| Summary: | The article examines various aspects of the urban regime theory. Basic principles of the theory were formulated in the late 1980s by Clarence Stone and Stephen Elkin. The theory not only replaced the earlier American models of power in urban communities, but received wide recognition of European researchers of urban politics. Urban regime in Stone’s terms is a relatively stable cross-sectoral coalition of actors who have access to institutional resources and govern the urban community; it has a certain agenda and is based on formal and informal communications between its members. Regimes do not occur in every local community, but are the result of joint efforts of actors and depend largely on the presence or absence of factors stimulating the formation of stable urban coalitions (local projection and relative integrity of business interests, history and tradition of the community, belief in effectiveness of the urban policy, etc.). The application of the regime model for the study of power outside of USA usually lead to substantial modifications of Stone’s interpretation of an urban regime. Defined with a minimum defining criteria the concept of urban regime has become more flexible. Empirical studies of power in European communities show that in contrast to American cities actors from the public sector dominate in urban decision-making though globalisation and the transition from government to governance increases the power potential of private sector actors; the urban political agenda is less focused on growth including and more on welfare, distributive and ecological issues.
|
|---|
