Many cities have used special-purpose authorities, commissions, and quasi-public corporations to build and manage infrastructure projects. This article uses the Philadelphia region to illustrate an important reason why government officials resort to quasi-independent bodies to manage infrastructure investments—namely, because powerful economic and political interests outside the city increasingly seek to control the development of urban centers. As metropolitan regions become the economic units competing at the global scale, interest groups beyond the city’s boundaries act to ensure that the city’s future development serves regional interests. One important way to do this is to exert influence over the infrastructure investments that make capital productive. This case study shows how quasi-governmental forms of organization have served as the vehicles for outsiders to influence the development of greater Philadelphia’s core city.
Adams, C., Bartelt, D., Elesh, D., Goldstein, I., Kleniewski, N., & Yancey, W. (1991). Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, division and conflict in a postindustrial city. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2.
Altschuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
3.
Barnes, W., & Ledebur, L. (1998). The new regional economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Brenner, N. (2002). Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA: A critical overview. Cities, 19(1), 3-21.
5.
Burns, N. (1994). The formation of American local governments: Private values in public institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Dilworth, R. (2005). The urban origins of suburban autonomy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Elkind, S. (1998). Bay cities and water politics: The battle for resources in Boston and Oakland. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
8.
Fleming, L. (2006, March 16) Board of DRPA is still paralyzed over dredging. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B2-B2.
9.
Foster, K. (1997). The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
10.
Friedland, R., Piven, F. F., & Alford, R. (1977). Political conflict, urban structure and the fiscal crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1(3), 447-471.
11.
Fumo, V. (2006, January 5). Open letter from state senator Vincent Fumo to governor Edward Rendell. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.fumo.com/Press_Releases/drpadrege2let1-5-06.htm
12.
Gelbart, M. (2006, February 3). Penn’s landing corp. may end its closed-door policies. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B1-B1.
13.
How to win friends and wield influence [Editorial]. (2004, March 20). Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A12-A12.
14.
Judd, D. (Ed.). (2002). The infrastructure of play: Building the tourist city. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
15.
Katz, B. (2003). Back to prosperity: A competitive agenda for renewing Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
16.
Leavitt, W. M., & Morris, J. C. (2004). In search of middle ground: The public authority as an alternative to privatization. Public Works Management & Policy, 9, 154-163.
17.
Leigland, J. (1995). Public infrastructure and special purpose governments: Who pays and how? In D. Perry (Ed.), Building the public city (pp. 138-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Long, N. E. (1971, Fall). The city as reservation. The Public Interest, 25, 22-43.
19.
Moroz, J. (2004, June 22). County may be in line for a Philadelphia transit link. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B1-B1.
20.
Office of the Controller. (2004, October). The debt threat: Mortgaging Philadelphia’s future. City of Philadelphia.
21.
Orfield, M. (2002). American metro politics: The new suburban reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
Pagano, M., & Perry, D. (2006, May). Financing infrastructure in the 21st century: “How did I get stuck holding the bag?” Paper presented at CEOs for Cities Conference, Chicago.
23.
Pennsylvania Economy League. (1989, October). A review of Philadelphia’s authorities (Report 566). Philadelphia: Author.
24.
Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority. (2006, January 23). Reversing the trend of doing too little with too much: Maintaining the city’s infrastructure while reducing its dangerously high debt load (PICA issues report). Philadelphia: Author.
25.
Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Petshek, K. (1973). The challenge of urban reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
27.
Radford, G. (2003). From municipal socialism to public authorities: Institutional factors in the shaping of American public enterprise. The Journal of American History, 90, 863-890.
28.
Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game, outside game: Winning strategies for saving urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29.
Saffron, I. (2006, June 2). Psst! Did you hear about this riverfront agency? Philadelphia Inquirer, p. E1-E1.
30.
Schaffer, M. C. (2005, April 5). City presses parking agency for data. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B1-B1.
31.
Schaffer, M. C. (2006, March 2). Road map to city wi-fi is laid out. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B1-B1.
32.
Sternlieb, G. (1971). The city as sandbox. The Public Interest25, 14-21.
33.
Warner, S. B. (1968). The private city: Philadelphia in three periods of its growth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
