Jon Pierre

The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism

The conventional critique of institutional theory, and especially historical institutionalism, is that it is incapable of coping with change. We argue for the importance of political conflict as a means of initiating change in an institutionalist framework. In particular, conflict over ideas and the underlying assumptions of policy is important for motivating change. We demonstrate the viability of this argument with examples of institutional change.

Models of Urban Governance The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics

Local governments in Western Europe have become increasingly involved in network building with the local business community. The author suggests that governance processes are not value neutral but reflect and sustain political values beyond partisan conflict. Comparing managerial, corporatist, progrowth, and welfare governance models of urban governance, the author argues that nation-state factors play an important role in shaping urban governance. Different sectors in urban politics display different models of governance and local political choice matters. Also, cities within the same national context differ significantly with regard to the degree of inclusion of organized interests in urban governance, which, in turn, is reflected in urban policy outcomes.

Comparative Urban Governance: Uncovering Complex Causalities

Unlike most other areas of the social sciences, the study of urban politics has been slow in developing a comparative research agenda. This article explores the potential in comparative urban governance research. Urban regime theory does not travel very well, partly because it is an under theorized framework and partly because it is in many ways an abstraction of U.S. urban political economy. To escape these obstacles to comparative research, this article argues that regimes should be conceived of as a culturally and historically specific model of urban governance. Comparative urban governance holds tremendous potential in assisting scholars in uncovering causal mechanisms and drivers of political, economic, and social change at the urban level.

Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance

This issue of Policy & Politics features a series of articles addressing recent developments in intergovernmental relationships in the advanced Western democracies. There is today, we believe, sufficient uniformity in these developments across different jurisidictions to allow a discussion on the causes, mechanisms and consequences of a new or emerging type of relationship between institutions at different levels. While it is also true that intergovernmental relationships in each individual country are developing to some extent according to the trajectory of institutional relationships which is typical of that national context, we suggest that the triggering mechanisms have been, on the whole, fairly similar across the western world. What we are thus witnessing is a gradual institutional – and inter-institutional – change reflecting both similar problems facing countries in different parts of the world and, at the same time, the trajectory of institutional change in each national context. The emergence of multi-level governance challenges much of our traditional understanding of how the state operates, what determines its capacities, what its contingencies are, and ultimately of the organisation of democratic and accountable government. Acknowledging the risk of idealising times past in order to exaggerate changes over time, we could say that we are moving from a model of the state in a liberal– democratic perspective towards a state model characterised by complex patterns of contingencies and dependencies on external actors (Pierre, 2000). Political power and institutional capability is less and less derived from formal constitutional powers accorded the state but more from a capacity to wield and coordinate resources from public and private actors and interests. Put slightly differently, we have been witnessing a development from a ‘command and control’ type of state towards an ‘enabling’ state, a model in which the state is not proactively governing society but is more concerned with defining objectives and mustering resources from a wide variety of sources to pursue those goals (Pierre and Peters, 2000). These are obviously changes and developments which are of considerable magnitude and significance. The gradual shift from a government towards a governance perspective reflects the new role of the state which has become typical of western politics in the past decade or so. Multi-level governance is to some extent merely a logical extension of these developments. However, it also signals a growing awareness among elected officials of the decreasing meaningfulness of speaking about sovereignty and autonomy in a political and economic order increasingly characterised by international political, economic and administrative coordination, economic global isation and growing subnational assertiveness vis-a-vis the state in many countries. Multi-level governance is also manifested in a growing number of exchanges between subnational and transnational institutions, seemingly bypassing the state (see, for example, Beauregard and Pierre, 2000). The remainder of this introduction is organised as follows. First, we will discuss in closer detail the definition and meaning of the concept of multi-level governance and what might explain the emergence of such governance. Following that we will assess the impact of multilevel governance on traditional models of institut ional relationships and highligh t the strengths and weaknesses of such governance as compared to more traditional, hierarchical models of government. In the closing section of the introduction we briefly present the other articles in this issue.

The Politics of Urban Governance

Why Study Urban Politics? The Challenge of Urban Governance The Managerial City Corporatist Governance Pro-Growth Governance Welfare Governance The Decline of Urban Politics? Cities in Global Governance Conclusions: The Future of Urban Politics

State subsidies to political parties: Confronting rhetoric with reality

This article investigates the political impact of the introduction of state subsidies to political parties. The arguments for and against subsidising political parties are outlined. Different models of party subsidies, and their regulatory frameworks, are discussed. We find little evidence of a cross‐national impact of the introduction of party subsidies. The subsidies cannot explain the decline in party membership. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the subsidies were introduced as a response to membership decline. There is no support for the allegation that party subsidies lead to the petrification of party systems. The subsidies have not meant that other income sources have lost their significance for political parties.

Unpacking Policy Capacity: Issues and Themes

An interesting puzzle surrounds the issue of the policy capacity of the modern state. On the one hand, there has been a growing emphasis on market solutions for a wide variety of issues and sectors of politics. There has also been growing scepticism about and critiques of the political system, as demonstrated by falling support for elected officials and political institutions. Administrative reforms in much of the Western world have arguably removed some of the policy capacity of the state by displacing political and institutional capacity downwards in the political system, outwards to agencies and NGOs, or upwards to transnational institutional systems such as the European Union (EU) (Pierre and Peters, 2000; Rhodes, 1997). Many of these developments have also been evident elsewhere. For example after the Asian financial crisis some features of ‘developmental states’ in East Asia — which are often depicted as exhibiting high levels of capacity — came into question (Haggard, 2000). In recent years decentralization, new forms of accountability and transparency and other reforms have chipped away at the old pillars of state capacity in a number of these states. An overarching objective in many countries is to ‘roll back the state’ and allow other actors to play a greater role. Given the preference for a minimal role by the state, policy capacity is not a top priority, perhaps not even an issue worthy of inquiry, because it is typical of a state model of times past.

Citizens Versus the New Public Manager The Problem of Mutual Empowerment

Many contemporary reforms of the public sector advocate empowerment as a solution for many of the problems of governing. The difficulty arises when different groups—clients, lower-level officials, senior officials, and local communities—are all the subject of empowerment. Attempts to enhance the power of all these players in the policy process is argued to create the probability of political conflict, and this is demonstrated with a set of examples. Efforts at empowerment further may be the sources of substantial disillusionment and possible alienation when it becomes apparent that all groups cannot be empowered at once.

Exploring the Strategic Region: Rationality, Context, and Institutional Collective Action

The article elaborates the concept of strategic regions which refers to bottom-up processes of inter-local cooperation. In a larger number of countries strategic regions are viewed as an attractive strategy to assist local governments in their pursuit or managing increasing costs in service delivery. In this article we first critically inspect rational choice-based models of interlocal cooperation and point out a couple of issues where they can be further refined and elaborated. Here, we focus particularly on the logic of incentives and transaction costs pertaining to the selection of tasks for collective action; the configuration of the actors; and the democratic deficit issue. The article then discusses alternative schemas for explanation of the formation or non-formation of inter-local partnerships; collective history, local identities and “bounded rationality” may prescribe or prevent partnership formation.

Can Urban Regimes Travel in Time and Space? Urban Regime Theory, Urban Governance Theory, and Comparative Urban Politics

Urban regime theory has shaped the urban politics research agenda in the United States for the past two decades. The article argues that urban regime theory draws on public and corporate behavior and strategies that were typical to the industrial era in the United States. As a result, the theory is insensitive to changes in institutional hierarchies, economic globalization, and the emergence of new types of actors and issues in urban politics. Urban governance theory conceptualizes agency more generically that allows the theory to travel better than urban regime theory in time and space.