{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024880382775119617, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019138755980861245, 'mean_word_length': 5.836601307189542, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban entrepreneurialism 2.0? Financialization, cross-scale dynamics, and post-political governance

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.