The author studies the influence of city context on urban regimes across 14 cities in the United States by surveying published case studies and applying qualitative comparative analysis. To explain variation in a regime typology, the author tests components of market conditions (a city’s fiscal resource base and mobility of local capital) and democratic conditions (local civic participation and ward-style representation). The results indicate that not one of these components is necessary or sufficient for supporting the emergence of a more progressive, as opposed to a developmental or caretaker, regime. Instead, three interactions between the components of market and democratic conditions explain the presence of progressive regimes. The author discusses the implications of the results for both studying and understanding U.S. regimes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bennett, L., K. McCourt, P. W. Nyden, and G. D. Squires. 1988. Chicago’s North Loop redevelopment project: A growth machine on hold. In Business elites and urban development, edited by S. Cummings, 183-202. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
2.
Berry, J. M., K. E. Portney, and K. Thomson. 1993. The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Capek, S., and J. Gilderbloom. 1992. Community versus commodity: Tenants and the American city. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
4.
Collier, D., and J. Mahoney. 1996. Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics49 (1): 56-91.
5.
Dahl, R. A. 1961. Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
6.
Davies, J. S. 2002. Urban regime theory: A normative-empirical critique. Journal of Urban Affairs24 (1): 1-17.
7.
DeLeon, R. E. 1991. San Francisco: Postmaterialist populism in a global city. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. Savitch and J. Thomas, 202-215. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
DeLeon, R. E. 1992a. Left coast city: Progressive politics in San Francisco, 1975-1991. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
9.
DeLeon, R. E. 1992b. The urban antiregime: Progressive politics in San Francisco. Urban Affairs Quarterly27 (4): 555-579.
10.
DiGaetano, A., and J. S. Klemanski. 1993. Urban regime capacity: A comparison of Birmingham, England, and Detroit, Michigan. Journal of Urban Affairs15 (4): 367-384.
11.
DiGaetano, A., and J. S. Klemanski. 1999. Power and city governance: Comparative perspectives on urban development. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
12.
DiGaetano, A., and E. Strom. 2003. Comparative urban governance: An integrated approach. Urban Affairs Review38 (3): 356-395.
13.
Dowding, K. 2001. Explaining urban regimes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25 (1): 7-19.
14.
Elkin, S. L. 1987. City and regime in the American republic. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
15.
Feagin, J. R. 1988. Tallying the social costs of urban growth under capitalism: The case of Houston. In Business elites and urban development, edited by S. Cummings, 205-234. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
16.
Ferman, B. 1996. Challenging the growth machine: Neighborhood politics in Chicago and Pittsburgh. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
17.
Fleischmann, A. 1991. Atlanta: Urban coalitions in a suburban sea. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas, 97-114. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Friedland, R. 1983. Power and crisis in the city: Corporations, unions, and urban policy. New York: Schocken Books.
19.
Friedland, R., and D. Palmer. 1984. Park place and main street: Business and the urban power structure. Annual Review of Sociology10:393-416.
20.
Glassberg, A. D. 1991. St. Louis: Racial transformation and economic development. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas, 86-96. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Gordon, M. T., H. G. Locke, L. McCutcheon, and W. B. Stafford. 1991. Seattle: Grassroots politics shaping the environment. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas, 216-234. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Hicks, A., J. Misra, and T. N. Ng. 1995. The programmatic emergence of the social security state. American Sociological Review60 (3): 323-349.
23.
Horan, C. 1991. Beyond governing coalitions: Analyzing urban regimes in the 1990s. Journal of Urban Affairs13 (2): 119-135.
24.
Imbroscio, D. L. 1998. Reformulating urban regime theory: The division of labor between state and market reconsidered. Journal of Urban Affairs20 (3): 233-249.
25.
Imbroscio, D. L. 2003. Overcoming the neglect of economics in urban regime theory. Journal of Urban Affairs25 (3): 271-284.
26.
Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
27.
Jones, B. D., and L. W. Bachelor. 1993. The sustaining hand: Community leadership and corporate power. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
28.
Kantor, P., H. V. Savitch, and S. V. Haddock. 1997. The political economy of urban regimes: A comparative approach. Urban Affairs Review32 (3): 348-378.
29.
Keating, W. D. 1986. Linking downtown development to broader community goals: An analysis of linkage policies in three cities. Journal of the American Planning Association52 (2): 133-141.
30.
Kerstein, R. 1991. Growth politics in Tampa and Hillsborough County: Strains in the privatistic regimes. Journal of Urban Affairs13 (1): 55-75.
31.
King, G., R. O. Keohane, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
32.
Leo, C. 1998. Regional growth management regime: The case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Urban Affairs20 (4): 363-394.
33.
Levine, M. A. 1987. Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A critical reappraisal of the Baltimore renaissance. Journal of Urban Affairs9 (2): 103-124.
34.
Logan, J. R., and H. L. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
35.
Mier, R., K. J. Moe, and I. Sherr. 1986. Strategic planning and the pursuit of reform, economic development, and equity. Journal of the American Planning Association52 (3): 299-309.
36.
Mossberger, K., and G. Stoker. 2001. The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban Affairs Review36 (6): 810-835.
37.
Nickel, D. R. 1995. The progressive city? Urban redevelopment in Minneapolis. Urban Affairs Review30 (3): 355-377.
38.
Orr, M. 1992. Urban regimes and human capital policies: A study of Baltimore. Journal of Urban Affairs14 (2): 173-187.
39.
Orr, M., and G. Stoker. 1994. Urban regimes and leadership in Detroit. Urban Affairs Quarterly30 (1): 48-73.
40.
Parker, R. E., and J. R. Feagin. 1990. A “better business climate” in Houston. In Leadership and urban regeneration, edited by D. Judd and M. Parkinson, 216-238. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Peterson, P. E. 1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
42.
Ragin, C. C. 1989. The comparative method. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
43.
Ragin, C. C. 1994. A qualitative comparative analysis of pension systems. In The comparative political economy of the welfare state, edited by T. Janoski and A. M. Hicks, 320-345. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
44.
Ragin, C. C., and K. Drass. 2002. Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 0.963. Tucson: Department of Sociology, Univ. of Arizona.
45.
Ragin, C. C., and H. Giesel. 2002. User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 0.963. Tucson: Department of Sociology, Univ. of Arizona.
46.
Redding, K., and J. S. Viterna. 1999. Political demands, political opportunities: Explaining the differential success of left-libertarian parties. Social Forces78 (2): 491-510.
47.
Rich, W. 1991. Detroit: From motor city to service hub. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas, 64-85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48.
Savitch, H. V., and P. Kantor. 2002. Cities in the international marketplace: The political economy of urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
49.
Sellers, J. 2002. The nation-state and urban governance: Toward multilevel analysis. Urban Affairs Review37 (5): 611-641.
50.
Sites, W. 1997. The limits of urban regime theory: New York city under Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani. Urban Affairs Review32 (4): 536-557.
51.
Stoker, G. 1995. Regime theory and urban politics. In Theories of urban politics, edited by D. Judge, G. Stoker, and H. Wolman, 54-71. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
Stoker, R. P. 1987. Baltimore: The self-evaluating city? In Politics of urban development, edited by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders, 244-266. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
53.
Stone, C. N. 1989. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
54.
Stone, C. N. 1993. Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs15 (1): 1-28.
55.
Stone, C. N. 2001. The Atlanta experience re-examined: The link between Atlanta and regime change. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25 (1): 20-34.
56.
Stone, C. N., and H. T. Sanders. 1987. The politics of urban development. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
57.
Thomas, R. D., and R. W. Murray. 1992. Progrowth politics: Change and governance in Houston. Berkeley: IGS Press.
58.
Turner, R. S. 1992. Growth politics and downtown development: The economic imperative in sunbelt cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly28 (1): 3-21.
59.
Vogel, R. K. 1992. Urban political economy: Broward County, Florida. Gainesville: Univ. Press of Florida.
60.
Whelan, R. K. 1987. New Orleans: Mayoral politics and economic-development policies in the postwar years, 1945-1986. In The politics of urban development, edited by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
61.
Whelan, R. K., and A. H. Young. 1991. New Orleans: The ambivalent city. In Big city politics in transition, edited by H. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas, 132-148. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62.
Whelan, R. K., A. H. Young, and M. Lauria. 1994. Urban regimes and racial politics in New Orleans. Journal of Urban Affairs16 (1): 1-21.
63.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
