Do malls contribute to the privatisation of public space and the erosion of the public sphere? Reconsidering the role of shopping centres

- We examine the role of shopping malls in the privatisation of public space.
- We examine the role of shopping malls in the erosion of the public sphere.
- We argue that, in the main, shopping malls are not responsible for either of these two processes.
- We discuss their limitations on political activities and free access.
- We argue for a middle path in their interpretation.

Shopping malls are often criticised as a cause of the privatisation of public space and the erosion of the public sphere. Some authors argue that to fight these negative processes, shopping malls should be considered equivalent to public spaces, and therefore entail the same rules enforced in public spaces (for instance, the right to free admission and to free speech). In our opinion these approaches are unsound. In this paper we argue that: 1) shopping malls do not necessarily entail a privatisation of public space, nor necessarily any erosion of the public sphere; 2) because they are not public spaces, they cannot be considered equivalent to them; 3) they are highly open access (compared to many other kinds of both private and public spaces), and the limits they impose on some political activities are, under certain conditions, acceptable. This does not mean that the owners of private spaces are completely free to act as they choose; it means that they cannot be equated with public entities that manage spaces that belong to the public.