Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

urban politics midterm

Terms in this set (101)

the state
has monopoly on legitimate use of force, where most governance happens
characteristics of cities
density, heterogeneity (demographic, economic), size, more urgent needs in cities
punctuated equilibrium
change occurs rapidly in moments of shocks then is constant; not linear change; change can come from outside(exogenous shock), or inside(ideas
order and change
institutions provide order, agency/exogenous shocks spur change
layers
changes create new institutions but don't totally replace old institutions; new and old interact; newer cities have fewer layers of institutions (only have top layers)
broader context
cities dependent on broader institutions
distinctive challenges
high demand for governance and high constraints on formal power
cities v suburbs
metropolitan area grows lots but cities grown marginally through 20th century; metropolitan inequality from suburbs having own mini potential communities
dillons rule
state can do whatever it wants in city if it doesn't violate national laws; formal limits for cities: debt limits, balanced budget requirements, TELs, cities as corporations
pluralism
dahl; clashes not unity in interest; groups compete for goods and policy; politics open to all; political sphere as microcosm of society; direct or indirect power; little injustice
dispersed inequality
pluralism; politics is open to all; outcomes determined by resources and agitation
homo-politics
pluralism; people are active when interested/agitated
behaviorism
pluralism; attention to what people do
power in pluralism
direct or indirect; everyone has potential power
pluralism shortcomings
only studies issues that get looked at (only first face of power); no regard for agenda setting and other faces of power; differences in resources keep some "invisible"; diff groups have diff incentives to organize; reality: some views/groups are overrepresented in political sphere as opposed to social sphere
power
influence/control over outcomes
first face of power
person a gets what a wants even though b wants something else; dahl would say b lacked resources
second face of power
a controls agenda--power over possible outcomes; Bs preferences hard to see or B opts out so A intimidates B
third face of power
A gets B to want what A wants even though B should want something else; preference influence/ideology; "false consciousness"; very difficult to observe and forces assumptions about Bs true desires
limited city model
peterson; cities compete and competition increases as cost of moving between cities decreases; mobility of capital and residents; city has organic interest (like a firm) that is different from the interests of the people who live in the cities; 3 kinds of policies (developmental, allocational, redistributive); 3 types of jurisdictions and wealthy move to low tax jurisdictions; equilibriums because of competition (race to the bottom); local government cannot have meaningful redistributive policies so have to come from national government
kinds of policies in limited city
developmental: "growth", benefit above median; allocational: "housekeeping", neutral; redistributive: benefits below-median, pressure for redistribution leads the wealthy to leave and the median income in the city goes down
types of jurisdictions
limited city model; low tax high service, low tax low service, high tax high service
growth machine model
city is a place and land is a special kind of commodity (can't make more and can't do without, resources and land available influence other kinds of market behavior; city grows by intensifying use/value of land; use value and exchange value; growth machine is driven by elite consensus on growth
use value
value of place to persons there; networks, knowledge, etc
exchange value
dollar value of place on market; exchange value increases may clash with residents use value (eg brooklyn nets arena v. bar)
drivers of growth machine
cant leave; tied to place; developers, landowners, politicians, local media, utilities, auxiliary: universities, sports teams, etc
regime definition
informal institution: stable patterns of interaction; network of elites that elevate city ability to accomplish things; manage recurring crises and conflicts and make adaptive responses; private functions and public bodies work together for governance; not totally democratic but citizens not locked out
atlanta case
clarence stone; coca-cola working with public bodies for governance
who governs
average people have less power but ballot box matters as dramatic case
premodern city characteristics
urban city, taxes to central authority, rare and special status to live in city; centers of learning; life in premodern city seen as privileged; walled city has uniform power inside and a sharp drop off outside as opposed to diffuse gradient from the center; premodern cities as sacred places and commerce appears around sacred place
modern city developments
no more walls; defense changes with nation-state
expanding cities
early metropolitan era
invisible walls
late metropolitan ear
decentrality
cities embedded in international state system--status of cities decreases; established for openness not insularity
primate city system
one big metropole and everything (trains, money, culture) goes through it; e.g. paris; one network for whole country (france)
STL v Chicago
frontier cities with similar populations in 1840s; chicago begins to grow exponentially in 1880s because civil war makes railroads built through chicago because better chance of staying in union
tiered city system
cities as firms who compete to move up in tiers; e.g. US system; metropolis, town, market town, village; global tiered city system in global economy; different networks for different regions (us)
importance of borders
territorial limits of polity (who's in who's out); whats on agenda; structure of political attitudes; character of border shapes what it matters for; borders impact median voter
median voter
who politician appeals to
ny incorporation
brooklyn grows but very connected to NY; andrew has well green (late 1800s NY city planner)
pro-ny incorporation
access to water for BK, grow tax base, NY stays as biggest population in NY, boosting manhattan property values, shared policy coordination, transportation (building bridge) and shared trains), republicans gain new voters
anti-ny incorporation
retaining character of BK, BK stay away from Tammany Hall, MH funding BK growth, republicans from BK lose
evanston v. hyde park
socially similar before annexation; arguments for: return to scale on services, better services, increased property values; hyde park split and ½ that needed water won; decision had to do with provision of particular public service(water) than with jurisdictional efficiency
role of parties
central to operation of democracy; provide order to politics; can amplify silence
choosing parties
sociological model: parties as natural social groups, identity groups? class?
levels of party
party in electorate, party as organization, party in government
party as organization
machine party, linkage institution, forms coalitions to win
party in government
organize policymaking, implementation
machine politics origins
solving issues of urbanization and mass suffrage; more voters not just elites; originally class-based; cities become different from american politics (scope of city government increases, cities more divisibly permeable, stakes of local government increase)
causes of machine decline
upward/outward mobility of "ethnic whites", rise of middle class, increase in "peripheral" groups, provision of safety net by federal government, "increasingly impersonal" society, diminished access to patronage
machine pros
provide political order and unity across city, socialize and incorporate new groups, good working-class jobs for members, designed to solve collective action issues
machine cons
usually inefficient, often very corrupt, not "ideally" democratic, change power flow from bottom-up to top-down, unclear how good for working class (susceptible to patronage but dont mass organize around salient issues--erie), exclusive to non-members from core power/benefits
machine politics
style of police, very fractious, often factional, late 1800s/early 1900s, particularistic exchange, favoritism
political machine
organization successful at machine politics, sporadic, organized/disciplined, particularistic exchange, favoritism
periods of machine politics in NYC in late 1800s
rapacious individualism (tweed); factionalism (tammany, irving, NY county democracy); Tammany preeminence (1890-1933)
rapacious individualism
tweed, political factions not divided along nativity/religion/ethnicity/social class; politicians relied on personal followings for nomination not party organization
factionalism
rise of party organization; tammany, irving, ny county democracy
NY machine politics
machine consolidation in response to labor movement parties; labor movement parties threatened elite/corporate preferences
shefter
throughout 1800s patronage and corruption played central role in NY politics; became organized and centralized at end of 1800s; tammany only dominated after centralization; explain structure of political institutions by looking at ethnic and social characteristics is incomplete; members of city can be organized in several different ways (cross-cutting cleavages) and characterstics of groups members and interests of elites determine how people are organized
ethnic hierarchy in chicago machine politics
1) irish 2) slavic
chicago machine politics
immigrant appeals; democratic machine
chicago machine politics periods
democratic consolidation: cermak, kelly, nash (1920s-1940s); city-wide dominance: daley (1950s-70s); fracture and insurgence: bilandic, byrne, washington (1970s-80s); retrenchment: daley(1990s-2000s)
chicago racial subordination
growing black population; 1900-1947: swing constituency; 1947-1959: strong democrats, provide margin of victory; 1960s: racial issues rise in prominence, machine takes conservative stance; after 1959: strong democrats but superfluous bloc
context of progressive reform
high inequality, corruption, tudor polity
tudor polity
institutions can't handle issues from tudor system; checks and balances biased towards inaction
progressive reforms
re-form government; attack on political parties
progressives
middle/upper middle class, highly educated, urban, non-business professionals, often republicans
chicago progressive reformes
jane adams, womans christian temperance union, john dewey
national progressive reforms
direct election of senators (17th), prohibition/temperance (18th am), womens suffrage (19th am), primary elections, civil service reform/Bureaucratic organization, segregation, immigration quota system
progressive priorities
efficiency and growth, professionalism and expertise, "common good" order and systems, "rational" state intervention, prioritize "good gov" over "self gov", assimilation of foreign/different groups, consensus politics
varieties of urban reform
antimachine combat, institutional reform, social reformers, structural reformers,
antimachine combat
"personnell" approach, put better men in office; failed because hard to permanently change outcomes without changing rules, morning glory, short-lived: machines are resilient
institutional reform
east cities: less successful reform because more layers of institutions/institutions more engrained, west cities: new cities, reform works there
institutional reform in east
scientific government (growth of social sciences); "good gov" associations; inter-city networks of reformers; mixed success: hard to change institutions, machines very adaptive, reformers have little support in electorate; layers of institutions in east
galveston example
when destroyed by hurricane reformers saw opportunity to reshape city government; no longer mini national government; weakened parties, rationalized authority; de-politicize executive branch functions
reform on local politics organization
under machine politics very geographically based (wards by geography); now commission form: organization is substantive and portfolios overlap now so city managers are used to solve policy area disputes
council managers
unified executive
median voter theorem
median voter determines outcome on majority rule; skewed class distribution: median voter skewed toward one extreme; progressives try to shift median voter away from pro-redistribution with change to how elections run and other institutional changes
progressive reforms
direct democracy, secret ballots, replace legislative with electorate(referendums) to weaken parties--strong party sets agenda in city council and controls outcome so outcome is partisan not city median (what would be under direct democracy)
electoral regulation
change procedures: secret ballot to weaken parties by removing accountability of party loyalty; non-partisan ballot
rational voter
V=M*B-C+D; new electoral rules change electorate/who votes; non-partisan=more information costs; registration requirements; change date of elections; reformers raise cost of voting to suppress lower class voters and move median right; electorate does not reflect population as a whole
representation
reformers change geographic basis for reprensentation; switch to at-large council instead of ward-based representation (skews to majority population winning
morning glory
reformers are like morning glory flower: short-lived because can't combat institutional layers (esp in older cities)
sheingate
political entrepreneurship; changing institutions/adding layers through entrepreneurship; entrepreneurship shapes debate (frame issues, define problems, influence agenda); entrepreneurs are source of innovation; entrepreneur consolidate innovation into lasting change; institutional change from ambiguity/uncertainty; permeability of institutional boundaries allows for entrepreneurship
milton rakove
ward organization; committeemen are party representatives in ward (committeeman has to know what is going on inward exactly--how many votes to expect); patronage system (committeemen have to sponsor every person put up for patronage position); district level ward organization as crucial to machine politics system; no room for ideology in political machines
erie
machines deprived of leverage through patronage by federal government (central challenge of machines is maintaining enough resources to keep people loyal and retain support; growth is new urban talisman to retain power; downtown development; rainbow coalitions to challenge irish domination in big cities after war; changes that affected postwar machines (white exodus of cities for suburbs; influx of hispanics and whites); states and federal gov took more control over cities so machines had less room for discretion/leverage; downtown redevelopment required state/federal assistance which was vulnerable; machines used welfare state to control/dismantle black vote; rainbow coalition unstable; machine politics widespread in late 1800s and first half of 1900s and went beyond cities to small cities and was also linked to national and state politics
stone
ideology/issue politics are secondary to patronage in machine politics; machines centered around patronage (issues are too volatile); not inattentive to issues--will take issue positions if thought could help them get voters; special inclusion of poor/marginalized populations in machine politics because most susceptible to patronage; making money central in machine politics; alliances with businesses are important for machines; machines are narrower and broader than party that organizes them (narrower: heart of machine was informal alliances/system, broader: more groups than just party organization); containment and exclusion as operative policies of machines; regime synthesis
dialectic
truth discovery through deliberation; thesis v antithesis and argue until reform tensions and get a synthesis o two ideal types
machine pros
consolidated machines: provide political order, unity across city; machine-style politics: socialize, incorporate new groups, good working class jobs (for members)
reform effects
weaken political parties, emphasis on middle class policies, more majoritarian, lower participation (esp minority groups), less descriptive representation, rapid growth (often), politically fragmented cities (higher levels)
monopoly synthesis
troustine; politics as marketplace (focus on competition); both reform and machine politics can change in undemocratic ways; both systems have moved to monopoly world (machine consolidation and non-partisan slating committee that creates party); one not better than the other--both can be bad
regimes synthesis
stone; informal government networks to resolve crises; include elites from across spectrum (politicians, businesses (Growth-machine style), philanthropy; includes but frequently unresponsive to major constituents
atlanta example
stone; business elites connected to democratic policies but democratic policies not driving show
progressive liberalism synthesis
especially in east: adapt/adopt reform idea; incorporate/recognize new groups; create hybrid machine--pluralism as ideology; local ideas rise to national politics; interventionist/adaptive and inclusive is where city government lies on scale of policies and conservativism; reform aspect of accomplishing things/efficiency and machine inclusivity
reform v machines: which better
contingent; rich/capital always advantaged; depends which metrics (democracy, resource provision, etc) are prioritized; urbanity and broader context matter; characteristics of city can determine which is better; consider institutional design with layering, timing, and culture
croker
tammany hall leader; pro machine-style politics; well organized political club; organization as key to success; dont apologize for crimes accused of--results speak for themselves in polls; tammany organization provides democracy
white
big reformer; cities in america are worst run: most inefficient and corrupt in the world; city is a corporation not a political body (nothing to do with national politics; parties do not belong in cities; issues of cities are not political issues; city should be managed as property)
hayes
critique of way reform has been studied--has been taking word of reformers for granted but reality is they were more upperclass; progressive era led to centralization
steffens
success of chicago reform (not morning glories, true slow reform); pro reform; muckraker
bridges/kronick
modern study of reform; critique of progressive era; municipal reform successful where could write rules to win game
machine endurance synthesis
wolfing; style of politics is still machine style politics (Especially in ex machine cities); political connections over other criteria; no matter rules game is played similarly (still have particularistic exchange)
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...