The first chapter of the document provides a historical review of infrastructure

development, emphasizing the evolution of the infrastructural ideal from the early
industrialized world to the present day. It discusses the transition from public-held
monopolies to private sector involvement, examining the impact on collective action.
The chapter underlines the perception of infrastructures as integrated systems
responsible for providing basic services across territories. Infrastructures, once "black
boxed" and unnoticed when functioning well, are now recognized as socio-technical
constructions with complex governance arrangements.

The document highlights how infrastructures, while facilitating increased mobility and
interconnection for some, also create barriers for others, leading to biased struggles for
social, economic, ecological, and political power. The historical focus is on the period
between 1850 and 1960, where state-regulated network monopolies supported the
transition to industrial metropolises. The infrastructural ideal aimed at integrated,
standardized cities, promoting scientific management, rational organization, and mass
production. The chapter discusses efforts at technological standardization, emphasizing
the role of national, public infrastructures in supporting highways, rail, communications,
and energy systems.

The chapter identifies three key features characterizing the infrastructural ideal: the
belief in natural monopolies for efficient management, the consideration of
infrastructures as public goods difficult to be distributed within private markets, and the
recognition of externalities requiring state regulation. These features shaped the power,
legitimacy, and territorial definition of the modern city. Despite the aim for integration
and standardization, the bundled infrastructures enabled decentralization and
supported social, economic, and cultural participation over larger geographical areas.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the infrastructural ideal faced challenges due to financial and
legitimacy crises in the welfare state, privatization trends in developing countries, and
the collapse of centralized infrastructures in post-communist regions. Politically liberal
critiques and lobbying by private multinational firms led to a wave of infrastructural
liberalization and privatization, marking a shift from the earlier ideals. The chapter
concludes by emphasizing the systemic qualities of infrastructures and their profound
impact on shaping the technological fabric of society.
Introduction and Historical Review:

The chapter begins with an abstract that outlines a historical review of infrastructure development.

It emphasizes the evolution of infrastructures in the early industrialized world and the subsequent shift
from public-held monopolies to private sector involvement.
The chapter explores these historical processes through the lens of collective action, highlighting the
importance of understanding the complex governance arrangements behind infrastructures.

Concept of Infrastructure:

The term "infrastructure" has been used since 1927 to collectively refer to various public works
necessary for an industrial economy, such as roads, rail lines, electric supply, and telecommunication
networks.

Infrastructures are seen as integrators of urban spaces, binding cities, regions, and nations into
functioning wholes.

Infrastructure as "Black Boxed":

Infrastructures are often treated by users as unproblematic and closed socio-technical artifacts.

Once domesticated and normalized, users rarely consider the complex governance arrangements and
socio-technical constructions behind infrastructures.

Biased Struggles and Regulatory Articulations:

Infrastructures are recognized as inherently imbued with biased struggles for social, economic,
ecological, and political power.

The management of infrastructures involves complex regulatory articulations between markets, national
states, and transnational bodies.

Privatization and Global Wave of Infrastructure Disintegration:

The global trend of infrastructure disintegration through privatization has led to the collapse of urban
social order.

Urban life's increasing dependency on interdependent but contested and dispersed infrastructures has
heightened the possibilities of failure and disintegration.

Systemic Qualities of Infrastructures:

Businesses now operate in an "always-on economy," heavily relying on continuous support from various
infrastructures.

Infrastructures exhibit systemic qualities, shaping the entire technological fabric of society and
influencing daily lives.

Urban Planning and Infrastructural Ideal:

Between

The main points from "The Splintering of Infrastructures" can be summarized as follows:
1. Deterioration of Early 20th Century Infrastructures:
 The infrastructures established in the early 20th century experienced rapid
deterioration and physical obsolescence.
 Issues included deficiencies in bridges and substandard water treatment facilities.
 Lack of spending on new facilities and a backlog in maintenance contributed to
the problem.
2. Privatization of Infrastructures:
 Western, post-communist, and developing nations began transferring
infrastructure assets to private operators in response to the challenges.
 Britain's program of wholesale infrastructural privatization since 1984 is
highlighted as an extreme example.
3. Splintering of Infrastructures:
 Graham and Marvin (2001) coined the term "splintering of infrastructures" to
describe the disintegration, both vertical and horizontal, of infrastructures.
 This splintering involves fragmentation, superimposition of new infrastructures,
and the use of new information and communication technologies.
4. Forces Driving Splintering:
 Three key forces drove the splintering of infrastructures: the collapse of state-
backed, integrated provision; the rise of "glocal" configurations; and the retreat
from the idea that infrastructure services are public goods.
5. Transition in the 1980s and 1990s:
 Inefficiencies of state-owned infrastructures, financial constraints, and lobbying
by private multinational firms led to attempts by entrepreneurial companies to
compete in infrastructure markets.
 Mergers and alliances between infrastructure providers became common, altering
investment patterns and contributing to the splintering.
6. Global Power Struggle in Infrastructure Development:
 Infrastructure development became a power struggle involving
"deterritorialisation" and "reterritorialisation" in a global capitalist system.
 The emphasis was on creating global-local technological and organizational
connections to support international divisions of labor.
7. Shift from Public to Private Provision:
 Infrastructure services transitioned from being public or quasi-public goods to
being restructured within regulated markets with competing private providers.
 This shift, emphasizing individual choice, often disadvantaged the poor who
benefited from universal service obligations in the past.
8. Processes of Splintering:
  Processes of splintering led to the development of new private infrastructures,
reconfiguration of old networks, changes in regulatory practices, and the
emergence of virtual infrastructure markets.
9. Infrastructure Development as a Problem of Collective Action:
 The concept of "collective action" is introduced, referring to joint action by
individuals to achieve and distribute gains.
 Challenges in achieving collective action goals, known as collective action
problems, are discussed.
10. Transition in Collective Action Thinking:
 Mancur Olson's "zero contribution thesis" challenged the assumption that groups
would naturally form for collective action.
 The shift in the logic of collective action involves networked interdependencies
and a move away from centrally designed, state-implemented solutions.
11. Complexity of 20th Century Governance:
 The 20th century saw a reliance on strong national governments to solve
collective action problems in infrastructure development.
 State-implemented rule-based incentives were considered a universal solution,
but this approach faced limitations.
12. Emergence of Network-Based Governance:
 Advances in information and communication technologies contributed to
network-based development and governance of infrastructures.
 Examples include the open-source software movement and Web 2.0, enabling
social production through user-driven initiatives.
13. Community-Led Infrastructure Development:
 A new mode of production, community-led infrastructure development and
governance, is emerging.
 This mode involves users having authority in making rules related to
infrastructure use and governance.
14. Conclusion:
 The chapter concludes by emphasizing the importance of infrastructures in
connecting geographical time-spaces.
 It highlights three modes of production: state control, private involvement, and
community-led governance.
 Local contexts, technological changes, and collective action rules should be
considered in evaluating infrastructure development choices.