Between Realism and Revolt

Between Realism and Revolt explores urban governance in the “age of austerity”, focusing on the period between the global financial crisis of 2008-9 and the beginning of the global Coronavirus pandemic at the end of 2019. It considers urban governance after the 2008 crisis, from the perspective of governability. How did cities navigate the crisis and the aftermath of austerity, with what political ordering and disordering dynamics at the forefront? To answer these questions it engages with two influential theoretical currents, Urban Regime Theory and Gramscian state theory, with a view to understanding how governance enabled austerity, deflected or intensified localised expressions of crisis, and generated more-or-less successful political alternatives. It develops a comparative analysis of case studies undertaken in the cities of Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Greater Dandenong (Melbourne), Leicester, Montreal and Nantes, and concludes by highlighting five characteristics that cut across the cities, unevenly and in different configurations: economic rationalism, weak hegemony, retreat to dominance, weak counter-hegemony and radically contagious politicisations.

Exploring the Emergence of Innovative Multi-Actor Collaborations toward a Progressive Urban Regime in Madrid (2015–2019)

For the last decade, urban actors around the globe have been struggling to adapt to a post-crisis and austerity context through increasing social mobilization and experimentation, calling for an urban democracy renewal and challenging established neoliberal urban regimes and governance systems. This has triggered social innovations, in which novel collaborative formulas have been envisioned and implemented. In particular, civil-public collaborations (CPCs) have come to the fore as an empowering alternative to the well-established private–public partnerships (PPP). This article examines the conditions of possibility, enabling mechanisms and constraints for the emergence of innovative multi-actor collaborations (IMACs). For this aim, we developed a three-fold analytical framework combining social innovation, public governance, and urban regime theory. We applied this framework to the case of the so-called “government of change” in Madrid between 2015 and 2019. After exploring the pre-2015 context, the institutional innovations implemented once Ahora Madrid accessed the local government, and the post-2019 context, it points to the preconditions that allowed experimentation with IMAC, identifies the institutional mechanisms and governance innovations that support their emergence, and assesses to what extent and how power to act was created and used to accomplish urban regime change.

The Urban Regime Theory in Political Science Research — The Possibilities and Limitations of Implementation

The article discusses novel methodology. The main aim of the paper is to analyse the explanatory potential of the urban regime theory used in political science studies. The author verifies the hypothesis which states that the explanatory potential of the urban regime theory, understood as the ability to explain the dynamic transformations of the socio-political reality of modern cities, is derived from the possibility of using a set of research methods, and not only those that are of “customary” (traditional) interest to political scientists. This set includes eight different research methods, selected on the basis of a review of the positions and methodological approaches dominating in the extensive literature on the subject. The hypothesis verification determines the structure of the article, which consists of the considerations focused around: (1) theoretical issues (2) methodological assumptions of the presented analysis, and (3) variants of the examination of the urban regime. The analysis confirms the hypothesis and proves that the application potential of the urban regime theory results from the possibility of using at least several research methods, with particular emphasis on those that are just gaining popularity among political scientists.

Urban Regimes in Russia’s Northern Cities: Testing a Concept in a New Environment

At a time when urbanization represents a major trend in human history and when the majority of the world’s population lives in an urban environment, the urban regime theory, developed by Clarence Stone in the 1980s, offers an insightful framework for discussing how urban stakeholders are compelled to work together to achieve their goals. While research on urban regimes has historically focused mainly on democratic contexts, this article argues that it is time to use urban regime theory in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian countries in order to better understand how urban politics develop. With growing urban activism and huge territorial contrasts, Russia offers a good case study for testing the notion of “urban regime.” This article focuses on three cities in Russia’s Far North—Murmansk, Norilsk, and Yakutsk—that face common sustainability challenges in Arctic or subarctic conditions; it delves into the mechanisms of their urban regimes and categorizes them by type: instrumental, organic, and symbolic.

The Implications of State Takeovers for Urban Politics

As states increase their presence in localities, what are the enduring implications for urban governance and theories of urban politics? The chapter examines urban regime theory, the dominant urban political theory of the last 30 years, and argues that although urban regime theory is still a relevant framework to analyze urban governance, the changing role of state actors, particularly governors, in urban regimes requires an expansion of urban regime theory as a conceptual framework. The chapter introduces the concept of cohesive and disjointed state-local regimes. The concept proposes that local leaders can best represent the needs of their communities under cohesive state-local regimes, while localities are exposed to less desirable, even hostile, state-led policies under disjointed state-local regimes.

The peculiar economics of sports team ownership

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how North American professional team owners are engaging in broader urban development projects that have their teams as anchor tenants in new sports facilities, by examining the case of Rogers Arena in Edmonton, Canada. Design/methodology/approach Approached from a constructionist perspective, the study employed an instrumental case study strategy as it facilitates understanding and description of a particular phenomenon and allows researchers to use the case as a comparative point across other settings (with similar conditions) in which the phenomenon might be present. Findings Using urban regime theory as a framework, the authors found that in Edmonton, the team owner was able to align his interests with other political and business interests by engaging in a development strategy that increased the vibrancy of Edmonton’s downtown core. As a result, the owner was able to garner support for both the arena and the surrounding development. Research limitations/implications The authors argue that this new model of team owner as developer has several implications: on-field performance may only be important insofar as it drives demand for the development; the owner’s focus is on driving revenues and profits from interests outside of the sports facility itself; and the team (and the threat of relocation) is leveraged to gain master developer status for the ownership group. Originality/value This paper adds to the understanding of owner interests and how franchise profitability and solvency can be tied to other related business interests controlled by team owners.