The Right to the City

Right to the city
Student's name
Name of institution
Right to the City
In relating the definition of neo-liberalism and the acts described by Harvey (2003) in "The right to the city," it means changing ourselves by changing the city through state intervention. The Right to the city has become impossible to control due to the advancements of the neo-liberalist agenda. This agenda has had more significant and long-lasting destruction on the poor that live in the city. This destruction has made the Right to the city to be confined by the chosen few who are politically and economically stable. These people are in good shape and position to shape the city more and more based on their chosen desires. Harvey (2003) observes the process of urbanization is becoming a neo-liberalist issue where the influential individuals are using their power to change their lives and the city as well by the support of the state. Harvey (2003) states that the poor will continue being rich while the poor will drop further. Also, the rich seal themselves off for protection while the poor remained exposed. The forces of the international market in neo-liberalism definition mean the rich that have the power to influence the state for support. Harvey states that long periods of neo-liberalism means a freer market, which significantly means monopoly power. The few individuals with the help of the state create scarcity such that in every circumstance, it must exist.
Munoz (2018) argues that there is no right to the city due to the neo-liberal rights imposed on the poor. He says that in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the quality of life is higher as renting an apartment is practically impossible if an individual does not have a proper social and economic capital. He adds by saying that prices for real-estates are on the rise, which makes it impossible for the lower and middle-class residents to rent or buy an apartment in the city. A neo-liberalized agenda in this Argentinean city has made those who wish to rent to offer landlords additional costs, which the lower and middle class cannot afford. These neoliberal urban initiatives sponsored by few individuals have generally reflected that there is no right to the city. Munoz (2018) states that broader neoliberal trends have led to increased hardships, living in precarious homes due to threats of eviction, displacement, or lack of means to stay in affordable homes in the city. This awful standard of living has limited individuals to claim urban spaces that sum up Munoz (2018) idea that there is no right to the city.
Masuda and Bookman (2016) also explain the concept of neo-liberalism in the city, whereby they explain the re-democratization of the city from political, economic, and social forces after three decades of urban neoliberalism. The definition pairs with the interpretation of the Right to the city in that urbanization currently seems to be under the control of urban elites. Masuda and Bookman (2016) explain that neighborhood branding is at the forefront applied by the government in the urban political arena. However, this government strategy can be interpreted that it supports further neo-liberalization of the city. Counter-branding, just like neighborhood branding, advances the interests of urban eli...