Communal Responsibility or Government Cop-Out? On Neoliberalism and the Retreat of the State in Urban Governance
With some civil society organizations attempting to address the inclusion challenge through sustainability innovations, civil society’s role has expanded beyond advocacy as seen by its continued participation in providing and expanding sustainability initiatives. With countless groups providing essential services that are no longer provided by a changing welfare state, civil society plays a critical role in reversing unsustainable social, environmental, economic, and cultural developments. The perception of change that civil society offers can frequently be viewed as a source of optimism that society can, communally, move away from a greater crisis or trap for people who are impacted by significant urban issues and who subsequently become interested in reshaping our cities neighborhood by neighborhood and community by community. However, on the other hand time, civil society initiatives may develop frameworks that allow governments to shirk or minimize their accountability for adopting ambitious measures to address the systemic, enduring issues that underlie these sustainability challenges.
Neoliberal agendas might exploit civil society efforts to promote their views on the decentralization and withdrawal of the state. Civil society may unknowingly be promoting the thesis of a “self-servicing” society that does not necessitate governmental assistance for vital services, such as education and care for the elderly. The participation and efforts of civil society may be used as arguments for the curtailment of social welfare services by federal and local governmental organizations in charge of implementing austerity measures.
The decrease in public funding is accompanied with a caution: by depending on civil society for service delivery, there is a danger of widening socioeconomic disparities between and within communities, given their varying capabilities for self-sustainment and self-organization. By placing so much reliance on “the people,” the state further ignores structural inequality, hides inefficient governance, and transfers accountability from the federal government to local stakeholders while simultaneously strengthening civil society.
