In the Anglophone literature on local and regional development policy there are tendencies to overextension of claims from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or there is no comparative framing at all. As a result the specificity of the West European case tends to be lost. In contrast with the USA, the West European instance is very different indeed. Although there have been changes since the postwar golden years of urban and regional planning, central government remains crucial in the structuring of local and regional development and has given expression to counter-posed class forces: regional policy was historically an aspect of the welfare state as promoted by the labor movement, while urbanization policy has been much more about the forces of the political right. In the USA, by contrast, local governments and to a lesser degree, the states, have been and continue to be supreme; in contrast to Western Europe, location tends to be much more market-determined, with local and governments acting as market agents. Class forces have seemingly been much weaker, territorial coalitions occupying the center ground. As a first cut, these differences have to do with state structure: the Western European state is far more centralized, facilitating the implementation of policies that are relatively indifferent to local specificity, while in the USA the converse applies. State structures, however, are parts of broader social formations and reflect the different socio-historical conditions in which West European societies, on the one hand, and their American counterpoint, on the other, have emerged.
A study on the effects that 'West development policy' had on the east and the west district gap in China
