Abstract
The authors suggest how regime politics is influenced in systematic ways by particular kinds of bargaining environments. They describe a theoretical framework designed to examine the interplay of local democratic development, market environments, and intergovernmental networks on regime dynamics in eight cities in Western Europe and the United States since the 1970s. The authors explain how structural forces influence critical aspects of local regimes, particularly their governing coalitions, means of public-private coordination, and prevailing policy agendas on economic development.

Mickey Lauria

Review author[s]: Megan K. Blake

Economic Geography, Vol. 75, No. 4. (Oct., 1999), pp. 419-420.

Title: Reconstructing urban regime theory : regulating urban politics in a global economy / edited by Mickey Lauria.
Physical Description: ix, 278 p. ; 25 cm.
Publisher/ Date: Thousand Oaks, Ca. : Sage, 1996.

Location (guide): Lehman
Call Number: JS78 .R43 1996
Status: Not checked out 

Title: Overcoming the Neglect of Economics in Urban Regime Theory
Source: Journal of urban affairs [0735-2166] Imbroscio yr:2003 vol:25 iss:3 pg:271

Abstract - Urban regime theory rightfully reigns as the dominant paradigm in the analysis of local governance. Nevertheless, regime theory has been hampered by its failure to engage economic questions in a sustained and systematic way, leaving it limited in both empirical and prescriptive terms. This article presents an agenda for research that allows for the engagement of economic questions in a way that enhances the strength of urban regime theory vis-à-vis economic determinist theories of urban politics. It then sketches some possible paths this research might take, with most of the attention given to developing the rudiments of a new alternative economics for regime theory. It also illustrates how this new alternative economic paradigm can potentially generate the conditions necessary for bringing about a fundamental reconstruction of urban regimes. [

Abstract: Over the past 10 years, urban regime theory has become the dominant paradigm for studying urban politics in liberal democracies. Yet there is disagreement about how far it can help us to understand urban political processes. This article argues that regime theory is best understood as a theory of structuring with limits in its analysis of the market economy. These limits undermine its ability to explain the importance of political agency-the scope of individual or collective choice in political decisions and the impact of those choices in the evolution of US cities. It is further argued that there are important normative dimensions to urban regime theory, most fully articulated in Elkin's commercial republic, which academic commentaries have not acknowledged. However, the empirical analysis developed in regime theory contradicts its normative objectives. The absence of a conceptualization of market dynamics, in the light of pessimism about the prospects for equitable regime governance, not only limits it as a theory of structuring but it also renders it unable to explain how the commercial republic can be realized. Regime theory is, therefore, unconvincing for two reasons. It cannot explain how much local politics matter, and it fails to demonstrate that its normative goal--more equitable regime governance--can be achieved, given the realities of the US market economy. Regime theory needs a more developed understanding of structuring. It may be fruitful, therefore, for regime theorists to re-engage critically with variants of Marxism, which unlike Structuralism, recognize the possibility of agency.

Title: The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization
Source: Urban affairs review [1078-0874] Mossberger yr:2001 vol:36 iss:6 pg:810

Author(s): Mossberger, Karen ; Stoker, Gerry  

Abstract: Urban regime theory came to prominence with the publication of Clarence Stone's study of Atlanta in 1989, although earlier work by Fainstein and Fainstein (1983) and Elkin (1987) has also been influential. Since then, regime analysis has been extensively used to examine urban politics both inside North America and beyond. The authors argue that the wide use of regime analysis is a recognition of its value and insights but that some applications have stretched the concept beyond its original meaning to the point that the concept itself runs the risk of becoming meaningless and a source of theoretical confusion. By sifting through the extensive literature applying regime theory, the authors reestablish the core components of the concept and identify the key fields where it has made a contribution. It is suggested that regime analysis has helped considerably in reorienting the power debate in North America and in facilitating the analysis of politics beyond the formal institutions of the government outside North America.

Identifier: urban regime theory, comparative urban politics, public-private partnerships, concept stretching