Abstract
This commentary critically examines Phelps and Miao’s concept of the new urban managerialism (NUM) in light of three geopolitical processes operating around the state and urban politics: (1) the geopolitics of city-regionalism; (2) the geopolitics of urban environmental management; and (3) the geopolitical implications of the public–private financing of urban infrastructure. It argues that the NUM remains fundamentally a territorialized political project and raises questions about where to draw conceptual and territorial boundaries around the urban public interest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
