Home  About us  Contact
 

Regime Theory (regime + theory)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

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

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2003
Jonathan S. Davies
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. [source]

Overcoming the Neglect of Economics in Urban Regime Theory

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2003
David L. Imbroscio
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. [source]

Urban Regime Theory: A Normative-Empirical Critique

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 1 2002
Jonathan S. Davies
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. [source]

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

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2003
Jonathan S. Davies
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. [source]

Urban Regime Theory: A Normative-Empirical Critique

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 1 2002
Jonathan S. Davies
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. [source]

Neither Hybrid nor Unique: A Reinterpretation of the East Asian Welfare Regime

ASIAN SOCIAL WORK AND POLICY REVIEW, Issue 3 2008
Kyung-Zoon Hong
Some researchers have been convinced that welfare developments in East Asia, especially Japan and Korea, can be fitted into the existing three worlds of welfare model, while others have insisted that existing welfare regime theories are not able to explain East Asian welfare regimes. This article assumes that we need to go beyond both of these traditional explanations. In the welfare state research fields, welfare regime approaches tend to focus on specific contextual conditions and cross-national differences. As a result, they tend to overemphasize history at the expense of theory. This article tries to combine deductive causal modeling with an institutional,historical context by identifying the contingent rent political game model and deducing important characteristics of East Asian welfare regime from this model. This model opens out the possibility of change in East Asian welfare regimes following the processes of democratization and globalization. Details of this are given in the conclusion. [source]

International Nonregimes: A Research Agenda,

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, Issue 2 2007
Radoslav S. Dimitrov
Why are multilateral institutions absent from some areas of international relations? Governments have not concluded regulatory policy agreements on tactical nuclear weapons and small arms control, deforestation, information privacy, and other transnational issues. The absence of regimes in such policy arenas is an empirical phenomenon with considerable theoretical and policy implications. Yet, existing scholarship on global governance largely ignores the instances in which such institutions do not emerge. This essay develops a research agenda to extend and strengthen regime theory through analysis of nonregimes. We articulate the concept, draw a typology of nonregimes, discuss the contributions that nonregime studies can make to IR theory, outline methodological approaches to pursue the proposed agenda, and highlight a priori theoretical considerations to guide such research. Six illustrative cases in the realms of arms control, environmental management, and international political economy are described and used to make preliminary observations of factors that impede regime formation. [source]

BUSINESS COMMUNITY STRUCTURES AND URBAN REGIMES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 4 2007
MARK DE SOCIO
ABSTRACT:,Regime theorists often present business interests as coherent and unified communities with unitary interests. A central principle of regime theory, however, is that business elites tend to occupy privileged positions within regime coalitions because of the scope of resources and expertise they command and cities require for economic development and/or fiscal solvency. Cities are generally home to a wide range of business activities operating at various scales, and business elites representing various corporations in different economic sectors arguably command different kinds of resources and expertise that are functional to the economic activities with which they are affiliated. Various mixes of business elites representing different economic activities might therefore produce differentially biased input regarding urban policy-making and affect the types of regime coalitions that cities develop.Utilizing compilations of interlocking directorates among major organizations across three sectors, profiles of the corporate and social community structures of 24 U.S. cities are generated and a correlation matrix comprised of business and social organizational categories is produced. Factor analysis of the correlation matrix identifies three separate mixes of corporate and social organizational categories that generally conform to descriptions of developmental, caretaker, and progressive regime typologies. These three factors serve as prototypes of the three broad regime types and their corporate community structures. Correlations of the 24 cities with each of the three regime prototypes generally match their regime types as identified through previous case studies. Variations in regime types among cities might therefore be attributed to varying degrees of diversity in the kinds of corporations headquartered or located within them. Closer attention to the economic base of cities,the producers, after all, of local business elites,may reveal internal biases and/or material predisposition towards some urban policies over others by local business elites in relation to the economic activities with which they are linked. [source]

Overcoming the Neglect of Economics in Urban Regime Theory

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2003
David L. Imbroscio
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. [source]

Urban Regime Theory: A Normative-Empirical Critique

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 1 2002
Jonathan S. Davies
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. [source]

Forging Collective Capacity for Urban Redevelopment: "Power To,""Power Over," or Both?

CITY & COMMUNITY, Issue 1 2006
Richard Gendron
This paper explores the dynamic of cooperation between economic and political elites in a public-private partnership that was created to guide the redevelopment of downtown Santa Cruz, California, following the devastating Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. While the public-private partnership was instrumental in the success of post-earthquake reconstruction of the central business district, the consensus and cooperation between progressive political leaders and local business elites in this "partnership" were often more apparent than real. This occurred not only because of the longstanding tensions between the local pro-growth coalition and progressive political leadership of the city but also because the public-private partnership became a mechanism for potential regime transformation. Thus, the "collective capacity" needed to proceed with post-earthquake redevelopment of the central business district was "forged" in two senses: It was created to effect necessary redevelopment, but it was also counterfeit. Political elites sought to limit both the scope and the duration of the partnership to check the increasing power of economic elites in the aftermath of the earthquake. Although regime theory acknowledges the relationship between "power over" and "power to," I argue that its emphasis on the latter overlooks critical sources of conflict in the creation and implementation of local urban development policy. Consequently, I further argue that an analysis of both conceptions of power is necessary to understand not only how local development policies are enacted but "who benefits" from them. [source]