It’s More than the Economy after All: Continuing the Debate about Urban Regimes

Abstract

The study of urban regimes is an evolving activity and not a tightly defined form of analysis. With ongoing research new questions and issues arise, and old ones stand in need of refinement. Recent articles by David Imbroscio (1998, 2003) and Jonathan Davies (2002Davies ( , 2003 raise important questions about the future direction of research. As I read their work, I see much to be praised, but also some positions that are debatable. In this essay I concentrate on the latter. Celebrating points of agreement is a pleasant activity, but John Stuart Mill teaches us that the exchange of conflicting views is more conducive to enlarged understanding.Three questions help clarify differences. The first concerns the nature and scope of the economic imperative. The second is about the level of analysis for which the concept of an urban regime is appropriate. Third, how should we think about urban regimes-what exactly are they and what line of inquiry flows from this conception?

Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutionalist analysis of local regeneration partnerships in the UK

“…The original reason for this bilateral focus was to mount a critique of urban regime theory as it has been applied in the UK (Stone, 1989(Stone, , 2004Davies, 2001Davies, , 2002Davies, , 2003Davies, , 2004. The research nevertheless reveals much about the dynamics of partnership development, studied through an institutionalist lens.…”

“…Granovetter (1973Granovetter ( : 1364 notes that weak ties do not automatically provide bridges. Stone's (2004: 3) insight that ‗political differences enlarge as one moves from general proposition to the handling of a concrete course of action' also seems pertinent.…”

Zwischenstadtland Schweiz. Zur politischen Steuerung der suburbanen Entwicklung in Schweizer Gemeinden

“…Imbroscio , 1998b(vgl. Imbroscio , 2003Jessop 1997;Lauria 1999;Stone 1998;Strom 2001;Davies 2003;Stone 2004Stone , 2005. Gleichzeitig bleibt gemäß Pierre (1999Pierre ( , 2005 (Stone 1989(Stone , 2001, Detroit (Orr und Stoker 1994), Portland (Leo 1998), Chicago (Hamilton 2002) oder Phoenix (Collins 2008) analysiert.…”

The Effects of Community Quality of Life on Local Policy Decisions

“…In addition to these views, various perspectives such as new institutionalism, regime theory, urban social movements, and techno-bureaucracy suggest factors and actors that most heavily influence local policy decisions. They have contributed to uncovering the potential influences of governmental structures (Clingermayer & Feiock, 2001;Green & Fleischmann, 1991;Lowery & Berry, 1983;Sharp & Maynard-Moody, 1991), networks of political and civic relationships (Davies, 2003;Stoker, 1995;Stone, 1989Stone, , 2004, the collective identities of social class (Buechler, 1995;Castells, 1985;Morris & Mueller, 1992), and local social environments (Goetz, 1994;Pickvance, 2003).…”