Partnerships versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the Uk

Abstract

This study compares and contrasts urban regeneration partnerships in the UK with urban regimes in the US. Regime theory, as developed by Elkin and Stone, neither describes nor explains the contrasting forms of collaboration in the UK. The development of urban regeneration partnerships has been driven by a combination of two main factors: the development of an ideological perception within local government elites that urban regeneration depends on market led growth, and a series of central government regeneration initiatives. These initiatives, designed to encourage, and where necessary coerce, local authorities into cooperative arrangements have resulted in highly bureaucratized, but symbolic, partnerships with local business elites. Business activity in these partnerships thus far has been marginal. It is unlikely to be fruitful, therefore, for scholars to seek Stonean regimes in the UK. On the other hand, to describe such partnerships as regimes is misleading and results in a lack of conceptual clarity. Despite the fashion for copying urban policy from the US, the institutions of urban politics in the UK are likely to remain resolutely different.

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).…”

Public Impact. Citizen influence in local government in Iceland

“…The planning powers of local authorities, their fiscal sensitivity to capital mobility, public ownership of land and the degree to which business is localized are among the factors which may influence the relationship (Mossberger & Stoker 2001, 819-20). Davies (2003) H6: Business interests predominate in policy-making at the expense of public impact.…”