Global economic trends and local political pressures are forcing cities into competition for economic development. This phenomenon, well documented in the American literature, is now visible in Europe. Yet, the impact of economic trends is mediated by national political factors. In the United States, Britain, and France, local politics is being reconstituted, with the emergence of interclass, place-based development coalitions. These do not correspond to a single growth machine model but take differing forms in different national contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andolfatto, D.1991. Le syndicalisme au miroir des élections professionnelles. Regards sur l'actualité169:45-56.
2.
Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales . 1989. Urban regeneration and economic development: The local government dimension. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
3.
Barnekov, T. , R. Boyle, and D. Rich. 1989. Privatism and urban policy in Britain and the United States. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
4.
Barnes, J.1990. Urban development corporations—The lessons from London's docklands. In Radical planning initiatives, edited by J. Montgomery and A. Thornley, 60-73. Aldershot, England: Gower.
5.
Biarez, S.1989. Le pouvoir local. Paris: Economica.
6.
Biarez, S.1990. The metropolis debate in France: New paper and reports in the framework of decentralization. International Review of Administrative Sciences56:613-637.
7.
Brindley, T. , Y. Rydin, and G. Stoker. 1989. Remaking planning: The politics of urban change in the Thatcher years. London: Unwin Hyman.
8.
Centre for Local Economic Strategies . 1989. Interim monitoring report: Urban development corporations, Manchester, England: Centre for Local Economic Strategies.
9.
Cochrane, A. , and A. Clarke. 1990. Local enterprise boards: The short history of a radical initiative. Public Administration68:315-336.
10.
Committee of Public Accounts (House of Commons) . 1986. Tenth report: The urban programme. HC 81. 1985-86. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
11.
Conseil des Impôts. 1987. Neuvième rapport au prèsident de la république, relatif a la fiscalité des entreprises, no. 89, 26 August. Journal officiel de la république française.
12.
Conseil Économique et Social. 1987. Avis et rapports, no. 12, 3 June. Journal officiel de la république française.
13.
Conseil Economique et Social. 1991. Avis et rapports, no. 5. 18 March. Journal official de la rdpublique frangaise.
14.
Coulson, A.1989. Strategy and impact of the Teesside Development Corporation. Birmingham, England: Institute of Local Government Studies.
15.
Cour des Comptes. 1987. Rapport au president de la republique, no. 66, 3 July 1987. Journal officiel de la république française.
16.
Cour des Comptes. 1988. Rapport au president de la republique, no. 59, 22 June 1988. Journal officiel de la république française.
17.
Deves, C., and J-Y. Gouttebel. 1987. Que reste-t-il du dispositif d'aides de janvier-septembre 1982? Revue d'economie régionale et urbaine 2:207-30.
18.
Employment Committee (House of Commons) . 1988. 3rd Report. The employment effects of urban development corporations. HC 327-1. 1987-88. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
19.
Fabre, J. 1991. Le développement des villes françaises de dimensions européenes et les réseaux de villes. Report presented to Conseil Économique et Social, sittings of 12 and 19 February 1991. Avis et rapports du Conseil Économique et Social, no. 5. 18 March. Journal officiel de la république française.
20.
Fainstein, N. , and S. Fainstein. 1986. Regime strategies, communal resistance and economic forces. In Restructuring the city: The political economy of urban redevelopment, by S. Fainstein, N. Fainstein, R. Hill, D. Judd, and M. Smith, 245-282. New York: Longman.
21.
Garraud, P. 1988. La sélection du personnel politique local. Revuefrançaise de science politique 38:402-32.
22.
Garraud, P.1989. Political mobilization in France: A study of local protest. In Political participation in Britain and France, edited by A. Mabileau, G. Moyser, and P. Quantin, 95-110. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
23.
Gaudin, J-P. 1988. La notion de politique urbaine: Évolutions et évaluations. Espaces et sociétés 48/49:259-75.
24.
Gaudin, J-P. 1989. Technopolis: Crises urbaines et innovations municipales. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
25.
Gerbaux, F., and P. Muller. 1991. Les interventions économiques locales. Pouvoirs 61:1-17.
26.
Giloth, R. , and R. Mier. 1989. Spatial change and social justice: Alternative economic development in Chicago. In Urban affairs annual review. Vol. 34, Economic restructuring and political response, edited by R. Beauregard, 181-208. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Grémion, C., and P. Muller. 1990. Des nouvelles elites locales? Esprit 164:38-47.
28.
Grémion, P. 1976. Le pouvoir périphique: Bureaucrates et notables dans le system politique français. Paris: Seuil.
29.
Guengant, A., and J-M. Uhaldeborde. 1989. Crise et rdforme des finances locales. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
30.
Guengant, A., and J-M. Uhaldeborde. 1991. Économie et finances locales. Annuaire des collectivités locales, 259-83. Paris: Librairies techniques.
31.
Gyford, J.1985. The politics of local socialism. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kantor, P.1991. A case for a national urban policy. Urban Affairs Quarterly26:394-415.
34.
Kantor, P. , with S. David. 1988. The dependent city: The changing political economy of urban America. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
35.
Keating, M.1988. State and regional nationalism: Territorial politics and the European state. Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
36.
Keating, M.1991. Local development politics in France. Journal of Urban Affairs13:443-459.
37.
Keating, M. , and R. Boyle. 1986. Remaking urban Scotland: Strategies for local economic development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.
38.
Keating, M. , and P. Hainsworth. 1986. Decentralisation and change in contemporary France. Aldershot, England: Gower.
39.
Keating, M. , R. Levy, J. Geekie, and J. Brand. 1989. Labour elites in Glasgow. In Strathclyde papers on government and politics, 61. Glasgow: Univ. of Strathclyde.
40.
King, D. S.1990. Economic activity and the challenge to local government. In Challenges to local government, edited by D. S. King and J. Pierre, 101-121. London: Sage.
41.
Le Galés, P.1990. Rennes: Social dynamics and the support of the state. In Leadership and urban regeneration, edited by D. Judd and M. Parkinson, 69-85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Le Galés, P.1992. New directions in decentralisation and urban policy in France: The search for a post-decentralisation state. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy10:19-36.
43.
Lloyd, G. , and D. Newlands. 1990. Business interests and planning initiatives: A case study of Aberdeen. In Radical planning initiatives, edited by J. Montgomery and A. Thornley, 43-56. Aldershot, England: Gower.
44.
Logan, J. R. , and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
45.
Midwinter, A. , M. Keating, and J. Mitchell. 1991. Politics and public policy in Scotland. London: Macmillan.
46.
Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et du Budget. 1990. Les notes bleus, 482. Paris: Author.
47.
Ministère de l'Intérieur. 1989. Rapport du gouvernement au parlement sur la dotation globale de fonctionnement en 1989. Paris: Ministere de l'Interieur, Direction Générale des Collectivités Locales.
48.
Muller, P. 1990. Les politiques publiques entire secteurs et territoires. Politiques et management public 8 (3): 19-32.
49.
National Audit Office . 1988. Urban development corporations, 492. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
50.
National Audit Office . 1990. Regenerating the inner cities, 169. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
51.
Némery, J-C. 1989. Les collectivites locales, l'6conomie et l'emploi. Cahiers français 239, notice 4.
52.
Page, E. , H. Wolman, and K. McCarty (1987). America's big city mayors: A 1987 profile. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
53.
Peterson, P.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
54.
Pickvance, C. , and E. Preteceille. 1991. Conclusion. In State restructuring and local power, edited by C. Pickvance and E. Preteceille, 197-224. New York: Pinter.
55.
Plan Urbain . 1986. Mutations économiques et urbanisation. Paris: Documentation française.
56.
Prim, M.1988. Pas de richesses locales nouvelles sans création d'emplois. Économic etpolitique140:58-59.
57.
Savitch, H. V.1988. Post-industrial cities: Politics and planning in New York, Paris, and London. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
58.
Seyd, P.1990. Radical Sheffield: From socialism to entrepreneurialism. Political Studies38:335-344.
59.
Shaw, K.1990. The politics of public-private partnership. Discussion paper no. 90.2. Newcastle upon Tyne: Local Authority Management Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic.
60.
Stone, C. N.1987. The study of urban development. In The politics of urban development, edited by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders, 3-24. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
61.
Stone, C. N.1989. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
62.
Thornley, A.1990. Thatcherism and the erosion of the planning system. In Radical planning initiatives, edited by J. Montgomery and A. Thornley, 21-40. Aldershot, England: Gower.
63.
Tymen, J. , and H. Nogues. 1988. Action sociale et décentralisation: Tendances etperspectives. Paris: L'Hartmann.
64.
U.S. General Accounting Office . 1983. States are making good progress in implementing the small cities community development block grant program E00602-003. Washington, DC: Author.
65.
Warren, R.1990. National urban policy and the local state: Paradoxes of meaning, action, and consequences. Urban Affairs Quarterly25:541-561.
66.
Widdicombe, D.1986. Report of committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
67.
Wolman, H.1988. Local economic development policy: What explains the divergence between policy analysis and political behavior?Journal of Urban Affairs10:19-28.
