Share On:





56







61 Shares

Despite the wide gap of the historical-institutional contexts of Moscow and Lagos, a neoliberal urban planning logic derived from the global city model as an aspirational category is to be identified. Both cities want to increase their position within a global system of competition to attract foreign direct investment. This thesis will be illustrated by focusing on two urban planning initiatives within both cities: the construction of Eko Atlantic in Lagos (Adama 2018; Carmody & Osuwu 2016) vis-à-vis the Skolkovo project – a new innovation center currently under construction in Moscow (Büdenbender & Zupan 2017; Kangas 2013). The comparison illustrates the diversity of emerging processes of neoliberalization and presents the diverging outcomes these processes can produce.

Historical and institutional context of Lagos and Moscow

Lagos is suffering a long history of economic insecurity, overpopulation, a vast amount of poverty and prevailing inequalities (Gandy 2006). The British colonial power implemented a policy of segregation that separated wealthy enclaves from the general population. An overall functioning sewer system is basically absent whereas investments in public health focused only on the modern rich enclaves excluding the domestic population. This led to the development of an “incomplete modernity” (ibid.) with a rich enclave, enjoying a fairly modern lifestyle, while the larger part of the population is excluded from it. After independence in 1960, Lagos became the center of economic and cultural developments within Nigeria. However, due to political tensions between different levels of government and lack of capabilities, the established inequalities could never really been remedied. Also, the huge prosperity for some due to the discovery of oil in the Niger Delta did not trickle down to the broader population (ibid.). Permanent public sector debts due to structural adjustment programs in the 1980s hindered the provision of public social services. In addition, clientelist political regimes and economic insecurity weaken every effort to build a stronger system of state intervention and public provisions – showing that the inequalities enshrined in the “incomplete modernity” are deeply persistent (ibid.

The historical-institutional context of Moscow could hardly be more different. Based on its socialist legacy, Moscow was basically disintegrated from the Western economies until the 90s. Being the center of the Soviet Union, Moscow traditionally had an exceptional role in Russia’s economy (Büdenbender & Zupan 2017). The priority of the top-down socialist urban planning was to serve the needs of industrial production. All kinds of infrastructure such as social housing, services and green spaces were organized around the norms of industrial production. This meant that there was not an approach of creating some sort of local peculiarity within an area, but rather to build up functional and efficient living environments (ibid.). In general, there has been an inclusive populist social policy mentality of integrating the broader parts of population into the urban life (ibid). Compared with Lagos, Moscow’s poverty rate is relatively low and the population growth rather slow (Büdenbender & Zupan 2017, 300; Zubaverich 2019).

Eko Atlantic – making Lagos visible on the world stage

The latest urban planning initiative within the city of Lagos is the ongoing construction of Eko Atlantic, a new residential and international finance center in Lagos. Eko Atlantic is executed by experienced international architectural design and engineering companies and promoted internationally as a model of public-private partnership, funded mainly by private contributions. It is an initiative of South Energyx Nigeria Limited which received incentives from the public administration such as legal backups and tax wavers to execute the project (Adama 2018, 269; Carmody & Owusu 2016, 68).

This model city will be privately administered with private electric and water supply. It will consist out of different sectors with combinations of residential areas, business areas and leisure areas. It is supposed to accommodate 250,000 residents, to be the workplace for 150,000 people and to host 190,000 commuters (Carmody & Owusu 2016, 69).

Framed as an eco-city, this project is perceived to make Lagos climate resilient by building a “Great Wall of Lagos”, which is supposed to protect the shoreline of Victoria Island from coastal erosion. The discourse around the representation of Eko Atlantic is clearly pro-business and reflects the idea to attract capital to make Nigeria more visible as a global city: “Eko Atlantic is a marvel of modern engineering and technology, and a testament to the rise of Nigeria on the world stage” (https://www.ekoatlantic.com/). Elsewhere on the project’s website it says: “[Eko Atlantic] is a focal point for investors capitalising on rich development growth based on massive demand – and a gateway to emerging markets of the continent”.

However, critics fear that the project will reinforce existing socio-spatial inequalities with hardly any positive development for the predominantly poor population (Adama 2018; Carmody & Owusu 2016; Lukcas 2014). For example, regular Lagosians (70.24 % of them are considered to be poor) can never afford the expensive properties that are being sold with prices up to 2,500 dollars per square meters (Adama 2018, 270). Furthermore, it is being criticized that Eko Atlantic is partially detached from the rest of Lagos. This would result in the persistence of the city’s actual infrastructure problems and render trickle down effects unlikely (Carmody & Owusu 2016, 69). Lukcas (2014) argues that Eko Atlantic is used by the super rich to isolate them from other poor parts of the city and to make them safe in regard to the fragile coastal climate and the increasing impact of climate change on Lagos. In addition, the informal housing of the poor people is often destroyed by the administration of Lagos due to construction projects such as Eko Atlantic, without offering any sort of replacement (Kazeem 2020).

Moscow’s neoliberal history of attracting capital and the Skolkovo project

Just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Moscow’s urban planning strategy focused on attracting foreign capital and turning Moscow into a financial center (Büdenbender & Zupan 2017). For this purpose, modern glass skyscrapers and business centers were built in the city center. This meant a transformation from a residential socialist city center to a capital-oriented business city center (ibid.). The administration also made extensive populist social policies available, which were partly financed by private businesses through a patronage-based system (ibid.). At the end of the 2000s, though, some challenges emerged. The unregulated infrastructure growth resulted in severe air pollution and traffic problems, which frightened off potential visitors and knowledge workers. This was even exacerbated by the financial crisis (ibid.). In order to mitigate this crisis, the government launched the Big Moscow Plan. It included the extension of the administrative territory of Moscow by 2.5 times, to shift the monocentric urban city model to a more polycentric city model as well as to create a new innovation center in Skolkovo (Kangas 2013).

The construction of Skolkovo is a prime example of how the state accommodates neoliberal expectations by creating zones which differ from the usual principle of equality of the former Soviet Union in order to trigger some “global potential” (Kangas 2013, 304). The architecture of the buildings in Skolkovo resembles financial hub buildings rather than local traditional buildings. Furthermore, participants of the Skolkovo project gain benefits regarding immigration, taxation and customs – reflecting the (neoliberal) flexibility of the state in order to attract global capital and to integrate the Skolkovo project into global financial flows (Kangas 2013). However, within the discussions around Skolkovo’s construction, the state continues to be emphasized, which shows the existence of some sort of authoritarian liberalism (ibid.): Skolkovo is supposed to be surveilled by an electronic surveillance system. This is not the same as being gated by fences – it should be presented as free. However, electronic surveillance is a symbol of ongoing state presence and illustrates the need of coercive state power to install a functioning neoliberal regime (ibid.). Another Moscovian example to increasingly attract tourism and investments is the upgrade of the Gorky Park which developed from a place for homeless persons to a meeting point for expats. This has mainly been done by applying aesthetic politics with focus on Western high culture in terms of design and art. However, this new “unwelcoming the uncultured” increases socio-spatial segregation (Zhelnina 2014, 246 cited in Büdenbender & Zupan 2017, 306).

Conclusion

Although both cities have widely diverging historical institutional contexts, a neoliberal urban planning logic can be identified in both cases. This logic aims to make Lagos and Moscow more attractive for foreign direct investment reflecting the aspiration to be a global city. The creation of the public-private project Eko Atlantic with solely private provision of basic services can be explained by the fact that there is no tradition of state intervention in Lagos. In Moscow, on the contrary, neoliberalism adapts towards the strong tradition of state intervention based on the history of top-down soviet planning. Here, the process of neoliberalization was much more enacted by the public administration. When comparing only the two cities, we can expect some increase in socio-spatial segregation in Moscow. However, due to Moscow’s history of populist social policy, this will be not as severe as in Lagos. In Lagos, we can expect a remarkable reinforcing of the already established “incomplete modernity” and its persisting inequalities. Evidence shows that such megaprojects are rather unlikely to cause trickle down effects that can benefit the population as a whole (Swyngedouw et al. 2002). This illustrates that the historical and institutional contexts have a significant impact on the way in which the processes of neoliberalization unfold, adapt and influence. Neoliberal urban planning initiatives will have divergent impacts on socio-spatial segregation if the same overall policy-model of attracting foreign capital is applied in different contextual conditions. The during colonialism established “incomplete modernity” is persistent and probably even enforced with ongoing ambitions to establish (public-private) mega infrastructure projects such as Eko Atlantic. This insight should be used further in urban theory to bring together research strands of (critical) political economy and postcolonialism to regain a fruitful dialogue between these disciplines and a more pluralistic approach to urban studies theory (Peck 2015).

Share On