Urban Regimes and Leadership in Detroit

1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion E. Orr ◽  
Gerry Stoker
Keyword(s):  
2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 603-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Misener ◽  
Daniel S. Mason

This article examines the coalitions undergirding comprehensive sport-centered growth agendas in three cities actively pursuing sporting event development strategies: Edmonton, Canada; Manchester, United Kingdom; and Melbourne, Australia. Using DiGaetano and Klemanski’s (1999) study of modes of urban governance as a starting point, we review each city’s urban political economy, urban governing agenda, and urban governing alliances. We then discuss whether coalitions in each of the cities can be identified as regimes, by examining the conditions required for the presence of regimes developed by Dowding (2001). Results suggest the presence of regimes in each city, which can be best described using Stoker and Mossberger’s (1994) symbolic regime, developed in their typology of regimes for cross-national research. However, the cities differ slightly, with Edmonton exhibiting the characteristics of a progressive version of a symbolic regime, whereas Manchester and Melbourne more closely resemble urban revitalization regimes.


Organization ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nichole K Wissman-Weber ◽  
David L Levy

The Anthropocene heralds a new era of heightened and unknown risks, particularly regarding the impacts of climate change. This article explores the initial phase of organizing for climate adaptation in Boston, Massachusetts, examining how multiple actors, including business, government, and community organization, are interacting as they attempt to comprehend, assess, and act on this issue. To understand this process of organizing, we develop the concept of ‘risk regime’ as a contingently stabilized system with governance, economic, and discursive dimensions. We draw from theories of risk, organizational resilience, and urban regimes and value regimes to develop the ‘risk regime’ framework, which provides a nuanced view of contestation, collaboration, and accommodation among actors with differential interests, knowledge, and influence on the process. We suggest how the character, evolution, and stabilization of the regime is influenced by competing imaginaries regarding, for example, the nature and manageability of risk, the need for radical change, and the role of markets versus regulations in addressing tensions between economic and sustainability goals. We demonstrate that the regime for adaptation has grown out of the organizational and discursive infrastructure for addressing climate mitigation, or carbon control, but that the unique character of adaptation presents different, and perhaps more difficult challenges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document