Urban regime theory in comparative perspective

G. Stoker, K. Mossberger

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    229 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The urban literature has devoted increasing attention to cross-national comparison of urban change and governance. What is lacking is the development of conceptual frameworks that are adequate to embrace the greater variation in conditions encountered in cross-national research, compared with conditions within a single country. Urban regime theory holds potential for explaining the variety of arrangements through which policymakers in cities have coped with change. Its essential contribution is to focus attention on the collective action problems that have to be overcome for effective urban governance to emerge. The nature of the collective action challenge varies according to the purpose, composition, and position of potential regime partners. Substantial differences in motivating factors must be taken into account in order to apply regime analysis cross-nationally. Drawing upon differences already identified in the regime literature, the authors propose a typology of organic, instrumental, and symbolic regimes. -Authors

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)195-212
    Number of pages18
    JournalEnvironment & Planning C: Government & Policy
    Volume12
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 1994

    Fingerprint

    collective action
    regime
    conceptual framework
    typology
    collective behavior
    governance
    comparison
    city
    analysis
    literature

    Cite this

    @article{41e8f91d39094052a62faeb11509528a,
    title = "Urban regime theory in comparative perspective",
    abstract = "The urban literature has devoted increasing attention to cross-national comparison of urban change and governance. What is lacking is the development of conceptual frameworks that are adequate to embrace the greater variation in conditions encountered in cross-national research, compared with conditions within a single country. Urban regime theory holds potential for explaining the variety of arrangements through which policymakers in cities have coped with change. Its essential contribution is to focus attention on the collective action problems that have to be overcome for effective urban governance to emerge. The nature of the collective action challenge varies according to the purpose, composition, and position of potential regime partners. Substantial differences in motivating factors must be taken into account in order to apply regime analysis cross-nationally. Drawing upon differences already identified in the regime literature, the authors propose a typology of organic, instrumental, and symbolic regimes. -Authors",
    author = "G. Stoker and K. Mossberger",
    year = "1994",
    language = "English",
    volume = "12",
    pages = "195--212",
    journal = "Environment and Planning C",
    issn = "0263-774X",
    publisher = "Pion Ltd",
    number = "2",

    }

    Urban regime theory in comparative perspective. / Stoker, G.; Mossberger, K.

    In: Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1994, p. 195-212.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Urban regime theory in comparative perspective

    AU - Stoker, G.

    AU - Mossberger, K.

    PY - 1994

    Y1 - 1994

    N2 - The urban literature has devoted increasing attention to cross-national comparison of urban change and governance. What is lacking is the development of conceptual frameworks that are adequate to embrace the greater variation in conditions encountered in cross-national research, compared with conditions within a single country. Urban regime theory holds potential for explaining the variety of arrangements through which policymakers in cities have coped with change. Its essential contribution is to focus attention on the collective action problems that have to be overcome for effective urban governance to emerge. The nature of the collective action challenge varies according to the purpose, composition, and position of potential regime partners. Substantial differences in motivating factors must be taken into account in order to apply regime analysis cross-nationally. Drawing upon differences already identified in the regime literature, the authors propose a typology of organic, instrumental, and symbolic regimes. -Authors

    AB - The urban literature has devoted increasing attention to cross-national comparison of urban change and governance. What is lacking is the development of conceptual frameworks that are adequate to embrace the greater variation in conditions encountered in cross-national research, compared with conditions within a single country. Urban regime theory holds potential for explaining the variety of arrangements through which policymakers in cities have coped with change. Its essential contribution is to focus attention on the collective action problems that have to be overcome for effective urban governance to emerge. The nature of the collective action challenge varies according to the purpose, composition, and position of potential regime partners. Substantial differences in motivating factors must be taken into account in order to apply regime analysis cross-nationally. Drawing upon differences already identified in the regime literature, the authors propose a typology of organic, instrumental, and symbolic regimes. -Authors

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028583707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    VL - 12

    SP - 195

    EP - 212

    JO - Environment and Planning C

    JF - Environment and Planning C

    SN - 0263-774X

    IS - 2

    ER -