, “Roxana is the
people: we will write the constitution”.

53