by Adam Ogusky
Abstract
Using the lens of political economy, this textual analysis of Austin’s comprehensive plan reveals it to be a deeply postmodern document, focusing on diversity and inclusivity of points of view to the detriment of normative vision. The plan consists primarily of discussions related to identity, culture, and other non-material attributes of the city, paying scant attention to material concerns such as conditions of life and labor, distribution and accumulation of capital, and labor as the source of economic value. The marginalization of such political-economic concerns prevents the plan from addressing its professed ambitions for community progress and justice.
Keywords: Planning; political economy; postmodernism; Austin; comprehensive plan
On June 15, 2012, the Austin City Council adopted the city’s first new comprehensive plan in over 30 years. The preceding plan, Austin Tomorrow, was first adopted in 1977. To say that Austin in 1977 was very different than the Austin of today is understatement in the extreme. In the intervening decades, Austin grew from a sleepy regional city of 322,000 whose economy depended largely on the university and state government into a global city of 824,000 (City of Austin, TX, 2014) with a reputation for fantastic growth and a strong technology-based economy, and as a progressive and vibrant raft in a sea of conservative Texas. The city had long outgrown its comprehensive plan; the last effort at an updated one ran aground of divisive and changing politics in the mid-eighties and after several years of work it failed to be passed by City Council (Gregor, 2010). And now that the excitement has somewhat abated—almost three years after the ImagineAustin comprehensive plan’s adoption—it seems the time to return to the document with a critical eye. What has the modern, much-admired city of Austin written in its new plan?
A little comprehensive plan exegesis is not merely a literary frivolous pursuit. A plan conceals within it not only what its authors—and, by extension, city’s residents—think about their city but how they think about cities more generally. A plan contains buried modes of urban thought, inchoate urban theories. Throgmorton (1996, 2003) has argued for a conception of planning as future-oriented storytelling and plans themselves as persuasive stories. If ImagineAustin is a persuasive story, what are its arguments? What does a close reading of the plan reveal about how its authors think about Austin and its future? About cities and urban processes? If a plan is a story then such questions can be answered through a textual analysis of the plan itself, which is the aim of this paper.
This paper will argue that ImagineAustin is a predominantly postmodern plan written for a postmodern era both in planning and in society more broadly. The bedrock of postmodern theory is the rejection of universal metanarratives in favor of a proliferation of fragmented discourses. Such fragmentation leads to a persistent focus on the value of diversity and an allergy to normative judgment. Instead, the postmodern plan favors multiple discourses, narratives, and points of view, all equally valid. These multiple discourses tend to be divided along cultural lines following the construction of meaning derived from cultural understandings of diversity. Groups and individuals in the plan are considered primarily in cultural terms rather than in economic or class terms. Difference and diversity as ideals are celebrated, always highlighting identity and values. In the postmodern plan, identity and spirit stand before consideration of the metanarrative of structural economic drivers, crowding out consideration of material conditions in the city.
Such postmodern preoccupations of identity, cultural difference, and the concern for a multiplicity of points of view are not unimportant, but they are also not the whole story. As Harvey (1992) points out, “If we accept that fragmented discourses are the only authentic discourses and that no unified discourse is possible, then there is no way to challenge the overall qualities of a system” (p. 594). Likewise, if the ImagineAustin plan is to make positive progressive change in its community it must do more than celebrate diversity and multiplicity.
A Marxist political economic framework can illuminate both the shortcomings in ImagineAustin and suggest how it might have done better. In constructing such a framework I identify three crucial Marxian lessons against which I read the plan: (1) sites of production and material conditions of life and labor are crucial determinants of the shape and functioning of society; (2) close attention must be paid to the distribution and accumulation of capital in communities; and (3) labor is the source of value. Crucially, all three points deal explicitly with material conditions in the city, a mode of inquiry that stands in stark contrast to the postmodern organization of ImagineAustin. Using this political economic framework will reveal the plan’s avoidance of material considerations, as well as its failure to take strong normative positions which would further the progressive goals it espouses. Reading ImagineAustin through the lens of political economy reveals the weaknesses and contradictions in the plan while at the same time suggesting an outline for a better plan, one that considers the material conditions of Austinites, speaks with a strong normative voice, and one that, ultimately, might bend the arc of planning in Austin more steeply towards progress and justice.
The Postmodern Plan
ImagineAustin is aptly named: it spends a great deal of its time day-dreaming, describing the city in non-material terms. It often seems that the plan is more about the Platonic ideal of Austin rather than the actual concrete, steel and limestone city. This is, of course, one of the important functions of any plan. They are aspirational documents, after all, but they must also be material documents which deal in material causes, means, and ends. The question here is to what extent the plan concerns itself with the immaterial world of values and identity to the exclusion of material questions of political economy.
Reading through the plan immediately reveals the pronounced importance of values and identity, while a Marxist critique will reveal the insufficiency of many of the plan’s material concerns. But first, what precisely is wrong with a postmodern concern with values and identity? The problem is two-fold. First, such concerns do not get at the structural drivers of material conditions and inequality in the city. It is not merely values and beliefs which shape the city; material conditions of production must be taken into account. Second, the postmodern rejection of metanarratives leads to a persistent focus on the value of diversity. There develops a certain equalization of different points of view and narratives, which begins to preclude the making of strong normative claims. Diversity, however, is not an end in itself, just as merely hearing points of view different from one’s own is not an end in itself. It is, rather, the beginning of discussion, debate and adjudication which may lead, ultimately, to positive change.
As a first effort to tease out the mix of the postmodern and the material in ImagineAustin we can begin, as the plan does, with the vision statement: As it approaches its 200th anniversary, Austin is a beacon of sustainability, social equity, and economic opportunity; where diversity and creativity are celebrated; where community needs and values are recognized; where leadership comes from its citizens and where the necessities of life are affordable and accessible to all. Austin’s greatest asset is its people: passionate about our city, committed to its improvement, and determined to see this vision become a reality (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 2).
It appears to be a promising start. The statement leads with sustainability, equity and economic opportunity—all potentially within the material political economic camp—before moving into the postmodern with diversity, creativity, and community values. The pendulum swings back with affordability and comes to rest on a somewhat curious note about the city as its people, though with the people not as workers, homeowners or renters, but as a repository of passion and commitment, a theme that continues throughout the plan. This short version of the vision statement is, then, a mix of economy and values. Thus, the plan begins on strong footing, though as it progresses the stress on values will continue while the economic factors listed above, when viewed through a critical political economic lens, prove to be significantly less material and progressive than they seem.
In an early indication of what is to come, the plan expounds on its purpose: “Only a comprehensive plan fully considers how the whole community’s values, needs, people, and places are interrelated and interdependent” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 4). It is no coincidence that values is listed first in this list of comprehensive plan considerations. And though needs, people, and places can certainly be viewed through a materialist, political economic lens, the plan will often view them in terms of values. Such talk of the city’s values is foregrounded, particularly in the early pages of the plan, where it is mentioned explicitly six times in the first 12 pages. “By being unified in vision” through the plan, we Austinites can “carry forward our values” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 6) or, a few pages later, the plan will positively shape Austin by being “grounded in community values” (p. 12). And if not values, then it is identity which precedes material or economic planning concerns: “Considering Austin as a whole means seeing all of its different pieces and identities and how they all fit together” (p. 13). Austin as a whole is given a fuller explanation further down the page:
This comprehensive plan is holistic in its consideration of big themes like livability, sustainability, and complete communities. In addition to planning for land use, trans- portation, and other physical issues, it considers the pro- vision of services, economic development, cultural needs, public health, resource efficiency, and equity. It provides a framework for how the physical, economic, and social pieces of the city and the region interconnect (p. 13).
Though perhaps didactic and certainly passé, it remains useful to point out that an orthodox Marxist interpretation would view this explanation of holistic planning as almost wholly tinkering with the superstructure while the base of economic production remains unmentioned. This is not to argue for a strict Marxist base-superstructure framework where relations of production determine all other social and political relations; rigid economic deterministic interpretations of Marx are long out of fashion. But the basic idea that economic conditions have enormous influence on society, creating divisions along economic and social lines, remains an insight too powerful to be discarded. In short: class still matters, and though class may not be structured quite as Marx described in the industrializing world of early capitalism, it remains a pervasive social fact— one which, moreover, remains shaped largely by conditions of economic production. This is all to say that it is not completely anachronistic to point out that the ImagineAustin’s vision of holistic planning deals almost exclusively with superstructural aspects of society, because such a fact leads us to question the lack of consideration of material conditions of labor. The above references to economic development and equity might in theory deal with such conditions, but they are not made explicit.
That said, the plan does express its ambition to speak of its residents, declaring “Austin is its people” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 87). And what are Austinites? They are “engaged, compassionate, creative, and independent thinking people, where diversity is a source of strength, and where we have the opportunity to fully participate and fulfill our potential” (p. 87). In other words, Austinites are defined primarily through their character and identity, not by what they do in any sort of economic sense. And if Austin is its people, then Austin appears to be driven primarily by a sense of character and identity.
Language of this sort is found all throughout the plan, including the “We are a Unique Community” section: “Our progressive spirit, environmental ideals, and innovative character distinguish us from other metropolitan areas in Texas” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 19). The plan could not be clearer: What sets Austin apart is its spirit, ideals and character, all decidedly abstract and immaterial qualities. A sidebar on that same page expounds on “The Austin Spirit” which “animates Austin’s people and special places” and concludes, somewhat disturbingly, that “while no City program is ever going to be responsible for this spirit, nurturing it in whatever forms it takes in the future is as important to Austin’s success as anything else in this plan” (p. 19). A political economic view must rebut: nurturing the spirit of Austin is not a particularly worthy goal of a planning exercise, let alone one as important as anything else a plan might attempt. Political economy maintains, rather, that a plan should focus on material economic conditions which, in turn, powerfully structure society. But the plan makes completely clear here that this is not its prime concern. I would argue further that by claiming the goal of nurturing the spirit of Austin to be equal in importance to any other planning concerns, ImagineAustin strikes a rather defeatist tone, absolving itself of both the responsibility and hope for effecting broader structural change for its city.
Besides the focus on values and spirit, the other prime weakness of this postmodern plan is its near constant blandishment of diversity, the obsessive inclusion of all points of view. Throughout the plan, all groups, all opinions and points of view, all forms of the good are equally valid, equally valuable, and given seemingly equal weight in the plan. No single group is singled out for particular privation or unjust abundance.
This equalization of narratives, needs, and goals leads to a lack of normative direction, dulling the progressive agenda the plan claims for itself. Paradigmatic of this approach is the plan’s selection of sustainability as its central policy direction and organizing principle. Probably the most familiar definition of sustainability to the planner comes from Campbell’s (1996) sustainability triangle, where the three competing goals of economy, environment, and equity must be continually balanced against one another. ImagineAustin transforms this coherent idea of sustainability into a conceptual grab-bag by arbitrarily expanding the category of equity. Thus, for the plan, “sustainability means finding a balance among three sets of goals: (1) prosperity and jobs, (2) conservation and the environment, and (3) community health, equity, and cultural vitality” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 7). So equity becomes, rather than one of three cogent points in the triangle, a confused mix with health and cultural vitality. There is no explanation for this move and no hint at what these concepts have to do with one another, if anything.
It is no surprise, then, that the concept of equity not only fails to organize the plan, but fails also to have a strong rhetorical or normative thrust. The goal is always to benefit all Austinites, as if all Austinites require the special beneficence of the city. This begins with the vision statement—“where the necessities of life are affordable and accessible to all” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 2)—and continues throughout the plan. Such relentless focus on diversity and the benefit of all serves to deflect the deep inequalities that exist in the real Austin. It obscures the systematic accumulation by the few that proceeds on the backs of the many. In the end, the goal of providing benefit for all acts as a powerful distraction from what would be a normatively stronger focus on the pervasive unequal distribution of social goods and capital in society. Perhaps this argument is naïve, however. A plan is, after all, a politically contingent document, one which must serve many masters and offend none. But a plan that speaks of such lofty ideals in a city where the “progressive spirit” permeates the populace ought to do better.
The Political Economy Plan
How, then, might ImagineAustin have done better? One way would have been to organize the plan around the concerns of political economy, which makes three primary arguments. The first is that we must pay attention to sites of production and the material conditions of life and labor. If economic production is the engine driving society then conditions of production must be made central to the plan. And if the reproduction of the worker is crucial to economic production, as it most certainly is, then the material conditions of the worker are key. Second, Marxist political economy is concerned with the accumulation of capital to the capitalist and away from the worker. Though class today is not a simple laborcapitalist binary, the relative distribution of social goods and its structural causes remain crucial to any political economy. Third, political economy beginning with Adam Smith (1776/2003), and progressing through Ricardo (1817/2004), Marx (1867/1990), and onward holds as its central tenet that labor is the source of value. If we take this claim as truth, we must consider its implications in a reading of ImagineAustin as well as in planning more broadly.
Sites of production and material conditions of life and labor
The plan starts off strong on material conditions of life and labor with an early focus on affordability in the vision statement. Just two pages later the issue is highlighted as a central challenge for the city with the plan remarking that housing in central Austin “is increasingly unaffordable for low-wage jobs that lag behind Austin’s cost of living” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 4). The problem is given deeper treatment later on when the increasing gap between median income and median housing price is noted (p. 28) along with the displacement by affluent newcomers of long-time residents in eastern and southern neighborhoods (p. 30). In the “Housing and Neighborhoods” section one of the key goals is unambiguously stated as “encouraging the preservation of affordable housing in neighborhoods across the city and in activity centers and corridors” (p. 136). The plan even specifically notes the need to preserve existing affordable housing “for very low-income persons” (p. 137), a victory from a progressive standpoint.
The lack of specific and measurable goals and policy recommendations dampens optimism regarding affordable housing, however. The need for “new and innovative funding mechanisms, such as public/private partnerships” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 137) is both uninspiring and vague. Community land trusts are noted in a sidebar as a best practice (p. 137), but it is unclear whether this is an official recommendation or how, when, or by whom a land trust might be accomplished. The recommendations also continue the theme of promoting a variety of diverse housing for Austin’s diverse population—notwithstanding the one recommendation already noted which targets low-income persons—as if the city need be concerned with providing more high end housing. Again, a focus on access for all is chosen over a focus on housing access for low- and middle-income residents. And just in case the lack of specificity on recommended housing market interventions left any doubt as to the appropriate responsible parties, the plan states: demand for market-rate housing can and should be met by the private sector. The City of Austin can work with private developers, non-profits, the state and federal governments, Travis County, and other local governments to help those individuals and families not able to afford market-rate housing, including seniors on a fixed income, people with disabilities, and low-wage workers (p. 201).
What is left out here is the answer to what happens when the market-rate housing leaves increasing numbers of residents on the outside of the housing market looking in. As the market fails an increasing portion of the populace, the problem becomes much larger than seniors, disabled people, and low-wage workers. Will the Austin housing market serve low- and middle-income residents? And, if it does not, who will address such market failure?
Finally, even here in housing affordability—that most economic of issues—strange mentions of character crop up in the plan. The plan calls for “Maintaining the unique and diverse character of Austin’s neighborhoods while meeting the market demands for close-in housing” and “maintaining the essential character” of low-income neighborhoods undergoing redevelopment (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 126). The reader is left to guess at what is meant here by essential character. Perhaps it is a coded reference to existing single-family density? Architectural character maybe? The plan makes this reference clear with the following policy recommendation: “Protect neighborhood character by providing opportunities for existing residents who are struggling with rising housing costs to continue living in their existing neighborhoods” (p. 138). Essential character, then, refers to low-income residents. Thus we see the postmodern identity-obsessed plan transform a straightforward economc-justice issue into a mash-up of economy and identity. In reality, however, people are not neighborhood character; they are residents with essential needs, including affordable housing.
The replacement of economics or sites of production by a concern with character and identity continues in the plan’s land use and transportation recommendations, most of which focus on urban design aesthetics, compactness for quality of life improvements, and creating people-friendly places. This latter section imagines the city primarily as a site of consumption: whether it is sidewalk cafes or the city experience being consumed, the goal is to create people-friendly places that are “active, inviting places with unique Austin flavor and character—fun to visit and welcoming for all” (p. 133). The essential point is that discussions of compact, people-friendly places—which become “more desirable, with enhanced value” (p. 133)—have largely replaced discussions of the city as a site of production. Labor, laborers, and the city as a site of economic production are given scant attention in the land use and transportation section.
What about the plan’s sections on the economy? This ought to be where we find the most discussion of sites of production and material conditions of labor and this turns out to be the case. But these same sections also follow the pattern of the rest of the plan, returning repeatedly to issues of municipal spirit and identity. The section begins, typically, in mixed fashion: “We have a thriving economy, resilient due to its diversity and entrepreneurial spirit; however, we need to prepare our workforce to adapt to emerging employment sectors and technological changes” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 45). The concrete need for workforce development here shares the sentence with an underspecified reference to diversity (industry mix? social?) and a claim of entrepreneurial spirit rather than any more concrete explanation for the actual process of entrepreneurship. The section continues to see-saw in like fashion, with the important recognition of a correlation between low education attainment and unemployment followed by praise for Austin’s creative sector as a “driver of innovation and a significant consumer of urban amenities” (p. 45) rather than as a site of production and economic activity in and of itself. Just as low-income residents are not neighborhood character, artists are not urban amenities. They are, rather, laborers engaged in relations of economic production.
The plan does note the limited access to professional and skilled service jobs for those with low educational attainment and many minorities (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 48). Such consideration of what sorts of jobs are being created and for whom ought to be one of the pillars of the plan’s economy section, and, perhaps of the plan more broadly. In what may be the biggest victory from a political economic standpoint, the plan notes that most regional job growth is in lower-wage positions resulting directly from population growth, such as service industry and hospitality services jobs (p. 75). It is curious, however, that these remarks are found in the “Developing a Regional Perspective” section rather than in the above discussion on the economy.
As for economic history, the plan does a good job of recounting the birth and growth of the high-tech industry cluster in Austin and its important early links to higher education (City of Austin, TX, 2012, pp. 20-21). Such economic histories help to describe both how industrial development drives urban development and how existing material assets—such as a well-supported research university and an educated workforce— can attract and support industry. As elsewhere, however, this economic history is followed immediately by the claim that it is not such material resources and sites of production that propel the city forward. Rather, it is that “the spirit of creativity and acceptance has created a place where people want to be and has set the stage for our current and future economic success” (p. 22). Again, it is Austin’s spirit, personality, and identity that matter and that cause material success and growth. In the expanded vision statement the plan uses even stronger language, claiming: “Creativity is the engine of Austin’s prosperity” (p. 85). Here, as elsewhere, the plan compulsively cites creativity as the explanation for Austin’s strong economy, ignoring sites and conditions of production while at the same time failing to give any substantive explanation for what, precisely, is meant by creativity, how it functions, or how it supports economic prosperity.
The plan’s economic recommendations, however, are a marked improvement. Several of the key challenges listed deal with concrete issues of production and labor, including calls for expanded job training in areas linked to local industry and community needs, the creation of well-paid jobs in the burgeoning green energy and building sectors and increasing well-paying jobs more generally, encouraging and sustaining homegrown businesses, and expanding the economic base through the development of a medical center (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 141).
A close look at the related section of the Action Matrix reveals a more mixed picture, however. A Priority Action to help support the creative industries calls for a series of programs including incubators, business accelerators, financial assistance, and technical assistance, though nothing is said about what transpires in such creative industries and what sorts of jobs they provide (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 241). This recommendation, however, stands out among others in the Action Matrix by listing specific programs and who will be responsible. Another promising recommendation calls for promoting the formation of worker- and community-owned businesses (p. 243), making a clear statement about worker conditions, though offering no specifics on how and by whom this will be accomplished. Similarly, recommendations for workforce training make no mention of who will be responsible, nor of targeting specific jobs, employers, or industries for desirable labor conditions. Equally bereft of detail is the recommendation to promote the employment of historically underemployed populations. Drifting away from the realm of material labor conditions now, the Action Matrix recommends strategic incentives and investments for particular industries and business districts while omitting any mention of targeting for desirable employment characteristics (p. 240) and elsewhere calls for an increase in marketing for and investment in Austin as a tourist destination (p. 241)—contributing to the vision of the city as a site of consumption rather than production. By and large, the economic planning recommendations are vague on who does what, when, and how. They are not focused on what transpires at sites of production or conditions of labor in Austin. Much like the section on housing noted above, the plan leaves such issues in the hands of the market.
Over all, then, ImagineAustin’s treatment of sites of production and the material conditions of life and labor is inconsistent at best. The plan does a reasonable job of recognizing the challenges facing the city, including serious threats to affordability for increasing numbers of residents and disparate access to work which pays decent wages. But the plan, after recognizing these problems, fails to substantively deal with them. Potential solutions are obscured by talk of values and identity on the one hand and, on the other, are given in such broad terms that they fail to be solutions in any specific sense.
Distribution of social goods and structural causes
To the extent that the ImagineAustin plan speaks about the distribution of social goods, it tends to call for benefits for everybody. From the beginning of the Economy section: “Austin must harness its strong economy to expand opportunity and social equity to all residents” (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 141). Language like this pervades the plan, leaving the Marxist reader feeling uneasy as the cumulative effect of the many calls for (insert your preferred social good here) for all Austinites serves to obscure the needs of those who are left out of Austin’s strong economy. It is, in fact, the very opposite of focusing on the distribution of social goods, one of the most important Marxist imperatives. This is because a focus on distribution leads to the recognition of structural inequality and, ultimately, to such inequality’s social drivers, whereas calls for improvement for all do the opposite, diverting attention from inequality and even, implicitly, endorsing a sort of trickle-down model of economic growth: improvement for all makes all better. Such a belief dismisses that other crucial Marxist point that the accumulation of social goods occurs all too often at the expense of others, and these very same losers in the game of capital tend to lose repeatedly. Real equity and justice demands that we answer to those people, not to all people.
Avoidance of issues of distribution continues throughout the plan, in discussions of city parks and facilities, schools, healthcare and elsewhere. For instance, while the plan notes the large number of parks and the high proportion of park acreage per 1,000 residents in comparison to peer cities (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 57), there is no discussion of where parks are and where they are not. Though the plan does acknowledge in rather anodyne fashion that “many areas of the city are not adequately served by the park system” (p. 61), it fails to question where these facilities are, who lives in places that have relatively greater or lesser access, or whether these are linked to historical conditions of deprivation for particular groups or areas of the city. Moreover, no remedy to unequal park access is offered.
Rather than question such issues of distribution, the plan chooses to speak about accessibility, though almost always in a general sense. Hence, from the extended vision statement: “Austin is accessible” regarding transportation (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 86); “Equitable opportunities are accessible to all” (p. 87); “We enjoy an accessible, well-maintained network of parks” (p. 85), and so on. Such language elides questions of access for whom and why particular groups or areas continue to have less access than others. At the outset ImagineAustin argues that this comprehensive plan challenges us “to remember and protect those who lack a voice, money, and power” (p. 13). Again, the plan aims high in aspirational, value-laden language, though it falls short in its specific choice of focus and language.
The exception is in the “Society” section where a number of the key challenges focus on those most in need. The plan recognizes that “there are populations and parts of the city that lag behind in education” and that educational opportunities, including job training, must be provided to them (City of Austin, TX, 2012, p. 170). On that same page the plan argues for the need to provide health care “for all residents, including the economically disadvantaged, uninsured, and underinsured” (p. 170). Such specific targeting of the neediest Austinites is a welcome change from the otherwise relentless calls for improved accessibility and benefits for all. Several recommendations in the “Society” section follow suit, including one to “Improve educational opportunities for marginalized populations and provide better services for at-risk segments of our community” (p. 172). However, as elsewhere, the plan remains vague on the specifics of these recommendations, who will be responsible, and how they will be accomplished.
Overall, then, the plan largely avoids discussing issues of distribution, preferring instead a vocabulary of inclusiveness an accessibility. Where the plan does deal with distribution, it fails to provide detail and specific solutions, particularly in economic terms, to deal with the problem.
If labor is the source of value, then…
The final lesson from political economy is that labor is the source of value. What does it mean to consider this insight with regard to planning? How do we evaluate ImagineAustin on the basis of such a claim? The plan obviously does not discuss economic theory or give its opinion on the somewhat arcane question of the source of economic value. It does,
however, imply agreement with the neoclassical argument that economic value derives from the process of exchange. As such, value is immaterial and mutable; it is merely what one will pay for something at a point in time. ImagineAustin sees the value of the city as deriving from the immaterial as well—from its values, its identity, its creativity. In either case value seems to precipitate out of the ether through processes of exchange, either in a market sense or through the exchange ideas, spirit, or words and creativity.
A labor theory of value, on the other hand, reminds us that value comes from material sources, from toil by human beings. Going back to the very beginning of the plan, ImagineAustin claims that the city’s greatest asset is its people, but what kind of people are these and what are they doing? Are Austinites valued and creating value through their character, spirit, and creativity or through their labor? By now the answer to this question ought to be obvious. Moreover, this is not an esoteric distinction. Rather, these two ways of viewing value creation have different planning and policy implications. What would a plan look like that took as its guiding principle the labor theory of value?
It would have to begin with the basic tenet that because labor creates value, labor must reap value. This is both just and reasonable. In practice, it would mean that good housing be available to all, particularly those who work at the bottom of the wage scale. The value workers bring into being through their labor must be returned to them in material form, enabling them to, at a bare minimum, reproduce their own labor and support a family in good health and comfort. In order to accomplish this, jobs which provide a good wage must be available to all workers, allowing labor to remain in the same community for which it produces value.
If we keep in mind, as a rhetorical device, the axiom that labor is the source of value then we will be mindful of targeting social goods to those who labor but do not benefit from the social values subsequently produced. And for those who remain outside of the workforce and without access to good jobs, the labor theory of value instructs us to do whatever is necessary to bring them into the workforce in a meaningful fashion. Finally, the labor theory of value reminds us constantly to focus on the concrete and material conditions of life and labor. It reminds us that value—all sorts of value, beyond the mere economic—are created through what people do. When a laborer tightens a bolt on an assembly line, they create economic value. When a musician plays a set in a club on Red River, they create social and aesthetic value. Such value does not come into being merely through our character, spirit or identity, but through our actions, through our labor. And if we recognize this, we also recognize the necessity of supporting the material conditions that make such labor possible in our city.
Conclusion
The ImagineAustin plan is an aspirational document. It envisions a better Austin—one which is affordable, more just, and retains much of what makes the city special to its residents. If we consider ImagineAustin in Throgmorton’s terms as a persuasive story, this is the future Austin for which the plan argues. However, the plan argues that the way to get there is through a celebration of and focus on the city’s identity, culture, and diversity. It reveals a mode of urban thinking that sees the drivers of the city as largely immaterial. Its deeply postmodern character—revealed through its recurrent considerations of diversity and inclusivity, character and identity—diverts attention from the material considerations of political economy. This postmodern story will not realize ImagineAustin’s vision for the city’s future.
On planning as storytelling, Throgmorton (2003) wrote, “I believe that contemporary planning stories must be inspired by a normative vision” (p. 136). This is precisely what is left out of the story that ImagineAustin weaves. The postmodern imperative to diversity and inclusion rather than normative claims dilutes its progressive aims, diverting attention from the acute material needs of Austinites who are left out of its remarkable growth and progress. Taking a political economic viewpoint, in this and other plans, might help retain our focus on such material needs and outcomes, setting us on the path to real progress and equity in the city.
References
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 296-312.
City of Austin, TX. (2014). City of Austin Population History 1840-2014.
Retrieved March 26, 2015, from City of Austin: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Demographics/population_histo- ry_pub.pdf
City of Austin, TX. (2012). ImagineAustin Comprehensive Plan. City of Austin.
Gregor, K. (2010). Austin Comp Planning: A Brief History. Retrieved January 18, 2015 from The Austin Chronicle: http://www. austinchronicle.com/ news/2010-02-05/953471
Harvey, D. (1992). Social justice, postmodernism and the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 588-601.
Marx, K. (1990). Capital, Volume 1. London: Penguin.
Ricardo, D. (2004). The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Mineoloa, NY: Dover Publications.
Smith, A. (2003). The Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam Dell.
Throgmorton, J. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relations. Planning Theory, 2 (2), 125-151.
Throgmorton, J. (1996). Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago’s Electric Future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.