In this commentary, while I acknowledge the value of differentiating varieties of urban entrepreneurialism by focusing on different forms and geographies of innovation in public services, three major pitfalls impeding a renewed understanding of urban entrepreneurialism are identified. First of all, financialization, either as a means or an end, plays a central role in contemporary urban entrepreneurialism and deserves a more thorough scrutiny. Second, discounting the fluidity of spatial scales and multidirectionality in entrepreneurial policy-making, a taxonomy of urban entrepreneurialism is at best a rather flat comparison of urban entrepreneurship and innovation. Finally, the ‘innovation’ in the ways that citizens are governed (e.g. the introduction of a series of new techniques of neoliberal governmentality in the post-political age) should not be overlooked in understanding the ends to which urban entrepreneurialism is turned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shenjing He (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: