Co-optation and transformation : a contextual understanding of transformative potential in cultural incubators in Amsterdam

(1)

Co-optation and Transformation

A Contextual Understanding of

Transformative Potential in Cultural

Incubators in Amsterdam

University of Amsterdam

Name: Sjors van der Meer

Student: 10627332

Document: MA Thesis Political Science: Public Policy & Governance Supervisor: Benno Netelenbos

Second reader: John Grin Date: June 22nd_{, 2018}

(2)

2

The Dutch ‘participation society’ has seen a proliferation of participative governance processes with a focus on social work as a civil responsibility (Newman & Tonkens, 2011, p. 15; De Haan, 2014, p. 269). The participation society – both as a goal and as an ideology – developed in tandem with fundamental changes to the welfare state observed throughout Europe. These changes are known as governmental activating regimes: (i) labour market activation through stricter encouragement of employment among welfare recipients, and (ii) civil activation through encouragement of participation and voluntary care work in the neighborhood and the social domain (Bonoli, 2013). One aspect of activation regimes (or ‘active social policy’) is invited space, in which government invites citizens and civil society to engage and participate in governance processes (Cornwall, 2004a; 2004b). An important critique of this, however, is that these spaces are instrumentally employed to steer the whole of society towards participation and self-reliance. This focus on civil participation is furthermore implicated in the legitimation of governmental intervention and withdrawal from the social domain, which is said to reflect the contemporary reasoning of the government, or governmentality. This thesis researches the civil and political interaction inside a particular kind of invited space, namely cultural incubators. The aim is to gain a deeper, contextual understanding of the duality between enabling and constraining forces on transformative agency inside cultural incubators in Amsterdam.

Cultural incubators (CI’s), or broedplaatsen as they are known in Dutch, are publically-owned buildings where artists and creative professionals can rent affordable work and living space. The municipality of Amsterdam seeks to promote the availability of CI’s to maximize the supply of work spaces for artists and creative professionals, or the ‘creative class’. The city does not create or maintain these CI’s itself, but invites people (foundations, businesses, collectives) to initiate and operate them. This means that one develops a concept for the CI, and furthermore manages the location in terms of tenants, upkeep, and in some cases neighborhood activity. The city offers municipal support for this, such as facilitation, expertise and funding. There also is a constellation of rules and requirements governing this invited space, most notable the encouragement of new and existing CI’s to take up civil functions such as social work and neighborhood participation. Moreover, critics have called out the policy as gentrifying, underlining how deprived areas are targeted with CI’s to stimulate development and add value to the neighborhood. The claim is that this added value is determined by a ‘governmentality-rationale’, aimed at regulating and harnessing informal processes in the city, as opposed to the well-being or support of marginalized communities (Peck, 2012; Griffioen, 2014).

Contemporary governmentality steers society towards becoming participatory and self-reliant, and invited spaces are specific (strategic) instances of this (Cornwall, 2004b; De

(4)

4 Haan, 2014). Optimists on the potential of political agency underline how these spaces facilitate (political) learning, function as arenas for contestation and politicization, and help “narrow the gap between officials and local people” (Duyvendak et al., 2006, p. 110; Sepulveda, 2015, p. 843). Critics, however, “deem invited participation as tokenistic or trivial and raise a warning finger. (…) What actually happens in an around these new governance spaces varies depending on situation and context” (Tavilzadeh & Kings, 2015, p. 95). This context, then, is said to constrain the activity in invites spaces because these spaces carry state agenda’s and condition behaviour accordingly (Wainwright, 2003; Cornwall, 2008). Moreover, invited participation is deemed an effort to control (informal) societal dynamics (Newman, 2005, p. 128). Others, however, do not deny that the structural context bears strongly upon the possibilities of agency within invited spaces, but maintain that “invited spaces can still harbour transformative potential and enhance the agency of those who participate (Zandbergen & Jaffe, 2014, p. 9; Koster, 2014).

For this thesis I rely on the notion that enabling and constraining forces on agency are a duality inherent in social processes, and that an understanding of this dynamic is necessary to identify opportunities for social change (Cleaver, 2004, p. 276; Béhague et al., 2008; Westley et al., 2013; Koster, 2014). Traditional polarizations of transformation and co-optation typically present transformative agency as excluding the possibility of co-co-optation by the government, or after liberation from structural constraints. The goal of this research is therefore to move past this traditional debate, and develop a contextual understanding that shows how agency and structure c0-shape transformative potential. To this end I ask the question if there are examples of CI’s in Amsterdam that show transformative agency, and how in those cases people have made use of that specific space? And perhaps more importantly, if we can understand why these examples are there, despite or because of structural constraints?

To answer these questions I have studied three cases of CI’s in Amsterdam which all three showed transformative agency in their neighborhood activity, but differed in their practices. These cases are Tugela85, WOW Amsterdam, and Modestraat. For my analysis I draw on interviews with professionals and volunteers from these CI’s, in addition to year reports, policy documents and business plans. I will show that transformative agency can reside in both individual action, as well as in evolving interaction over time, and that this ultimately implies a restructuring of experiences and possibilities in a specific area or polity. In addition, there are two processes that enable and constrain transformative potential inside CI’s. These are (1) that ‘politics matters’ to transformation, because discretionary space that is claimed by actors is simultaneously granted by institutional actors based on reciprocity; and (2) that there is ‘agenda congruence’ between the cases and the city, meaning that CI’s are intrinsically motivated to act on specific neighborhood agenda’s, and that these CI’s

(5)

5 simultaneously co-shape the practices they are conditioned to act on. This will lead me to conclude that these cases feature top-down and strategic governmental steering, but that transformative agency has also played a role in the inception of these practices.

This thesis is made up of six chapters. In Chapter 1 I introduce the debate on invited spaces in society, and show how they are instrumental to governmentality while also providing opportunity for transformative participation. Here I also present scholarly work on transformative agency, and propose a conceptual synthesis of the current debate. Chapter 2 presents the research design, which is a qualitative multiple case-study design. Here I also motivate my choice for this. In Chapter 3 I introduce the policy context and -theories behind the CI-policy in Amsterdam. I show that CI’s have a distinct regulated character, and that these organizations are encouraged to align their programming with specific municipal agenda’s. Here I also consider the claim that the city’s governmentality employs CI’s as vehicles of gentrification. In Chapters 4, 5 and 6 I introduce my three cases, which are

Tugela85, WOW Amsterdam, and Modestraat. The results from these cases show the

relevance of treating enabling and constraining forces as a duality in social processes, leading to the conclusion that a contextual understanding of interaction in invited spaces is necessary to identity opportunities for change.

Chapter 1 Invited spaces: Between co-optation and transformation

Western democracies have seen “a proliferation of (participative) forums, such as citizens’ panels, citizens’ juries, service user consultations, governance boards and evaluation projects” (Newman & Tonkens, 2011, p. 15). These are all examples of invited spaces, where the government invites citizens and civil society to engage and participate in governance processes (Cornwall, 2004b, pp. 76-77). The use of the term space here means that a space can be emptied or filled, and permeable or closed; a space can be a physical space, or an institutional environment, and it can be opened up by invitation, or specifically sealed off. According to Cornwall (2004a; 2008), the term space in relation to participation helps us think about “the relations of power and constructions of citizenship that permeate any site for public engagement” (2004a, p. 1). As such, “the spaces themselves are shaped by the power relations that surround and enter them” (Bailey, 2010, p. 34).

The debate over invitations to participate thus touches upon the status quo. The main characteristic of invited spaces is the government-driven invitation to participate. While this invitation can be more or less formalised (and more or less progressive), scholars claim that invited spaces reflect the status quo because the invitation is extended top-down (Cornwall, 2004b; Miraftab, 2004, p. 4). Because of this “[citizens] and communities have had to be willing to enter the terrain of the state and learn to play by their rules” (Eversole, 2010, p. 38). Communities seeking local participation are furthermore confronted with a ‘new

(6)

6 governmentality’, meaning governmental reasoning where citizen participation is a top-down strategy, and is turned into a method for legitimizing governmental withdrawal from former levels of social welfare in society (Zandbergen and Jaffe, 2014).

This chapter introduces the concept of invited space. I situate the concept of invited space in a debate over the changing role of active citizenship in society, and I show that under the new governmentality, scholars claim active citizenship to be a regulated form of civil participation. From the debate, however, it becomes clear that this development is said to both enable and constrain potential transformative participation. The presence of both enabling and constraining forces on agency are inherent to social processes (Cleaver, 2004). However, I argue that the debate on this dynamic tends to remain on either side of this duality. An understanding of this dynamic is necessary to move past this duality and better understand the transformative potential of local participation and to help society identify opportunities for change.

The following paragraphs conceptualize invited spaces. The second part of this chapter gives an outline of the debate on how invited space interacts with society. After sketching this debate I will introduce how invited space is said to enhance political learning and participation, while also regulating and co-opting local participation and activism. This finally brings me to a conceptualization of transformative potential and agency in relation to invited space.

Invited space versus popular space

Invited spaces should be understood in contrast to popular spaces, which are “arenas in which people come together at their own instigation” (Cornwall, 2004a, p. 2). Gaventa (2004) also recognizes this, but employs the term claimed (as opposed to popular) and

created (as opposed to invited) spaces. I use Cornwall’s terms of popular and invited space

over claimed and created space, but in my opinion for both popular and claimed space, ‘popular mobilization’ is the defining trait. This could be to protest against government policies, to rally for support or perhaps for citizens to produce their own services in a given area (Gaventa, 2004, p. 35). The boundaries between popular and invited spaces, however, “are mutable, rather than fixed” (Cornwall, 2004a, p. 2). Mutable boundaries here denote that popular spaces, and the organizations that occupy these spaces, could become formally recognized and linked to other governance or public service institutions. Similarly, in spite of invited spaces being more formal, and often narrowly defined, they may become sites for the articulation of dissent, and/or novel collaboration and compromise between citizens and state actors (idem).

The previous paragraph has shown that popular and invited spaces are either sides of a continuum. The popular side is defined by popular mobilization, and by the extent to which

(7)

7 space (i.e. an arena, or a platform, or actual space on a square) is claimed, or created bottom-up. Invited spaces “come to be defined by those invited into them, as well as by those doing the inviting” (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 80). The question of ‘Who invites whom?’ thus raises the point that invited spaces are structured (and owned) by those who control and provide for them. Examples could be a citizen panel on certain plans, or a local body on sustainable service development, where citizens or actors are invited in. But what will be decided, and when, will already be determined. Moreover, how to reach a decision will also be determined – yes or no, in-depth-deliberation, alternative plans – which is also linked to the stage of the policy process that one is invited into.

Where, then, do the CI’s fit in? The CI-policy in Amsterdam is about inviting citizens in the implementation process, namely supplying Amsterdam with CI’s that cater to (the influx of) artists in the city (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, p. 3). As Cornwall (2004b, p. 80) points out, the boundaries of invited spaces can be (made) mutable, which, as I argue, is present in the cases observed. At the same time there is the question of ownership of invited spaces, which points to the fact that top-down provision of invited space structures the activity within these spaces according to the purpose of its inception. In the next paragraph I provide an outline of the debate on this duality. This debate involves both optimistic and pessimistic opinions about the potential of agency ‘freely’ interacting with the structure of invited spaces. I will then show how invited spaces relate to the structural changes to the welfare state.

Invited space in society: Sketching the debate

As noted above, invited spaces are characterized by a governmental invitation to participate. In spite of this, Hickey & Mohan (2004) state that “it would be misleading to see all participatory spaces, provided or claimed, as disempowering”, simply because they are touched by institutional rules (p. 18). It threatens to overlook wider understandings of political agency. Indeed, it can be argued that political learning in invited spaces enhances capabilities, including the capabilities of marginalized groups. From this perspective, the availability of invited space offers an arena for politicization, contestation or even resistance and dissent in society (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 81; Hickey & Mohan; 2004, p. 18; Duyvendak et al., 2006; p. 110).

Furthermore, invited spaces, and indeed most civil initiatives, are home to professionals, (active) citizens and/or local leaders acting as (political) brokers (Zandbergen & Jaffe, 2014, p. 9; Hajer, 2011; Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013; Van Bochove et al., 2016). These participants are crucial for the success of the activities because they bridge and connect groups of citizens with other societal and governmental actors. Similarly, this vanguard often ‘translates’ between groups, such as citizen initiatives and public administrators, and can be

(8)

8 decisive in the concrete formulation of goals and objectives. The presence of citizens or local leaders as brokers inside invited space possibly enhances political agency beyond institutional rules and/or state agenda’s because it helps to articulate politicization and contestation, and possibly facilitates resistance or dissent. (Duyvendak et al., 2006; p. 110; Koster, 2014; Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2011)

In the debate over invited spaces, other scholars underline the enlargement of political agency for society as a whole via the proliferation of collaborative governance mechanisms that have developed in the 21st_{century (Eliasoph, 2011, pp. x-xi; Newman &} Tonkens, 2011; Tonkens, 2015, Klijn & Koppejan, 2015). What they mean by this is that the sheer number of invited spaces already contributes to the collective agency of citizens, in spite of institutional constraints on the content. This is because, as Koster (2014) notes, the availability of invited space can “give rise to the increasing inclusion of informal actors and their politics in (city) governance” (p. 51). Moreover, Sepulveda (2015) argues, “the very existence of such a (single) space helps to narrow the gap between officials and local people, and can serve as an arena for transformation” (p. 843). This enlargement of agency contrasts to the idea that participants of invited spaces only play by government rules, and are mere subjects of institutional rules and instruments to governmental objectives.

The debate outlined above assigns primacy to political agency, in spite of institutional rules or structural constraints on the capacity to act. In short, these scholars argue that invited spaces offer arenas for both political learning and struggle, and that a growth in invited spaces implies a possible growth of political agency in society. Contrary to this, other scholars maintain that the state-ownership of invited spaces implies that these spaces foremost carry state agenda’s. Some scholars therefore maintain that invited spaces as collaborative governance mechanisms may appear as innovations, but that they are often fashioned out of existing institutional and/or formal political arrangements (Wainwright, 2003; Cornwall, 2004a, p. 2; Hickey & Mohan, 2004, p. 18; Fossati, 2017). This notion implies that ‘new’ governance space often is a reproduction of existing relationships and hierarchies. Moreover, “many critiques show how ‘participation’ can be used as a cloak of words to disguise business as usual” (Eversole, 2010, p. 30).

Another critique relates to (existing) hierarchies and relationships between the center and the periphery. It raises the questions of ‘who participates?’, ‘who is excluded?’, and ‘what is decided and by whom?’ These questions matter because the notion of in- and exclusion is governed based on the reproduction of existing relationships and hierarchies (see above) that are often transferred to invited spaces (Wainwright, 2003; Pearce, 2016). What we should take from this, as Sepulveda (2015) argues, is that invited space could be consciously designed to offer possibilities for social engagement and economic and civic inclusion to different societal groups, “providing novel solutions to a range of societal problems which the

(9)

9 state and private sector have been unable to solve” (p. 843). In practice however, Tavilzadeh & Kings (2015) observe that many invited spaces provide communities with a framework to manage their own problems, but that this set of responsibilities does not transfer any capacities such as resources “to actually combat exclusion and social decay” (p. 96). Moreover, it is misleading to simply mark public participation, and ‘community engagement’ and ‘empowerment’, may not be as simple as is often represented, because a reproduction of existing relationships in invited spaces underlines hierarchy and asymmetry in power and information within governance processes (Bailey, 2010, p. 8).

The previous paragraph indicates that agenda setting is an important ‘face’ of institutional power. In other words, dominant institutional actors such as politicians or (high-ranking) civil servants predetermine, filter and/or decide which topics will be on the agenda, or which topics will be designated to collaboration in invited space (Gaventa, 2004, p. 37; Gaventa and Martorano, 2016). Here we see how invited space is ‘owned’ by the institution that invites to participate. This also means, as more critical scholars note, that invited spaces encourage specific predetermined kinds of behavior, such as voluntary care and neighborhood activity, while discouraging or delegitimizing more political or activist endeavors (Duyvendak et al., 2006; Newman and Tonkens, 2011; Muehlebach, 2012). Embedded in the respective institutional rules of each invited space, this type of steering prescribes the ‘appropriate’ behavior within a given space, thus co-opting active participation and active citizenship and stripping it of its potential radicalism (Taylor, 2007, p. 314; Newman and Tonkens, 2011, p. 16).

So far we have seen that there is a proliferation of invited spaces in society, and that some scholars see this as possibly enhancing political agency, while others emphasize the constraining effects of state ownership of these spaces which is reflected in how they are instrumentally employed. Building on this latter critique is the claim that the opportunities in these invited spaces in reality are civil functions transferred from the state to the citizen (Betzelt and Bothfeld, 2011; Newman and Tonkens, 2011). This touches upon the modern changes to the welfare state. According to Delsen (2012), “national governments try to stimulate civil society, which means that responsibilities are increasingly laid in the hands of the people to take care of themselves and others” (p. 13). Which functions from the social domain are transferred, and in what manner, can vary per country, but one trans-European development1_{is the promotion of voluntary (care) work and neighborhood activity in the} social domain (Bonoli, 2013a; Muehlebach, 2012; Eliasoph, 2011; Künzel, 2012). Relating this to the current debate, the arenas that invited spaces provide could either be empowering

1_{This development has been preceded by the growth of active labour market policies (ALMP’s), which}

the promotion of voluntary care work and neighborhood activity (‘active social policy’) is said to stem from. For more on ALMP’s and active social policy, see: Bonoli, 2013; Van Berkel et al., 2011;

(10)

10 actors – through enabling political agency and (partially) closing the gap between citizens and government – or they are mere responsibilities for the individual without real participation (Betzelt and Bothfeld, 2011; De Haan, 2014).

Newman and Tonkens (2011) state that “the implicit coupling of participation and responsibility subordinates other potential meanings of participation, including more politicized forms of active citizenship” (p. 196). They furthermore state that this development is pivotal in the current transformation of the welfare state (p. 9). In addition, however, some scholars argue from a macro-level that invited spaces not only prescribe appropriate behavior, but also reflect two larger societal trends. On the one hand there are the possibilities for social engagement and civil inclusion, possibly providing the novel solutions for societal problems (Sepulveda, 2015, p. 843; see page 9-10). A more critical view however, reads participation in these spaces as mere filling for the gaps left by the state (Griffioen, 2014), and as such invited spaces are seen as instrumental in shifting the whole of society towards participation to treat the ails of governmental (partial) retreat from the social domain (Eversole, 2010; Newman and Tonkens, 2011; De Haan, 2014).

To recap, in the modern welfare state civil society is increasingly stimulated to take care of itself. Scholars such as Newman & Tonkens (2011), Muehlebach (2012) and De Haan (2014) see invited spaces as instrumental and crucial in this process, but the debate also shows that there are constraining and enabling forces influencing the practices inside invited space arenas. Participation in invited space thus carries potential innovative solutions, but is also said to steer all of society towards participation and self-reliance. Moreover, Fargion (2017) claims that the new participatory devices (i.e. spaces) “do not represent a guarantee for (…) participation, and could certainly be instrumentally used as mere tools for legitimizing unpopular choices” (p. 2). This, as the next part will show, is said to reflect the contemporary governmentality in society.

Invited space as the new governmentality

The image sketched above is one of giving with one hand and taking with the other. While the debate has not been settled on the sum of all the parts of the modern welfare transformation, some scholars argue that the participatory shift reflects the ‘governmentality’ of the modern state. Governmentality is a Foucauldian concept denoting dominant (or shifting) “reasoning and justifications on how to exercise government” (Triantafillou, 2012, p. 16). This signals how citizens are shaped and framed by governmental institutions and actors of power (Fossati, 2017). From this perspective “transformations in models of participation have been related to the rise of neoliberalism as a dominant governmental ideology, with citizen participation having turned into a method for legitimizing both governmental intervention and withdrawal” (Zandbergen and Jaffe, 2014, p. 7).

(11)

11 Governmentality should thus also be seen as (continuous) attempts to (re-)constitute governable subjects (Newman, 2005, p. 128). Within this neoliberal process, deregulation of social services and the promotion of self-organization regimes are instruments of steering and governing (Koster, 2014, p. 50). This thus reflects the (govern)mentality of the dominant mode of governance. What this amounts to is that governmentality should be seen as not only designating appropriate behaviour inside invited spaces (and indeed every closed space), but simultaneously as attempts to define “the very boundaries of (collective) action” (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 80). An example of defining boundaries – or, as critical theorist would say: co-optation – is presented in Koster’s (2014) research. This research shows that the state attempts to facilitate already-existing citizen activities – forms of self-organization that emerged ‘beneath’ the state – and usher such activities into new governance spaces determined by the state’ (p. 50). In other words, but at this point perhaps unsurprisingly, these are steering efforts to control informal politics and societal dynamics.

There are, as has become clear, different perspectives on the dynamics surrounding invited spaces. What has also become clear, however, is that the debate on transformative agency in invited spaces, in many instances, still reflects the traditional polarization of subjectivist and objectivist sociological perspectives within the famous ‘structure-agency’ debate;

While the former (perspective) focuses in beliefs, desires, and judgements of agents, and views the agent’s action as residing, first and foremost, in individual power, the latter, more structuralist approach seeks to explain individual thought and action primarily through the material, economic and social conditions that constitute society. (Béhague et al., 2008, p. 491)

In other words, individuals are portrayed “as struggling against constraining social and institutional structures, the implication being that meaningful change can only occur outside and after liberation from societal structures” (Idem; see also Mills, 2008, pp. 80-81). This juxtaposition has led to the already mentioned idea that structural conditions are both enabling and constraining on actors’ agency. What this furthermore means, is that meaningful change to structured forms of domination (or structured forms or power asymmetry in society) can occur in spite of the constraining effects of these same structural conditions. With this thesis I therefore aim to move past this polarisation. Instead I aim to develop a sensitivity for the contextual interaction of both these notions in invited spaces, because this allows us to better identify opportunities for change in society. To this end I now turn to a conceptualization of transformative potential, before returning to the puzzle of how this 0ccurs both in spite of, and because of governmentality.

(12)

12 What about transformation?

In her conclusion to Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation (2004) Frances Cleaver notes that constraining and enabling forces on agency are a duality inherent in social processes, and that an understanding of this dynamic is necessary to identify opportunities for change (p. 276). In this chapter I have so far shown that the debate on this dynamic tends to remain on either side of the underlying duality. To research transformation I therefore aim to develop a contextual understanding of the interaction in invited spaces, and for this I build on Béhague et al. (2008). They note:

It should not be assumed that institutionalized power hierarchies and norms (…) are unaltered and that noteworthy exceptions to these conditions do not exist. Instances whereby even highly marginalized (groups and individuals) become active (civil society participants), despite strong hierarchical power structures, should not be taken to be aberrations or unique only at the individual level. Rather, they elucidate the relationship between individual exceptions and the emergence of larger social patterns, pointing to key mechanisms through which social and institutional transformations emerge. (p. 491)

This indicates that social and institutional processes and “opportunities for change” are central to transformation. The transformative paradigm, then, is a research agenda that “(bears) social justice in mind, so that their inquiries become intertwined with a political agenda and are action-oriented” (Romm, 2015, p. 411). As a social process, the efforts of actors to identify these opportunities and effect changes – for example over (civil) rights or political representation – are known as transformative struggles (Newman & Tonkens, 2011, pp. 190-92). These struggles “seek to remake (…) and (…) challenge structured forms of domination and subordination (Newman & Tonkens, 2011, p. 15). It is within these processes that transformative potential and agency play a role.

In light of the above, transformative potential will most often be present (or absent) within a specific social and institutional constellation in society. As an attribute or an occurrence, transformative potential can therefore be seen as possible “integration of experiences, or indeed possibilities, creating something new” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, pp. 99-100). Koster (2014) gives the example of grassroots communities and/or initiatives “that do not coincide with governmental parameters and give expression to aspirations that are at odds with those of the state” (p. 60). This is transformative in the sense that the aspirations lay outside of the parameters, and bring in (new) experiences, for instance those of a marginalized group. Similarly, transformative potential is also the “potential for transforming dominant approaches” (Stevens & Kanie, 2016, p. 394), such as approaches to governance. Stevens and Kanie (2016) give the example of the Paris Agreements, where the collaboration and innovation does not end when a decision or final draft is reached. These decisions introduce new practices (and challenges) in a complex political process, and this creates a

(13)

13 dynamic where new actors, new ideas and new action for sustainability could be brought in (p. 394).

Westley et al. (2013) point out that transformation is about somehow creating new conditions, “suggesting that the agency of (…) people is a vital component” in this process (p. 1). Other scholars however, maintain that transformative agency goes beyond the individual and situational events “as it emerges and evolves in collective interaction over time” (Haapasaari and Kerosuo, 2015, p. 38). But, as Béhague et al. (2008) stated, an individual exception where a highly marginalized actor can participate (and to some extent shape conditions), can be the onset of a pattern of change. I therefore treat transformative agency as both “breaking away from the given frame of action and taking the initiative to transform it” (Virkkunen, 2006, p. 49), and as evolving as interaction over time. In other words, transformative agency can be of an individual actor, but it can also reside in collective action, possible evolving over time. I furthermore treat transformative agency in relation to invited spaces as agency that interacts with the internal and the external conditions of the invited space (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 85).

Finally, this conceptualization needs two more conjugations, namely transformative environment and transformative participation. First, a transformative environment is one that effectively (facilitates) the (new) skills associated with transformative potential or agency” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 99). Transformative participation, then, signals a strengthening of the possibilities for active citizenship and engagement as transformative agency (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 85), and results in the empowerment of those involved. As a result this alters the structures and institutions that lead to marginalization and exclusion (White, 1996, p. 9).

The transformative potential of invited space

This chapter has shown that the proliferation of invited space reflects the modern changes to the welfare state. Invited space reflects the status quo through a top-down (strategic) invitation to participate. At the same time not all invited spaces are disempowering, for instance as platforms that articulate contestation or dissent. Critical scholars nevertheless emphasize that invited space regulates participation and active citizenship, pointing to how contemporary governmentality seeks to steer and control informal politics and societal dynamics. Other scholars maintain that invited space can harbour transformative potential, in spite of these constraining forces on agency and participation.

In this thesis I intend to move past the question of whether invited space enhances transformative agency, or whether it merely accommodates changing welfare state demands. I argue that both could be present, based on the enabling-and-constraining-axiom, and that this debate therefore needs rich contextual knowledge that helps to understand the

(14)

14 interaction that flows from this underlying duality. Are there examples of CI’s in Amsterdam that show such transformative agency? And more importantly, can we understand why this is present, despite (or because of) the structural constraints that bear upon CI’s? With this I aim to go beyond the traditional polarization of subjectivist and objectivist sociological perspectives (see page 12), and show how transformative potential is co-shaped by both agency and structure inside invited spaces.

Chapter 2 Studying transformation

This chapter provides an outline of the underlying approach of this research. As the introduction and the previous chapter have shown, this thesis is about transformative participation in invited spaces, and how the institutional context of a CI can both constrain and enable the activity within that space. Transformation implies change to structured forms of interaction (Newman & Tonkens, 2011, p. 15; Haapasaari & Kerosuo, 2015, p. 38), and the question here is ‘to what extent there are examples of transformational agency in three different CI’s in Amsterdam?’ To embed this in the context of each space I also ask the question ‘how people make use of these spaces?’ With the cross-examination of richly detailed cases and examples of transformative agency I aim to make transformation more visible, and develop a sensitivity for the contextual interaction.

The following section offers my research design. This design is a qualitative multiple case-study based on interviews and (policy) documents. Although I present multiple cases, the research is not comparative in nature. My three-case-sample serves to provide contextual in-depth knowledge on the interaction between agency and structural constraints in the cases. In the following chapters I will use these results to make a characterization of transformation as a phenomenon, and furthermore establish whether there are general or specific influencing variables in the cases observed. Here I will offer my choice of design, my case selection and the collection and analysis of my data. Lastly I will reflect on the quality and limitation of the data I collected.

Design and case selection

The previous parts have sketched the debate over whether invited space in society can lead to new forms of political or transformative agency, or whether these spaces are just incorporating new demands. To show that this is in fact non-exclusionary, and should be treated as a duality, I intend to first look for examples of transformative agency, which then can be related to enabling and constraining structural conditions. My approach to this research thus is a qualitative multiple case-study design, based on three cases from a sample of sixty CI’s in Amsterdam.

(15)

15 requires a case studies’ intense observation (Gerring, 2006, p. 37; Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 236; Bryman, 2012, p. 390). This should allow me to gain thick descriptions on the occurrence of transformative agency, which I then can analyze in relation to respective circumstances of the case. To this end, as Gerring (2007) notes, “the cases identified for intensive study (are) chosen from a population, and the reasons for this choice hinge upon the way that (they are) situated within that population” (pp. 88-90). What this means to my focus is that the population of CI’s is on a continuum where on one side lie CI’s with no (additional) activity other than providing work space inside their building. On the other side lie CI’s that show high levels of activity in terms of neighborhood activity and/or cultural programming aimed at specific audiences. The cases chosen for this thesis are outliers within this population in the sense that all three are in the ‘High activity’ group, and score high on both neighborhood activity and cultural programming (see Table 2.1). These values make for three cases that are most-likely to display transformative agency within the population of CI’s in Amsterdam. This is important to my design because I intend to use these cases to enlarge processes of transformation that are otherwise less visible.

Table 2.1 Distribution of neighborhood activity and cultural programming in CI-population in Amsterdam

The ‘most-likely case’-concept is borrowed from the crucial case-study design. In this design, a most-likely case is used to disconfirm a theory, because it is most likely to achieve a certain prediction, and yet it does not (See Gerring, 2007, pp. 115-122). I employed this concept, however, to find cases that will approach a positive value on the dependent variable (transformative agency), in order to closely study transformation and transformative potential.

During the early phase of writing this thesis (February and March, 2018) I did a small internship at Bureau Broedplaatsen. I did this independently from the university, and my aim was to become familiar with starting and operating a CI. During my limited time at

Bureau Broedplaatsen my assignment was to make an exhaustive overview of the

programming that every CI offered during 2016 and 2017. Table 2.1 is based on this information. ‘None to low activity’ means sporadic ad-hoc events or activities. ‘Mid-range activity’ means more (ad-hoc or one-off) events or activities, with some recurring

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None to low activity (45)

Mid-range activity (6) High activity (9)

(16)

16 programming (i.e. weekly, monthly, theme-based, target-group, etc.). ‘High activity’ means multiple ad-hoc and recurring programs and activities with additional partnerships and collaborations with other organizations in the city.

There are nine CI’s in the ‘High activity’-category, and my choice for Tugela85, WOW

Amsterdam and Modestraat is based on their connection with the neighborhood agenda, in

addition to their high output of cultural programming. The independent variables that helped to select my cases are: (1) a (self-proclaimed) focus (by the CI) on the neighborhood agenda of the area in which it resides; (2) a relatively large presence of community involvement within the CI, or outward to the neighborhood; (3) the presence of professional leadership; and (4) activity for three years or more. These variables influence the dependent variable in the following ways. First, a focus on the neighborhood agenda suggests connecting with these themes and possibly organizing activity or proving programming on these themes. This is where I expect transformative agency to reside. Second, the presence of community involvement within the CI increases the chances of transformative potential because it neighborhood participation and exchange with the community. This furthermore suggests that there is continuity and coordination in the programming and organization. Third, the presence of (professional) coordination or leadership is furthermore known from participation literature to be a determinant for the relative success of (civil) initiatives (Van de Wijdeven & Hendriks, 2009). I therefore threat this as enhancing the probability of transformative potential. Three or more years of activity, finally, can be said to increase the probability of transformative agency because I expect a more matured organization – based on artistic activity and -vision – to want to be (more) autonomous in its activity. More years of activity also suggest a higher output, and thus (theoretically) increases the transformative potential.

The selection criteria set out above resulted in a sample of five CI’s. This underlines how the remaining four of the ‘High activity‘-category directed more attention to the cultural programming alone. My choice for Tugela85, WOW Amsterdam and Modestraat is based on four reasons. In the first place, Cinetol and HW10 (the other two CI’s in this stratified sample) proved unavailable. Secondly, from the internship at Bureau Broedplaatsen I gathered that Tugela85, WOW Amsterdam and Modestraat were known to collaborate with their local municipal departments on neighborhood participation. I intend to research enabling and constraining forces on transformative agency, and collaboration with the municipality suggests the presence of this duality. Thirdly, the three cases here observed all have a distinct ‘personality’, in that Tugela85 seeks out individual development, WOW seeks out networks and partnerships, and Modestraat seeks out individual (personal) experiences in relation to Amsterdam-North. I expect this to influence the form and shape of transformative potential, which increases the understanding we can gather from this

(17)

17 research. My choice for three cases, finally, is based on the expectation that three most-likely cases give adequate results for a characterization of transformative agency, and an in-depth contextual understanding of this concept. More than three cases, however, would exceed the limited time and space of this thesis.

Data collection

The data acquired for this thesis is gathered through semi-structured interviews with respondents from the three cases. This data is supplemented with (1) policy documents from the municipality of Amsterdam; (2) ‘vision documents’ written by the CI’s at their inception; and (3) year reports, also written by the CI’s. The respondents for the interviews have been purposively selected, otherwise known as purposive sampling (Bryman, 2012, p. 424). In this section I elaborate on how I acquired my data. I explain my choice for using interviews and what I wanted to find out about the cases, and also which respondents I selected for this. I also explain some of the documentation I used, and show how these helped to develop my focus.

Central to this research are the semi-structured interviews with respondents from each of the three cases. I used interviews because these would allow me to gather contextual and ‘rich’ descriptions of the cases and their internal dynamic. Interviews furthermore allowed me to switch topics, or continue on specific topics, if answers proved irrelevant or promising. In my search for examples of transformative agency I aimed to focus on the interaction between participation in the CI and external elements of control. This interaction means a dynamic between participation and activity in the CI – the “freedom to (…) define and shape that space” (Gaventa, 2004, p. 34) – and rules, regulation, conditions and/or governmental steering that prescribes behavior, or prescribes goals to the CI’s practice. To acquire data on the dynamic between participation and control I used four themes in the interviews. First, I asked about the inception of the CI, and any goals, terms and conditions, and collaborations that caused this inception, or that resulted from it. Secondly, I asked which people make use of the CI, and in what way. Who rents there? What kind of activities are organized? Who comes in to participate? Thirdly, I sought to find out whether there are elements of control on the CI’s practices, and whether there might be elements of a (municipal) accountability regime. To this end I asked whether and how respondents had to report on their affairs, and if the respondent had ever received specific assignments (or whether this person worked autonomously). Fourth, I asked about any past or present partnerships that resulted in practices such as community participation and voluntary work. I expect these practices to be specifically prescribed or conditioned by the city, and I wanted respondents to share both facts – Who? What? Where? – as well as their perceptions on this– for example being steered (or enabled) by the city to develop certain activities. This last

(18)

18 theme also allowed me to see if there were any relevant examples of activity that had not been mentioned earlier.

I selected three types of respondents from each case, namely: (1) a professional coordinator, such as a manager, director or curator; (2) project leaders, which I expected to be CI-artists, based on early research during my internship; and (3) volunteers, presumably neighborhood residents. I started with contacting professional coordinators via email. I found this information through the Bureau Broedplaatsen-network. In all three cases this was the first interview, which gave me an impression of who I needed for my focus, or which example I wanted to investigate further. These coordinators then connected me to the project leaders and volunteers. For this thesis I ultimately conducted eleven interview with ten people. My aim of interviewing one coordinator, one project leader and one volunteer succeeded with T85 and Modestraat, having done an additional interview with a project leader at Modestraat. For WOW, however, I did two interviews with its professional coordinator (who is officially called curator), and two shorter interviews regarding an innovative educational program with status holders inside WOW. These interviews were with a participant and an administrator.

As mentioned above I used three types of documentation, namely (i) policy documents, (ii) vision documents and (iii) year reports. The policy documents are used to analyze the CI-policy, and to develop a clear image of the constellations of rules and requirements that influences the (potential) agency displayed in a CI. For this I also relied on scientific literature and journalism, which helped me to develop a clear (and critical) image of the debate on CI’s in society. The policy documents are retrieved from the official website of

Bureau Broedplaatsen2_{. The vision documents and year reports are obtained through} Bureau Broedplaatsen, who does not publish these but can provide them on (motivated)

request.

The vision documents show what a CI intended to do at its inception, which is also what they will be held accountable for. The year reports, finally, are mandatory for most CI’s, and they have to contain a reflection on specific activity over the past year. This includes cultural and/or neighborhood programming, as well as internal governance and organization, and the state of financial affairs. CI’s are also asked to reflect on both positive and negative experiences and future developments. Through all this documentation I was already aware that all three cases had several partnerships in their neighborhood, and I furthermore already had indications that certain activities were worth researching. The documentation mentioned here thus helped me to develop analytical focus, and furthermore gave me the opportunity to apply a filter during the interviews.

Conducting interviews, finally, was a fairly smooth process. The interviewees were

(19)

19 very forthcoming with both factual information on the set-up and organization of the CI, as well as with stories on the activities, and the experiences of people that were involved. There were two hurdles however. The first hurdle was myself, in the sense that I wanted to look for elements of control, but became too suggestive in my questions. This was during the first interview with Marlies Buurman, who is the curator at WOW. Here I also immediately found out that describing the theoretical expectation of your research design inhibits the ‘right’ answers, because I need to know what respondents do at specific moments, as opposed to what they think. The interview-file later turned out to be damaged, and Marlies Buurman was kind enough to re-do the interview with me. Another problem that resulted from my own presence was being too understanding, meaning that I too quickly acknowledged I understood, resulting in inadequately explained statements or examples. What I learned from this is that I have a tendency to want to level with people, and acknowledge the point they are trying to make; an interview situation requires me to refrain from this, which I tried to do for the remainder of the interviews.

The second hurdle were the interviews with non-professional respondents. The artist and volunteers that I interviewed were very forthcoming with ‘thick-descriptions’ of their experiences and activities. I was only moderately able to steer this, which I attribute to myself wanting to be (too) kind, and to a lack of providing a clear goal for the interview. The interviews with professionals did not have this same problem, presumable because I did not shy away from technical and analytical questions that gave the interview more focus. For the other interviews this only meant they were rather long. In one interview however, with a volunteer and participant from Modestraat, a lack of focus also became a casual conversation, which then somehow turned to slight animosity. I do not know how this happened, but I should have been more circumspect with my small talk.

Data analysis

To analyze my data I developed a document with quotes and notes from the documentation I selected and (separately) transcribed all my interviews. In this section I elaborate on my approach to this.

I analyzed the documentation and the interviews based on the same labels. These are: (1) (general) activity and programming in the CI; (2) elements of municipal control, or lack thereof, in the CI; (3) partnerships and collaborations in the neighborhood or the city; and (4) connecting with the neighborhood agenda. These labels helped to develop an image of the CI, but they also showed that all cases had elements of all labels. To overcome this ‘generalness’ I resorted to a different unit of analysis, and asked the questions ‘What is the defining trait of the CI?’ This resulted in ‘Individual development’ (T85), ‘Embracing formal partnerships’ (WOW Amsterdam), and ‘Individual experiences with Amsterdam-North’

(20)

20 (Modestraat). Based on these defining traits I was then able to see my data through a lens, and develop individual narratives.

After roughly constructing a narrative for the cases I did another round of labelling. Here I returned to the transformation literature, and made a synthesis of the debate (see page 13-14) that resulted in three types of transformation. These are: (1) transformative agency through a direct impact on conditions or possibilities; (2) transformative potential evolving through interaction over time; and (3) transformative potential as a restructuring or integration of experiences or possibilities. This analytical framework allowed me to refine the narratives of the CI’s, and code and classify the results from each case.

Finally, through comments on an earlier version of this thesis, I realized that my analysis only reaffirmed the existing debate of transformative agency over co-optation and conditioning in invited spaces, or vice versa. Moreover, because I had selected my cases with a most-likely approach, the presence of transformative agency alone could not be a result to my endeavors. I therefore now treat the presence of both constraining and enabling forces on agency as a duality inherent to invited space, and aim to understand how these forces interact. An answer to this will be provided in the following chapters.

Limitations and reflection

Transformative potential resides in the creation and integration of possibilities, and transformative agency resides in individual actions with direct impact, and also evolves in collective action over time. Therefore a study on a larger scale might lead to a better understanding of (i) where participants might have learned things prior to joining activities, and (ii) where they go, that they might use experiences or skills that they have developed. This is not to say that transformative potential or agency can not relate to one place; in this thesis I show that all cases to some extent display transformative agency. But if I were able, with more time and a different focus, to investigate who moves in and out of CI’s, and what other spaces they go, I might gain a deeper understanding of transformative potential. The goal of this thesis, however, is to gather examples of transformative agency, and gather contextual understanding of the results. As such I will limit myself to the empirics I was able to obtain.

Another limitation of this thesis is that much theorizing on transformation comes from participation in underdeveloped parts of the world, that have much more power differences and skewed relationships in society. Moreover, most of the scholarly work on transformative participation that I used is from before 2008, although there are some exceptions. What should be understood is that I combined the relatively older transformation literature with the current debate on participation and co-optation in the modern welfare state. This synthesis is therefore limited through my limited experience as a scientist.

(21)

21 Finally, a short internship of two-and-a-half months at the municipality of Amsterdam offered me great opportunities to contact the CI’s, and gather documentation such as vision documents and year reports. My ability to organize these interviews and gain access to these documents is not only because of the internship; the people I contacted within the three selected CI’s have all been very helpful and forthcoming, for which I am grateful. The foremost benefit of the internship was that it helped me to develop focus. Because of my assignment there I already had a good impression of the population before starting my research. The internship also had two negative aspects, which relate to the research process. First, through my dealings with the CI-population in Amsterdam I was under the impression I already had a fairly good idea of the technical CI-policy. Upon constructing a narrative, however, I reluctantly had to dive in the policy again, because I was not yet able to provide the analytical rigor that was necessary. Second, through my assignment of writing up all activity in the population of CI’s, I developed a negative bias towards a lack of neighborhood activity, and I moreover felt that the cases that I selected here only showed limited results. Upon revisiting the participation and transformation literature, however, a developed a new and better appreciation for the local innovation that the following chapters will show.

Chapter 3 Invited spaces in Amsterdam: Cultural incubators

The CI-policy is designed to create and/or maintain affordable workspace and housing for artists and the creative class (City of Amsterdam, 2016). As mentioned in the introduction, the city employs this policy to ensure artists and the creative class can afford to live and work in Amsterdam, which is deemed desirable because the municipality is of opinion that a vibrant artistic ambiance adds up to the vitality of Amsterdam as a creative city (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, p. 3). Central to this policy is the support and facilitation of

broedplaatsen, which are cultural incubators (CI’s) where one can rent work-, and

sometimes also living space below market value. The city does not start CI’s itself, but encourages citizens, organizations and companies to start a CI, and offers support to this end. Moreover, every CI is developed by either a foundation, a business or a collective of citizens; it is not developed by the municipality of Amsterdam. However, although a CI is founded by a civil actor, the CI is embedded within the CI-policy in Amsterdam.

The purpose of this chapter, then, is to show the set-up of this policy in Amsterdam. What will become clear is that this policy is employed by the city to both provide CI’s – thereby creating possibilities for artists – and connect with other policy areas – such as increasing the attractiveness of peripheral neighborhoods and stimulating neighborhood participation. CI’s are invited space in society because developers (whether professionals, foundations or collectives) are encouraged to partake and collaborate in the governance behind facilitating the city with creative work space. However, it has become clear that

(22)

22 invited space is often ‘owned’ by the state, and it therefore conditions behavior according to state agenda’s. In the CI-policy this constraint results in a focus on developing CI’s in specific underdeveloped areas of the city, and steering CI-activity towards social work and neighborhood participation. At the same time, however, people that (want to) start a CI co-shape the conditions of its inception in agreement with the municipality. As such there also are CI’s that have a focus on artistic or creative activity alone, as opposed to connecting with city or neighborhood issues through specific programming. The policy is to a great extent dynamic, because it is on the one hand dependent on the desires of the municipality and on the other hand influenced by the desires of the founders of CI’s. This chapter focuses on the former, and I first look at the municipality’s rationale (and reasoning) behind the policy. Secondly I briefly explain the onset and the development of the policy. Thirdly, I analyze the rules, guidelines and goals embedded in the CI-policy, before finally situating this within the debate on CI’s in Amsterdam.

Cultural incubators as a policy instrument

An important part of the CI-policy is the city’s extended invitation to citizens, organizations and companies to start an incubator themselves. This process, as well as the governance of existing CI’s, is done by Bureau Broedplaatsen. This department is made up of a team of project managers who are part of the city’s Project Management- and Engineers Bureau. To start a CI, a developer can receive municipal support. The instruments for this are: subsidies, credit support, relevant expertise, project- and build management, networking, and the administrative support of the Bureau Broedplaatsen-team (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, pp. 3-4). To start a CI, however, the concept and set-up will have to meet conditions and requirements, assessed through a special CI-commission.

The municipality considers CI’s “communal buildings3_{(verzamelgebouwen) that} form a basis for starting artistic talents who are looking for a (physical) space to settle in Amsterdam.” Moreover, they consider the influx of talent “essential for the vitality of Amsterdam as a creative city.” (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, p. 3, italics added) The rising prices of commercial real estate bear negatively on this influx, and according to Bureau

Broedplaatsen (and the city), “the arrival of CI’s both slow down the rising price rate, and

add to the revitalization and attractiveness of neighborhoods.” They explain this:

On the one hand there are creatives with a low income who enter the neighborhood and rent a cheap atelier in the CI. On the other hand there are CI’s who provide programming with expositions and unique café’s, restaurants and popup stores. Through their variety, this presence is attractive for both existing neighborhood residents and the new influx. (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, p. 4; translated from Dutch)

(23)

23 This quote indicates that the municipality seeks to serve a target group of (new) artists and creatives in the city, while simultaneously increasing the attractiveness of deprived or peripheral areas. This effect remains contested because this increase of attractiveness is explained by critics as a process of gentrification. Before I return to the debate on this, I now briefly consider the onset and development of the CI-policy in 21st_{century Amsterdam.} ‘Giving space to creativity’

The development of the CI-policy is related to the squatter’s movement and their (cultural) activity in the late 1990’s (Peck, 2012, p. 4684_{). Plans to re-develop squatted warehouses on} the Amsterdam-IJ riverbanks created confrontations between the city and the squatter’s movement. On this confrontation, Peck (2012) notes that the activists, “instead of picking up stones (…) worked out a (…) strategy for the City Council, arguing that “[w]e belong in the city as well. If you want to earn money with the IJ banks, we want to share the revenue of this” (p. 468). Peck continues:

It was an ‘optimal moment’ because the municipality was now benefitting from robust economic growth, committing 45 million euros for the first ten years of a program that would facilitate the adaptive reuse of dozens of temporarily under-utilized buildings, as a means of accommodating a wide range of artistic and cultural activities, including creative-industry startups. A new agency, the Bureau Broedplaatsen, took the lead in negotiating property deals and basic renovations, subsidizing rents for what are typically low-income occupants, pursuing artistically innovative – but often economically marginal – activities. (Peck, 2012, p. 468)

Since the onset of Bureau Broedplaatsen in 1999-2000 a total of sixty CI’s has been created, or 170.000m2_{(Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016, p. 7). The CI-policy run by Bureau}

Broedplaatsen became the new focal point of several previously existing cultural policies, and

this has been attributed to the then popular creative city-thesis by Richard Florida (2002). His theory was that a “hypermobile creative class” would be the stimulants and carriers of productive innovation and cultural distinction within major cities, and that policy goals should therefore by formulated around the needs, preferences and desires of this group (Florida, 2002; Peck, 2012, p. 463). This means ‘giving space to creativity’, because “the prosperity that will be created will (also) ‘trickle down’ to the bottom regions of the societal pyramid” (Griffioen, 2014). The validity of his model as a whole (as the driver of city production and -innovation) has since then been called into question, because (among other

4_{For this section I have, to a large extent, relied on a rather extensive policy history and development}

analysis of the CI policy in Amsterdam by Jamie Peck (2012). He currently is Professor of Geography at the University of British Colombia in Vancouver, Canada, but was a research fellow at the University of Amsterdam at the time of publication. For more background and theory building on this topic see Cnossen (2018).

(24)

24 problems) the added value of the creative industry and the creative labor force are relatively small compared to other parts of a city’s economy (Peck, 2012). In spite of this, Florida’s ideas have influenced Amsterdam’s broedplaatsen-policy in the sense that it became an integral policy instrument, encompassing economic rationalities, notions of urban development, and catering to social agenda’s, in addition to providing working- and living space for artists and the creative class (Griffioen, 2014; Trienekens, 2009; Cnossen, 2018, p. 21). To show what role these different rationalities have in the policy I first provide some rules and regulations regarding the development of a CI and explain how CI’s function as top-down invited space. Second, based on this outline, I situate the policy in the debate on invited spaces, namely to what extent they offer people (new) possibilities, and whether they implicitly perform a former governmental task.

Rules, guidelines and goals

On its website, Bureau Broedplaatsen provides a manual which explains how to start a CI in several steps. “The core of any CI is a good concept, which every group, foundation or collective shapes on their own terms” (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2017, p. 7). In addition to this core value, there is a constellation of rules and requirements that captures a CI in Amsterdam. This constellation is made up of (1) conditions for subsidies and CI development, (2) guidelines for programming and (3) ‘soft-steering’ policy goals. The

conditions for subsidies and CI development are formal rules regarding finance and the

artists and creatives that reside within a CI. An example of this is that minimum of 40% of the tenants have to be CAWA-certified artists. The CAWA is an advisory commission that decides over who is a genuine (professional) artist, and who is not. Similarly, the CAWA decides over what constitutes a creative profession, and ultimately they have to approve a vision document and provide account before the City Council. The CAWA-rule helps to ensure that the policy serves the target group, namely those artists and creatives that are deemed in value to the city and considered to be in need of support to remain working artists.5_{Another precondition is that a subsidy can only be received to treat a non-coverable} financial part of the business plan6_{. The subsidy furthermore has to be spent on construction} to the building or location. This way the subsidy is an indirect investment of public money in a future (semi-)public space. (Bureau Broedplaatsen, 2016).

The guidelines for programming are less set in stone, but are nevertheless crucial to a

5_{The term artist here starts with the classis arts, but how far it can be stretched, or where it ends, is}

decided by the CAWA. A recent trend, for example, has been the inclusion of several crafts on the CAWA list. In addition, the CAWA also processes applications and evaluates artists and creatives based on their (professional) output, the time spent on this per week, and the income that it generates (CAWA, 2016). Bureau Broedplaatsen reserves the term artist for anyone that calls themselves as such, and has a focus on free (as in non-commissioned) work (2016, p. 7)

6_{This means a shortage that cannot be financed through the exploitation planned for the CI, nor are}

Co-optation and transformation : a contextual understanding of transformative potential in cultural incubators in Amsterdam