Neoliberalism and Urban Planning in Queensland

Introduction
Neoliberalism is the defining behemoth of political economy of our time, and warrants greater
understand and investigation. This essay will review the literature on neoliberalism and attempt to
explain the term and define its key characteristics. The essay will then analyse and discuss the links
between neoliberalism and the journal article by Head (2007): Community Engagement:
Participation on Whose Terms? Finally, the essay will attempt to identify how these links may
impact Urban Planning within the context of Queensland.

Defining neoliberalism
Within the literature, some academics have argued that the term 'neoliberalism' has been used so
extensively across many fields of study, and often applied so loosely or, alternatively, without stating
a working definition, such that the term has lost much of its analytical use (Boas & Gans-Morse,
2009; Byrne, 2017; Hardin, 2014,; Venugopal, 2015). Within political economy discourse,
neoliberalism didn’t originally stand for what the term has come to mean today (Boas & Gans-
Morse, 2009). Originally the term was used to describe a moderate philosophy that rejected laissez-
faire policies, while promoting values of humanism (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009). Over time through
incorrect usage, and poor definition within various sciences, the term has lost this original meaning,
to come to generally describe laissez-fare or open marketization policies (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009;
Venugopal, 2015).

Implementation of neoliberalism can occur under several different circumstances such as; imposed
upon nations by governments and the ruling capitalist class (Harvey, 2007); through growing
pressure from global neoliberal organisations such as the IMF, WTO and World Bank (Harvey, 2007);
or through ‘dialogic processes’ of the prevailing political rhetoric (Byrne, 2017). Those authors
within the literature that take a critical viewpoint of neoliberalism each describe the term along
similar lines. These authors describe neoliberalism as a system within capitalism that is
fundamentally about the redistribution of wealth from the working class to the capitalist class, while
also being a process that reinforces the power of the ruling class (Harvey, 2007; Passant, 2013;
Wester, et al., 2007). Going further, Harvey describes neoliberalism as being marked by an “ongoing
process of accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2007, p.35). While proponents of neoliberalism
may argue that it is about smaller government and less government interference, Byrne argues it is
infact the opposite, that the state is directly intervening in the day to day functioning of society such
that the market serves as “regulatory role at every moment and every point in society” (Byrne, 2017,
pg. 349).

Within the literature, there are several key elements defining neoliberalism that authors agree on.
These elements are (Berry, 2013; Harvey, 2007; Passant, 2013; Patomäki, 2009):

 the view that ‘the market rules’ and is the most efficient means of achieving positive
outcomes in society, and that government should not intervene in markets;
 increased privatisation (imposing increased marketization within as many arenas of society
as possible, privatising goods and services which were previously public goods or public
assets);
  the winding back of regulation (including environmental protections, and rights and
protections for labour);
 and finally, the reduction or the replacement of the welfare state with the idea of individual
responsibility (this includes societal changes such as a reduction in spending on social
services and the public sector, increased tax burden on labour and/or consumption, and a
reduced tax burden on business).

For the purposes of this paper and its discussion, the above four points are taken as being definitive
of neoliberalism.

Analysis of Head (2007) and Neoliberalism

Under Head (2007, p. 442), representative forms of government, such as that within Australia, are
no longer seen as effective for good governance by sectors of the community and organisations.
This has resulted in an international shift of governance towards ‘dialogue’ and ‘inclusion’ with
community groups since the 1980’s (Head, 2007). This shift has been for a number of reasons, such
as emergent discourse from international bodies including the UN and OECD (Head, 2007).
Participation of community groups and NGOs under this style of governance requires that citizens
and stakeholder groups have the capacity to engage in a meaningful way (Head, 2007). The capacity
of the community and community organisations at large, coupled with the current era of neoliberal
thinking within government and business, has the possibility to lead to several issues:

Capacity building: Given the requirement for the community to engage with government across a
broad range of issues (e.g. technical, environmental), spatial scales (local, regional, state, national),
and levels of government (depending on the issue), the capacity of the public to engage must first be
fostered. The general public may be potentially unorganised and/or uninformed around a particular
issue. Given neoliberalism’s propensity for undermining traditional collective social structures (e.g.
workers unions or other collectives) and their diminished significance within Australia over recent
decades (Passant, 2013) , this is particularly the case. Additionally, in a time of increased
vulnerability of the general populace due to changing work arrangements and increasing work
insecurity (Harvey, 2007; Western, et al., 2007), this further erodes the capacity of the general
populace to engage where they may have much greater concerns.

Funding: Capacity of the public and NGO’s to engage with government is also a question of funding.
Under neoliberalism, governments are typically reducing funding for the public sector and may find
it difficult to justify the expenditure under neoliberal ideology. Funding is especially critical for
complex, ‘wicked problems’, where issues may involve multiple tiers of government, complex
planning law, or large spatial scales. The onus may fall to the community to raise funding itself, if it
wishes to engage or possibly to challenge the government within planning structures.

Legitimacy: As given by Head (2007), important that NGOs representing community be seen as
legitimately representing their views, and also democratic. Under Harvey’s (2007) criticisms of
neoliberalism, the elite and wealthy have a much better propensity to engage with government, and
it may be the case that community groups and NGOs represent sectorial interests of the community,
rather than the community as a whole. This may especially be the case where the government is
unable to or uninsterested in building capacity or supplying funding. Under a neoliberal regime, a
situation such as this could be more favourabe for the government.
Lessons for Planning in Queensland
Within the context of a neoliberal world, governments of both sides of the party divide are
increasingly speaking to the neoliberal mantra. To gain re-election, government parties are
constantly seeking to proclaim their party has achieved positive figures for economic growth, and
increases in jobs. The building and construction industry is by far one of the largest sectors of the
economy nationally (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017), and in Queensland, and this creates a
dilemma for governments where communities or NGOs raise objections to large developments
which will boost economic and jobs figures. Developments, particularly large ones, have great
potential to cause major disruption and change for an established community, and as expected
attract community objection, especially in the recent case of the Absoe site in West End (Moore,
2016; Atfield, 2016). Neoliberalism leaves little room for the considerations of community or the
environment, and even in a case where a development is well outside planning regulations, still
gains approval (albeit with modifications to the original proposal) despite breaking with local zone
requirements and major community objection. This is an example of neoliberalism, big money, and
political gain winning out over planning rules and regulations, and the concerns of the local
community. The lesson here is one for Queenslanders – neoliberalism and planning is a game of
winner takes all, and those at the top usually win.

Conclusion
To conclude, neoliberalism is a highly politically charged term, and a gargantuan topic within political
economy discourse. Over the decades since the 1980s the term has seen exponential increase in
usage, with academics within the literature beginning to properly identify and debate the term
within the past 10-15 years. Neoliberalism is identified by four key elements: the “market rules” and
increased marketization, increased privatisation, the reduction or removal of regulation that is seen
as hindering markets, and finally, the reduction of the welfare state. Links within Head’s (2007)
article on community engagement and neoliberalism have been discussed, around the arenas of
community capacity, funding, and legitimacy. Finally, an example of how neoliberalism and planning
intersect within Queensland has been outlined.
References
Atfield, C. (2016, 11 06). Brisbane's West End to be dominated by 22-storey tower. Retrieved from
Brisbane Times: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbanes-west-
end-to-be-dominated-by-22storey-tower-20161106-gsj51n.html

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017, 05 26). 8155.0 - Australian Industry, 2015-16. Retrieved from
Australian Bureau of Statistics:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytopic/48791677FF5B2814CA256A1D0
001FECD?OpenDocument

Berry, M. (2013). Neoliberalism and the City: Or the Failure of Market Fundamentalism. Housing,
Theory and Society, 31(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/14036096.2013.839365

Boas, T. C., & Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal
Slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development, 44(2), 137-161.
doi:10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5

Byrne, C. (2017). Neoliberalism as an object of political analysis: an ideology, a mode of regulation or

a governmentality? Policy & Politics, 45(3), 343-360.
doi:10.1332/030557316X14800750043260

Hardin, C. (2014). Finding the 'Neo' in Neoliberalism. Cultural Studies, 28(2), 199-201.
doi:10.1080/09502386.2012.748815

Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 610(1), 22-44. doi:10.1177/0002716206296780

Head, B. W. (2007). Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms? Australian Jounal of

Political Science, 42(3), 441-454. doi:10.1080/10361140701513570

Moore, T. (2016, 09 14). State government calls in controversial West End development. Retrieved
from Brisbane Times: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/all-eyes-on-
west-end-as-state-government-calls-in-masterplanned-development-20160914-grgco3.html

Passant, J. (2013). Neoliberalism in Australia And The Henry Tax Review. Journal of the Australasian
Tax Teachers Association, 8(1), 117-140.

Patomäki, H. (2009). Neoliberalism and the Global Financial Crisis. New Political Science, 31(4), 431-
442. doi:10.1080/07393140903322497

Venugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society, 44(2), 165-187.

doi:10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356

Western, M., Baxter, J., Pakulski, J., Tranter, B., Western, J., Egmond, M. v., . . . Gellecum, Y. v.
(2007). Neoliberalism, Inequality and Politics: The Changing Face of Australia. Australian
Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), 401-418.