This paper updates and extends the Political Market Framework (PMF) by integrating elements of interest groups and political market theory with policy entrepreneurs’ (PEs) roles in explaining the patterns of urban infrastructure construction. The prominent role of PEs is observed through a grounded analysis of two large infrastructure projects in Mexico City. A comparative study of the cases suggests that: (1) The agency of PEs in political markets is central to explaining the construction of urban infrastructure; (2) PEs contribute to the definition of pro-growth or anti-growth coalitions and the definition of public problems; (3) the legitimacy of PEs is grounded in their political or technical reputation, or both; (4) the appropriate use of political institutions requires that PEs know how to use electoral timing strategically; and (5) the role of PEs seems to be better understood within a bounded analysis framework, such as the political markets approach.
AguirreAlma AMoránFrancisco. 2006. “Alternativas de Abastecimiento de Agua Potable a la Zona Metropolitana de Guadalajara y Perspectivas de Impacto Regional.” Quivera8 (1): 173–90.
2.
AgustinLeón-Moreta. 2021. “Ballot Measures for Open Space Conservation: Economic and Institutional Processes in Cities.” Urban Affairs Review57 (3): 675–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419884732
AljoufieMohammedBrusselMarkZuidgeestMarkvan MaarseveenMartin. 2013. “Urban Growth and Transport Infrastructure Interaction in Jeddah Between 1980 and 2007.” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation21: 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.07.006
6.
AmisP.KumarSashi. 2000. “Urban Economic Growth, Infrastructure and Poverty in India: Lessons from Visakhapatnam.” Environment and Urbanization12 (1): 185–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780001200113
7.
AndersonSarah E.DeLeoRob A.TaylorKristin. 2020. “Policy Entrepreneurs, Legislators, and Agenda Setting: Information and Influence.” Policy Studies Journal48 (3): 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12331
BeckerAnneMüllerMarkus-Michael. 2013. “The Securitization of Urban Space and the ‘Rescue’ of Downtown Mexico City.” Latin American Perspectives40 (189): 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X12467762
10.
BélandDanielCoxRobert Henry. 2016. “Ideas as Coalition Magnets: Coalition Building, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Power Relations.” Journal of European Public Policy23 (3): 428–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115533
11.
BennettVivienne. 1998. “Housewives, Urban Protest and Water Policy in Monterrey, Mexico.” International Journal of Water Resources Development14 (4): 481–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900629849114
12.
CarrJered B. 2015. “What Have We Learned About the Performance of Council-Manager Government? A Review and Synthesis of the Research.” Public Administration Review75 (5): 673–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12415
13.
CastilloArturo DelGuerreroManuel A.. 2004. Percepciones de la Corrupción en la Ciudad de México. ¿Predisposición al Acto Corrupto?Mexico: CIE Consulting & Research.
14.
ChiapaEverardo. 2018. “Asociaciones público-privadas en servicios públicos locales: paradojas entre análisis de factibilidad y consecuencias no previstas,” Doctoral dissertation, CIDE, Mexico.
15.
ClarkeSusan E.GaileGary L.. 1989. “Moving Toward Entrepreneurial Development Policies: Opportunities and Barriers.” Policy Studies Journal17 (2): 574–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1989.tb00803.x
16.
ClingermayerJames C.FeiockRichard C.. 1993. “Constituencies, Campaign Support, and Council Member Intervention in City Development Policy.” Social Science Quarterly74 (1): 199–215.
17.
CohenNissim. 2016. “Policy Entrepreneurs and Agenda Setting.” In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting, edited by NikolaosZahariadis, 180–99. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
18.
CollierPaulVenablesAnthony J. 2016. “Urban Infrastructure for Development.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy32 (3): 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw016.
DelgadilloVictor. 2012. “El Derecho a la Ciudad en la Ciudad de México. ¿Una Retórica Progresista Para una Gestión urbana Neoliberal?” Andamios9 (18): 117–39. https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v9i18.411
21.
DelgadilloVictor. 2016. “Selective Modernization of Mexico City and Its Historic Center. Gentrification Without Displacement?” Urban Geography37 (8): 1154–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1096114
22.
DeslatteAaron. 2015. “City-County Managers, Representation and the Dynamics of Political Markets for Growth Management.” Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
23.
DeslatteAaron. 2017. “Boundaries and Speed Bumps: The Role of Modernized Counties Managing Growth in the Fragmented Metropolis.” Urban Affairs Review53 (4): 658–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416655401
24.
DeslatteAaronSwannWilliam L.. 2016. “Is the Price Right? Gauging the Marketplace for Local Sustainable Policy Tools.” Journal of Urban Affairs38 (4): 581–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12245
25.
DeslatteAaronTavaresAntónioFeiockRichard C.. 2018. “Policy of Delay: Evidence from a Bayesian Analysis of Metropolitan Land-Use Choices.” Policy Studies Journal46 (3): 674–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12188
ElkinsDavid R. 1995. “Testing Competing Explanations for the Adoption of Type II Policies.” Urban Affairs Quarterly30 (6): 809–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808749503000603
FeiockRichard C. 2002. “A Quasi-Market Framework for Development Competition.” Journal of Urban Affairs24 (2): 123–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00118
30.
FeiockRichard CBaeJungah. 2011. “Politics, Institutions and Entrepreneurship: City Decisions Leading to Inventoried GHG Emissions.” Carbon Management2 (4): 443–53. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.11.37
31.
FeiockRichard C.KimSoyoung. 2021. “The Political Market and Sustainability Policy.” Sustainability13 (6): 33–44. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063344.
32.
FeiockRichard C.LubellMarkLeeIn Won. 2013. “The Political Market Framework and Policy Change.” Local Governance Research Lab. Tallahassee, Florida.
33.
Fernández ÁlvarezRafael. 2012. “Neoliberalism and Parks: The Urban Political Ecology of Green Public Space in Mexico City.” Sociedad Hoy23: 83–115.
34.
FleischmannArnold. 1986. “The Goals and Strategies of Local Boundary Changes: Government Organization or Private Gain?” Journal of Urban Affairs8 (4): 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1986.tb00155.x
GarduñoBlanca. 2017. “El Bosque de Chapultepec en la Ciudad Moderna. Las Disputas por el Lugar Común.” In La Erosión del Espacio Público en la Ciudad Neoliberal, edited by RamírezP., 325–53. Mexico: UNAM-IIS.
37.
GlaserBarney. 1992. Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
GoetzEdward G. 1994. “Expanding Possibilities in Local Development Policy: An Examination of U.S. Cities.” Political Research Quarterly47 (1): 85–110.
40.
GofenAnatBresler-GonenRotemGolan-HossEsti. 2014. “‘Hey, Mayors, Leave Them Kids Alone’: Entrepreneurial Citizens, Policy Noncompliance, and Local Government Response.” Urban Affairs Review50 (3): 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413501637
41.
GroveKevin. 2009. “Rethinking the Nature of Urban Environmental Politics: Security, Subjectivity, and the Non-Human.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences40: 207–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.09.005
42.
GunnAndrew. 2017. “Policy Entrepreneurs and Policy Formulation.” In Handbook of Policy Formulation, edited by HowlettMichaelMukherjeeIshani, 265–84. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
43.
JonesCalvin. 2001. “A Level Playing Field? Sports Stadium Infrastructure and Urban Development in the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning A33: 845–61. https://doi.org/10.1068/a33158
44.
KingPaula J. 1988. “Policy Entrepreneurs: Catalysts in the Policy Innovation Process.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
45.
KnaapGerritDingChengriHopkinsLewis D.. 2001. “Managing Urban Growth for the Efficient Use of Public Infrastructure: Toward a Theory of Concurrency.” International Regional Science Review24 (3): 328–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001760102400304
46.
KnaapGerritTalenEmily. 2005. “New Urbanism and Smart Growth: A Few Words from the Academy.” International Regional Science Review28 (2): 107–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017604273621
47.
KoppenjanJoop F. M.EnserinkBert. 2009. “Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability.” Public Administration Review69 (2): 284–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01974.x
48.
LewisPaul GeorgeNeimanMax. 2002. Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth Controls and Residential Development Policy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
49.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey Luskin. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
50.
LópezJorge Antonio. 2017. “El modo de gobernanza y la estrategia del gran proyecto urbano en la ciudad de San Luis Potosí.” Doctoral dissertation, El Colegio de México, Mexico.
51.
LubellMarkFeiockRichard CRamírezEdgar. 2005. “Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments.” Urban Affairs Review40 (6): 706–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404274137
52.
LubellMarkFeiockRichard C.RamírezEdgar. 2009. “Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth.” American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 649–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00392.x
53.
MintromMichael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
54.
MintromMichaelLuetjensJoannah. 2017. “Policy Entrepreneurs and Problem Framing: The Case of Climate Change.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space35 (8): 1362–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417708440
55.
MintromMichaelThomasMadeline. 2018. “Policy Entrepreneurs and Collaborative Action: Pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing10 (2): 153–71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.092710
56.
MladenkaKenneth R. 1981. “Citizen Demands and Urban Services: The Distribution of Bureaucratic Response in Chicago and Houston.” American Journal of Political Science25 (4): 693–714. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110759
57.
MolotchHarvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology82 (2): 309–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/226311
MorenoFelipe. 2011. “Relaciones Entre la Reestructuración Terciaria de la Ciudad de México y los Movimientos Sociales Urbanos 1980–2010.” In, Investigación y Diseño No.7, Anuario del Posgrado en CyAD, 181–94. Mexico: UAM.
60.
O’BrienPeterPikeAndy. 2019. “‘Deal or No Deal?’ Governing Urban Infrastructure Funding and Financing in the UK City Deals.” Urban Studies56 (7): 1448–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018757394
61.
OlsonMancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
PalmerJames R. 2015. “How Do Policy Entrepreneurs Influence Policy Change? Framing and Boundary Work in EU Transport Biofuels Policy.” Environmental Politics24 (2): 270–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.976465
PetridouEvangeliaMintromMichael. 2021. “A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs.” Policy Studies Journal49 (4): 943–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405
69.
PradillaEmilio. 2016. “Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México: Neoliberalismo y Contradicciones Urbanas.” Sociologías18 (42): 54–89. https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-018004203.
70.
Punto CríticoEl. 2015. “Solicitan Diálogo Ante Proyecto Vehicular Mixcoac.” El Punto Crítico, March 12. www.elpuntocritico.com.
RobertsNancy C.KingPaula J.. 1991. “Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1 (2): 147–75.
SahooPravakarDashRanjar KumarNatarajGeethanjali. 2010. “Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth in China.” IDE Discussion Paper no. 261. Chiba, Japan.
StoneClarence N. 2009. “Who Is Governed? Local Citizens and the Political Order of Cities.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by DaviesJonathan SImbroscioDavid L, 257–73. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
80.
StoneClarence N. 2015. “Reflections on Regime Politics: From Governing Coalition to Urban Political Order.” Urban Affairs Review51 (1): 101–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414558948
TieboutCharles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
84.
TongKangkang. ZhaoZhirongRichard CFeiockRamaswamiAnu. 2019. “Pattern of Capital Investment in Urban Infrastructure in Chinese Cities an Explanation Through a Political Market Lens” Journal of Urban Affairs41 (2): 248–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1499417
WeiWenchi. 2021. “Exploring Local Government Fiscal Slack in a Political-Budgetary-Managerial Framework.” Public Management Review23 (10): 1504–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1764085
88.
YinRobert K. 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods, edited by BickmanLeonardRogDebra J. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 5. 282 pp. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
89.
ZhaoJerry Z.ShengnanLouCamilaFonsecaRichard C.FeiockRuowenShen. 2021. “Explaining Transit Expenses in US Urbanised Areas: Urban Scale, Spatial Form and Fiscal Capacity.” Urban Studies58 (2): 280–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019892582
