Reformulating Urban Regime Theory: The Division of Labor between State and Market Reconsidered

ABSTRACT:

Urban regime theory has emerged as the dominant paradigm for the study of local politics. The ascendancy of regime theory has made it the subject of intense critical scrutiny. While urban scholars generally find it to be a valuable theoretical advance, many have uncovered conceptual limitations. This article develops yet another critique of urban regime theory. It argues regime theory suffers from an overly rigid and largely static conceptualization of the division of labor between state and market and identifies three alternative conceptualizations of this division. This exercise demonstrates the possibilities for building alternative urban regimes. It therefore suggests an enrichment of established urban regime typologies. Specifically, the article points to the existence of three previously unidentified regime types. These three urban regimes challenge the enduring tension in urban governance between a city’s economic aspirations for vibrant development and its political aspirations for a vibrant democracy.