A recent debate between Clarence Stone and David Imbroscio focused on the transformative potential of regime theory. Imbroscio proposes a research agenda for regime theory in which the identification of alternative economic development strategies and ideas figures prominently. Stone questions whether such a shift represents a theoretical advance, arguing that Imbroscio's proposed agenda fails to link ideas with political action. This article seeks to further this debate through a case study of an alternative economic development strategy in Chicago, the Local Industrial Retention Initiative (LIRI). The experience of the LIRI program partially supports Imbroscio's optimism about the regime altering potential of alternative economic development strategies and ideas. However, it also suggests that regime theory's lessons about coalition building are crucial in moving such alternatives forward.

Contemporary urban political economy emphasizes the role of structural factors in explaining the deindustrialization of cities in the post-World War II era. Urban economic restructuring, by most accounts, has left city officials with few choices other than to pursue corporate-centered economic development strategies emphasizing downtown-area commercial and residential growth. In Chicago, however, a corporate-center redevelopment strategy advanced by a coalition of downtown business leaders competed with a productionoriented strategy articulated by a coalition of neighborhood organizations, manufacturers, and labor. Centrally located industrial districts facing gentrification pressures became contested terrain, and manufacturers ultimately benefited from protective measures put in place by a sympathetic administration. This essay argues that urban economic restructuring is open-ended and politically contested. It concludes that a fuller appreciation of the contingency of urban economic development would help uncover viable regime types featuring governing coalitions that include both community-based organizations and neighborhood business establishments.

The 25th anniversary of the publication of Clarence Stone's Regime Politics presents an opportunity to consider ways of moving forward theoretically in a world that has begun to look much different from postwar Atlanta. In recent years, Stone has turned his attention from stability to change in urban governing arrangements, proposing American political development (APD) as a promising theoretical approach. While broadly in agreement with Stone about the advantages of APD for the study of urban political change, I identify some potential problems with his efforts to combine APD and regime analysis. In particular, I suggest that Stone more fully embrace APD's emphasis on friction and disorder as a driver of change in governing arrangements and that the role of institutions, in addition to informal arrangements, be considered more directly in arguments about how change occurs.

During the past decade, renewed calls for central city revitalization have come from scholars and practitioners working within a new regionalist perspective. Such arguments have provided much of the ideological underpinning for coalitions around the country promoting smart growth and other regional reforms. Smart growth policies seek to curb urban sprawl by channeling investment into already developed areas, including inner-city communities. Given the attention paid to urban policy among advocates of the new regionalism, one would expect inner-city minorities to be well represented in the dialogue. However, the dialogue over smart growth and regionalism has largely failed to engage inner-city African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities. This article asks why that is the case, examines the consequences, and proposes a strategy for reframing the new regionalist debate in a way that may resonate more with minority stakeholders.

Urban regime analysis emphasizes the role of coalition building in creating a capacity to govern in cities. Through a case study of urban renewal policy in postwar Chicago, this article considers the role played by political institutions. Conceptualizing this historical period as one of regime building, I show how existing political institutions were out of sync with the city's new governing agenda of urban renewal and redevelopment following World War II. Creating a capacity to govern in urban renewal policy required both coalition building and a fundamental reworking of formal governing institutions.