Do contracts have politics? Contracts, planning consultants, and urban development in the age of participation

What can contracts and agreements tell us about citizen participation in urban development? Contracts are increasingly harnessed as governance tools to achieve public goals. Consequentially, participatory processes are increasingly organized to gain support for policy proposals and give influence to citizens. In my research, I studied how residents co-negotiate contracts with commercial parties and government agencies in development projects. I compared cases in Amsterdam, Hamburg and New York.
The findings show that government agencies and commercial parties tend to sign contracts that stipulate the goals of the project before participatory processes are organized. Thus, the influence of residents over projects is limited. However, contracts are not set in stone and can be adjusted when residents mobilize support from media, politicians or courts.
This has several consequences for urban politics. The arena of public decision making has partly shifted from public meetings to contractual negotiations. Social inequalities – related, but not determined by race, class, and other social privileges – are reproduced. Those that are already privileged within society have a better capacity to navigate development processes. The contracts are not simply a reflection of the negotiation skills of actors. Residents that are able to negotiate deals with developers are attributed the worth of being ‘good’ citizens, creating new boundaries between citizens. Moreover, the residents can direct municipal resources towards their goals. In this way, contracts transform the social and political systems in which they are embedded.