4.6 Article

Fifty years of Business Improvement Districts: A reappraisal of the dominant perspectives and debates

期刊

URBAN STUDIES
卷 59, 期 14, 页码 2837-2856

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/00420980211066420

关键词

Business Improvement Area; Business Improvement District; neoliberal urbanism; policy mobility; social control

资金

  1. Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the research on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in urban revitalization and social regulation, emphasizing their role in neoliberal urban policies and social control, and summarizes the main issues in current research and directions for future studies.
Originally created in 1970 by a small group of business people in Toronto's Bloor West Village, Business Improvement Districts (hereafter BIDs) have become commonplace urban revitalisation strategies in cities across the world. Many critical urban scholars have conceptualised BIDs as neoliberal organisations and have resultantly critiqued their role in contemporary urban governance. With BIDs now existing for over 50 years, the purpose of this paper is to provide an overdue reappraisal of the BID research and orient future scholarship. After describing key debates from early BID research, this paper analyses two distinct themes in more recent scholarship: (1) BID policy mobility, and (2) BIDs and social regulation. As the BID model has been transferred to new locations across both the Global North and South, its rapid mobility demonstrates the permeability, resilience and limits of neoliberal urban policies. Moreover, BIDs' social control tactics highlight how these organisations are shaped by a neoliberal logic that seeks to manage and control urban spaces in ways that attract desirable consumers and exclude the visible poor. This paper outlines the origins of both bodies of work and traces common patterns and variances over time. It concludes by highlighting gaps in the existing literature and offers suggestions for future work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据