Public-Commons Partnerships in Barcelona
* Article: Towards Democratisation of Public Administration: Public-Commons Partnerships in Barcelona. By Marina Pera and Sonia Bussu. International Journal of the Commons, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, pp. 164–176
URL = https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1385
Abstract
"This paper looks at the relational dimension of public-commons partnerships, examining its role in shaping novel practices in public administration (PA). Focusing on the role of civic actors and public officials who support the emergence and development of public-commons partnerships, we aim to contribute to Bollier and Helfrich’s conceptualisation of public-commons partnerships as long-term agreements based on cooperation between state actors and commons members to respond to specific needs. We look at how actors involved in developing and sustaining public-commons partnerships help to create trust and alliances that can overcome resistance from both sides. This relational work enables the creative interpretation of existing legal frameworks to respond to the needs of the commons, strengthening capacity to prefigure alternative economic and policy regimes. To illuminate the novel policy instruments that can emerge from this collaboration, we analyse the Citizen Assets Programme in Barcelona. Based on documentary analysis and qualitative interviews with the actors involved in the process, our findings illustrate through a series of vignettes the repertoire of strategies and how these have enabled new working practices within the PA, which we argue can contribute to its democratisation."
Contents
"The article is structured into five sections.
Following this introduction, we conceptualise public-commons partnerships and reflect on their relational dimension, drawing on literature on the relational approach in participatory governance (Bartels, 2020).
The third section presents our methodology and provides background information on CAP. In section four, we present and analyse our findings through four vignettes representing different roles in public-commons partnerships.
Finally, the last section critically reflects on the relational dimension of public-commons partnerships and offers some concluding remarks on its role in shaping novel practices that can further the democratisation of PA."
Excerpts
The Community Balance Metrics
By Marina Pera and Sonia Bussu:
"The Community Balance Metrics (CBM) is an instrument of evaluation to visualise the democratic and transformational practices of communitarian activities (Forné & Castro, 2022). CBM is divided into four dimensions: internal democracy, rootedness in the community, social impact and care for people and the environment. It was developed through a collaborative process between the City Council and XEC - Network of Communitarian Spaces with support from a few cooperatives of consultants. XEC has the aim to coordinate and defend communitarian facilities managed all over Catalonia by grassroots organisations, based on principles of horizontal governance and mutual support. XEC covers a range of commons’ activities, from arts and cultural centres to community centres, many of which located in the city of Barcelona, such as Ateneu Popular de 9 Barris dating back to the late 1970s."
(https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1385)
Can Batlló Community Centre - Barcelona
By Marina Pera and Sonia Bussu:
"Can Batlló is a community centre run by a local grassroots organisation that brings together anti-capitalist movements, neighbourhood associations and local activists. Its organisation is based on horizontal governance and deliberation. It comprises various committees, each working on different projects to respond to the diverse interests and needs within the community. These committees come together every 15 days in an assembly of around 70 people. The centre has become a symbol of insurgent urbanism (Martí-Costa & Dalmau-Torva, 2013).
The establishment of Can Batlló as a community centre dates back to 2011, as a result of several decades of social struggles led by neighbourhood associations reclaiming this space for cultural and community projects. In 2011, neighbours and grassroots organisations started a campaign to demand the transfer of the old warehouses to neighbourhood groups. After threatening to occupy buildings, grassroots organisations finally forced the conservative mayor Xavier Trias to transfer the asset, despite the agreement being temporary and legally precarious. The community organisation established to manage Can Batlló demanded a better transfer agreement and investment to improve the dilapidated buildings. However, it was not until 2018, under the BeC administration, that a committee involving state and civil society actors was created to work on a long-term transfer agreement.
In 2019 this committee calculated the socio-economic returns that community projects such as Can Batlló could generate. Normally, in asset-transfers from public to private organisations, economic returns are calculated based on the monetary benefits generated. In the case of Can Batlló, social return on the activities was measured in the hours spent by volunteers and the nature of the projects carried out. This calculation served to visualise the social value of these projects in economic terms and was used to approve the 30-year lease of the buildings with the possibility of a 20-year extension (Forné & Castro, 2022)."
(https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1385)
From the Conclusion
By Marina Pera and Sonia Bussu:
"The literature on the commons has mostly focused on conflict and contestation with the state and the barriers to collaboration raised by technocratic decision-making and the neoliberal political economy (Wagenaar, 2023). The story of the Citizen Assets Programme in Barcelona, its emergence and development, instead illuminates the possibilities of collaboration between these very different actors. The case we presented furthers understanding of how relational work at the intersections of state and commons can open space for more democratic Public Administration instruments, by building trust and co-creating shared languages, visions and practices that bridge across different cultures and ways of knowing (Baker & Mcguirk, 2017).
Ansell et al., (2023, p.3) discuss co-creation in PA and argue that “Co-Creation carries an underexplored democratizing potential, as it enhances inclusion, empowerment, equity, and democratic legitimacy.” The CAP case shows how this democratising potential might be realised, and the vignettes depict the day-to-day work underpinning public-commons partnerships. Despite the lack of an appropriate legal framework recognising the commons, the inclusion of activists and consultant cooperatives contributed to re-interpreting and expanding existing regulations to support innovative commoning practices of assets management.
Our findings thus contribute to perspectives that promote the analysis of relationships to study and foster emancipatory projects. Bartels stated (2020, p. 2880) “transformative ambitions for more just, democratic and sustainable cities are reshaped by the intricate, emergent relational dynamics that constitute local spaces and their governance.” Similarly, Bynner et al. (2023) and Escobar (2019) highlight the importance of facilitative roles in participatory processes, emphasising their capacity to promote shared meanings and an environment of trust. The case of CAP underscores the significance of this relational dimension for the study of public-commons partnerships, where it has so far featured only marginally.
The focus on collaboration and relational work also brings the paper into dialogue with the literature on participatory governance, which highlights the collaborative countervailing power of grassroots and social movements, as they can move beyond oppositional stance and protest politics to achieve practically oriented policy gains, particularly at the local level (Fung & Wright 2003). Similarly, the work of Baiocchi et al. (2011) and others (e.g., Avritzer 2010) recognised the crucial alliance of social movements and the local state for the emergence of democratic innovations, such as participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil. In other work, Fung (2006) describes “accountable autonomy”, whereby street-level bureaucrats have the capacity to act with discretion to design participatory spaces while preserving mechanisms of accountability, as crucial to encouraging and sustaining civic engagement. In Barcelona, public officials from AD enjoyed a degree of autonomy that enabled them to open and nurture spaces to work collaboratively with the commons. This capacity for discretion was important firstly, to reassure the commons and keep them engaged in the face of bureaucratic resistance and technocratic barriers, and secondly, to ensure that the new administrative instruments could meaningfully integrate the commons’ situated knowledge while meeting feasibility requirements.
Notwithstanding the important achievement of Barcelona’s public-commons partnerships, several challenges remain that might affect their sustainability. The role of public officials as boundary spanners clashes with existing working routines and performance assessments that do not always prioritise participatory policymaking. Previous literature has found that even where new practices are introduced and encouraged, it is easy to revert to conventional policymaking in the event of difficulties (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013). In one of the examples described above, commons members complained when AD public officials unilaterally modified several CBM indicators during the pandemic lockdown. Furthermore, the resilience of these collaborative processes can be hindered when the individuals acting as boundary spanners move to different jobs, or when the government’s attention shifts elsewhere as in the current standoff between Can Batlló’s representatives and the City Council, due to different interpretations of the transfer agreement. Public-commons partnership demand ongoing investment and relational work, while protecting space for the commons’ critical and countervailing capacity to prevent bureaucratisation of these alliances.
In conclusion, our analysis illuminates the potential for collaboration between the City Council and the commons and contributes to Bollier and Helfrich’s (2019) conceptualisation of public-commons partnerships from a relational perspective. The case presented here demonstrates the daily work of trust-building and strategic alliances required to support these partnerships. These can be hard to sustain, but they also open safe space to experiment and do things differently. Further research could offer a more fine-grained analysis of how relational dynamics between the state and the commons influence different and more participatory practices within the PA, as well as examine the resilience of these new working routines and frameworks to changes in government."
(https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1385)
Discussion
The Origin of the Concept of Public-Commons Partnerships
Posted by Michel Bauwens:
This is a summary of ChatGPT based on our wiki material on the topic:
See for more at https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Public-Commons_Partnerships
"The concept of Public-Commons Partnerships (PCPs) was primarily proposed by Tommaso Fattori, an Italian commons activist. This idea serves as an alternative to traditional public-private and public-public partnerships, focusing on collaboration between public institutions and community-based entities to manage and protect shared resources and services.
Key Elements of Public-Commons Partnerships:
- Commonification: The process of transforming public services and assets into commons managed collaboratively by the community and public institutions. This approach emphasizes democratization, participatory governance, and the inclusion of community members in decision-making processes.
- Collaborative Management: PCPs advocate for the joint management of resources such as land, infrastructure, and services by public authorities and community groups. This model aims to balance the public interest with community empowerment, ensuring that the management of commons serves the collective good.
Examples and Implementation:
One notable example is the partnership in Wolfhagen, Germany, where the municipality and a cooperative jointly manage the town’s energy utility. This partnership allows citizens to be co-owners and co-decision-makers, directly participating in the governance and development of local energy resources (P2P Foundation).
PCPs can also involve projects like co-housing, where public buildings are repurposed and managed by future residents in collaboration with local administrations. This approach fosters community building and ensures that public assets are used to address collective needs .
Policy and Legal Frameworks:
For PCPs to thrive, there needs to be supportive legal frameworks that recognize and protect the commons. This involves creating charters or statutes that outline the rights and responsibilities of commoners and public institutions, ensuring the sustainable management of shared resources (P2P Foundation).
Overall, Public-Commons Partnerships aim to enhance social cohesion, environmental sustainability, and democratic governance by enabling communities to actively participate in the management and protection of commons, with support from public institutions."