1 Urban Politics and Theory: An Introduction David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman A book with the title Theories of Urban Politics should obviously be concerned with ‘theories’ and ‘urban politics’. And that is what this book is: all of the chapters deal, in their various ways, with theories of urban politics. Indeed, it is the sheer eclecticism of theories and the variety of approaches to theoretical issues which makes the study of urban politics so vibrant in the 1990s — but which also generates a need for a book of this type. There are now so many theories that it is increasingly difficult for scholar and student alike to keep pace with them, let alone comprehend or evaluate their respective merits. The purpose of this edited volume, therefore, is to bring together leading scholars from both sides of the Atlantic to explain and assess the major theories underpinning the study of urban politics. The authors, pre- eminent scholars in their own right, not only review the theories but stake out their own positions and contribute to the debate. Authors were asked to follow a common, but flexible, format (although it was understood that the coherent development of argument might vary from chapter to chapter and thus preclude too rigid an adherence). Authors were asked to deal with the exposition and explanation of the theory, illustrations and applications of it, critiques and criticism, and to provide their own overall evaluation and original insights. Nonetheless, the chapters and the subjects they cover are quite diverse and inevitably raise the question of what we mean by ‘theory’. We are very encompassing in our conception of theory, and, as a consequence, we have cast our net widely. Theories, as we conceive them, can be normative or empirical; they can also be models, conceptual frameworks or perspectives. We also include, under our broad tent of theories, ‘theorizing’ — system- atic thinking about or speculation concerning important issues in urban politics. Most of our chapters include more than one, and in some cases several, of these approaches to theory. Normative theories concern how the world ought to be; the theorist posits a desired state or set of conditions and argues why it is to be preferred. As Judge (Chapter 2) and Harding (Chapter 3) make clear, both pluralism and elite theory can be conceived as normative theories to the2 Theories of Urban Politics extent, they argue, that urban politics ought to be pluralist (power should be dispersed) or elitist (power should be concentrated). Lowndes, in her chapter ‘Citizenship and Urban Politics’ (Chapter 9) deals with normative theory as does Wolman, who examines and contrasts the basic values that are pursued by American and British systems of local govern- ment in Chapter 8, ‘Local Government Institutions and Democratic Governance’, Prescriptive theories are instrumental; they are concerned with the best means of achieving a desired condition. Wolman’s discussion of the extent to which different local government institutions contribute to normative values of local government involves an exercise in prescriptive theory. Jones, in Chapter 5, is concerned with how local bureaucracies can best be subjected to democratic control Empirical theory, on the other hand, is concerned with explaining and interpreting reality (although all theory is obviously related to ‘reality’ to some extent). In its broadest sense explaining means an understanding of reality. In a narrower sense empirical theory is concerned with establishing causal relationships — what factors (independent variables) account for the phenomenon to be explained (dependent variable). Elitist theory, as dis- cussed by Harding in Chapter 3, can be seen as empirical theory in the sense that it explains the nature of policy decisions produced by urban governments as a function of the decision- a normative theory if theorists advocate decision making by an preferred mode of political decision making). Goldsmith, in his discussion on local autonomy in Chapter 12, considers, among other things, the causes or preconditions of local autonomy in an effort to explain why local autonomy is relatively stronger in some systems of local government than in others. Empirical theory can be inductive, based on empirical observation and an accumiulation of evidence from hypotheses testing. The vast amount of research on the decision-making structure of urban governments discussed in Chapters 2-4 constitutes an example of inductive empirical theory. Empirical theory can also be deductive, starting from a premise or set of premises and deducing conclusions about causal relationships and behav- iour from these premises. The premises may or may not be empirically valid, but utilizing them produces plausible results about and an under- standing of (that is, explains) reality. Public choice theory, discussed by Keating in Chapter 7, starts from the economists’ premise of individual utility maximization and derives from that explanations of individual, community and jurisdictional behaviour within metropolitan areas. While the assumptions underlying the theory may not be empirically verifiable, they lead to, it is argued, accurate predictions (explanations) about behaviour; individuals behave as though they were utility maximizers, Similarly Marxist and neo-Marxist theory discussed by Pickvance in Chapter 13 is, to a substantial extent, deductive theory. It starts from the premise that capitalism cannot guarantee its own reproduction because itUrban politics and theory 3 has prerequisites which the market cannot secure and produces conflicts which need to be regulated, It is frequently argued that empirical theory is not, despite claims sometimes made, value free and devoid of normative bias. The selection of research questions, the defining of concepts, the research design, and, in particular, interpretation of results all are likely to reflect unconscious (and sometimes conscious) normative values of the researcher. This has been a particular theme in debate on the pluralist-elitist research and is discussed by Judge in Chapter 2 and by Harding in Chapter 3. Strict interpretations of empirical theory require explanation to be concerned with causal relationships or, at least, associations; in order to have the status of a theory some phenomenon (variable) must be linked to or ‘elated to others consistently. But more relaxed interpretations of theory can also contribute to explanation or understanding. Models, conceptual frameworks, and perspectives all fall under this rubric. fodels are representations or stylized and simplified pictures of They include the most important components or categories, but ‘they do not posit relationships among the variables. Systems theory, for example, is a model through which analysis of urban political phenom- ena can be examined. (However, in econometric and associated studies, a specified model includes the hypothesized relationships among the variables.) Conceptual frameworks or perspectives are ways of looking at or conceiving of an object of study, They provide a language and frame of Tefefenice through which reality can be examined and lead theorists to ask questions that might not otherwise occur. The result, if successful, is new and fresh insights that other frameworks or perspectives might not have yielded. Conceptual frameworks can constitute an attempt to establish a paradigm shift. Regime theory, discussed by Stoker in Chapter 4, is an example of the productive use of a new conceptual framework for examining urban politics, Regime theory sees the world through the lens of building governing coalitions to accomplish public purposes. It leads us to focus our attention not on how decisions are made, but on how important goals are set forth and achieved, on social production rather than social ‘accounting. Regulation theory, discussed by Painter in Chapter 14, also provides a new language and frame of reference for the study of urban politics. Its focus is on the social and politico-economic institutions that underlie the prevailing set of relationships between production, consump- tion and investment and the implications of these changing relationships for urban government and governance, Marxist and neo-Marxist theory looks at the urban world through the lens of class relationships and interests. As Pickvance indicates (Chapter 13) it is particularly concerned with the role of the state in the reproduction of capitalism. Clarke, Stacheli and Brunell utilize the perspective of gender in Chapter 11 (or the feminist, lens as they call it) to approach urban political phenomena. Such conceptual frameworks may be heuristic in the sense that they stimulate4 Theories of Urban Politics the generation of hypotheses that may be tested and lead to the development of more formal empirical theory. We also speak of theories in the sense of theorizing or thinking about some aspect of urban phenomena, These theories specify an object of interest - social movements which Fainstein and Hirst focus on in Chapter 10, political leadership which Stone covers in Chapter 6 ~ and set forth a claim that these are important urban political phenomena that ‘drive’ or lie behind much that is of interest in urban politics. Stone, in his chapter, attempts to derive the characteristics of urban leadership through a consideration of the careers of several well-known American mayors. Fainstein and Hirst consider a series of issues related to urban social movements. Such theorizing can cover a range of other theoretical concerns: under what conditions will urban social movements occur (empirical theory), have such movements displaced class as the most useful category for neo-Marxist analysis (conceptual framework), do urban social movements bring about progressive (that is, desirable) change (normative and prescriptive theory)? Finally we wish to distinguish between theories and theorists. The latter have carcers and their ideas and theories may develop and change over time. Theories, on the other hand, are the product of the activity of the community of scholars, even though they may be strongly associated with ‘or have been originated by a specific individual. Although it may sometimes be of interest to trace how theorists change, the focus of this book is on theories rather than theorists. It is important to note that, although we have presented these differing conceptions of theory serially, they are frequently intermingled and linked to one another. Theories contest against and respond to one another. In addition, theories change and develop over time, frequently as a result of refinement and modification occasioned by criticisms from other theoretical perspectives. The way in which theories are contested and change over time is well illustrated in Part I of this volume (Chapters 2-4). In considering the key issue of power in urban communities, pluralist, elite and regime theorists have been prompted into refinements and reconsideration of their initial hypotheses by criticisms and counter-arguments made by their ‘com- petitors’, Each theory makes very different assumptions about the nature and meaning of power, and each claims to be ‘correct’ in its conceptualiz~ ation and measurement of power. In the process of questioning and criticism, inconsistencies or omissions have been discovered, commonalities identified, and refinements and modifications generated within and between the diverse theories. In other words, theories develop in response to other theories, they are not static. Moreover, different emphases and considerations emerge within theoretical positions over time, so that internal variation characterizes the major general theories. Hence, there is no single, homogeneous theory of ‘pluralism’, or ‘elites’, or ‘regimes’, or for that matter ‘Marxism’ or ‘feminism’: there are only theories. In whichUrban politics and theory 5 case it is of considerable importance to specify which variant is being considered at any particular time. ‘A classic example of theoretical contestation and development is provided in the ‘community power debate’ between pluralism and elite theory. As Judge notes in Chapter 2 the original urban pluralists - Dahl, Wolfinger and Polsby — sought to reject the elitist findings of Hunter’s study of Atlanta. What is common to all pluralist theories, therefore, is the rejection of the view that political power is highly stratified. Instead, they are agreed that power, and resultant inequalities within society, should be seen to be dispersed. This is often taken as a statement both that such dispersion is a fact — and one that can be empirically validated — and also as a prescription, as a desirable feature of a modern liberal democracy. However, beyond a basic set of claims about the decentralization of power, ‘pluralism’ rapidly fragments into a series of models or types of theory, where different ‘pluralisms’ are apparent in diferent cities at ‘different times. In part, this fragmentation is a response to comparative empirical investigations — across cities, countries and time — but, in large part it also results from counter-responses to these findings by other theories. It is important therefore to be clear about which ‘type’ of pluralism is being considered at what time. Thus as Chapter 2 makes clear we should speak of ‘hyper-’, ‘bounded’, or ‘neo-” pluralism and be sensitive to the spatial, temporal and socioeconomic contexts of each. Harding's chapter on elite theory ~ the contention that urban govern- ments are (or, in its normative version, should be) ruled by a relatively small number of people with like-minded, usually business, interests — similarly indicates the breadth and heterogeneity of elite theory. It also chronicles how lite theory has developed over time in response to empirical ‘testing’, and to criticism and ‘competition’ from other theories. From the starting point of Hunter’s reputational analysis of Atlanta ~ the first rigorous attempt at systematic quantitative and qualitative assessment of elite theory in an urban setting ~ clite theory had to respond to the pluralist criticism that Hunter’s commitment to the scientific method and empirical verification had been compromised because of the original ‘bias’ of his conceptualization of power. In other words, he was accused of taking for granted exactly what needed to be proved. In developing their own ‘decisional methodology’ pluralists maintained that theirs was truly an ‘empirical descriptive’ theory. Their focus was upon the exercise of power: it was a capacity, a form of control and its results were observable Yet, this assumption led to a counter attack by neo-clitists, most notably by Bachrach and Baratz, and thcir identification of a ‘second face’ of power, of ‘non-decisions’. As Harding points out, it rapidly became apparent in this debate that the competing sides were using different methodologies to answer different questions about how power was conceived and measured. While the contest between pluralists and elite theorists became even more abstruse, intense and parallel {in the sense that both sides talked past {pos Liat w alow’ Wer)6 Theories of Urban Politics each other, rather than engaging in a ‘debate’ about their commonalities and divergences), their arguments became more focused, in fact re-focused, by the theoretical challenge posed by neo-Marxism in the 1970s. As Pickvance notes in Chapter 13 Marxist studies of urban politics in th: decade highlighted the importance of class interests and the ‘systemi nature of the power of capital over local decision making. We will return to Marxist theory shortly, but its importance at this stage of the discussion is that it led both pluralists (in neo-pluralism) and elite theorists (in the literature on growth machines) to consider the wider socioeconomic and state contexts and constraints within which local decision makers had to operate. As pluralists and elite theorists responded respectively to neo-Marxist studies, so too a new ‘theoretical force’ - regime theory - emerged in the mid-1980s. Regime theory changes the focus of the pluralist-elitist debate from ‘social control’ or ‘power over’ to ‘social production’ or ‘power to’. It directs our attention away from the question of ‘who rules' to the question of how public purposes are accomplished and, in particular, to how long- term effective governing coalitions to achieve such purposes are con- structed and sustained. In addition to directing our attention to this phenomenon, regime theory provides a framework for examining it. Stoker's exposition of this new theory in Chapter 4 reveals clearly how it took on board the central tenets of neo-Marxist inspired studies of urban politics — that power should be conceptualized ‘systemically’, and that business exercises a privileged position in governmental decision making, but that, within those constraints, political institutions and actors could still exert influence through complex and interrelated networks. Com- plexity is thus seen to be at the heart of urban governance. In these “circumstances Stoker argues that regime theory ‘focuses on efforts to build more stable and intense relationships in order that governmental and non- governmental actors accomplish difficult and non-routine goals’. Ultimately though this is a diffuse focus, with regime theorists themselves acknowledging commonalities with some variants of pluralist theories. Equally there are some similarities with neo-elite theory, and certainly neo- Marxism informs a significant part of ‘regime theory’. Nonetheless, Stoker argues that regime theory is conceptually distinct from its ‘competitors’. As a relatively new theory it is still evolving, and in its infancy it has suffered, in Stoker's words, from ‘the tendency of most of its main propositions to emerge inductively from observation of the urban scene’. Yet Stoker is confident that regime theory has established a new agenda for researchers. Exactly how that agenda will unfold remains uncertain, but a large part of it will be concerned with delimiting the ‘distinctiveness’ of regime theory from other theoretical perspectives on urban power. ‘Democracy’ is a general theme underpinning the chapters in Part II, and provides an analytical thread linking them together. In Chapter 5 Jones considers the problem of how non-elected bureaucrats can be subjected to effective control in urban political systems, a fundamentalUrban politics and theory 7 problem of modern democratic theory. He starts from an assessment of the deficiencies of existing models of ‘overhead democracy’ - that is, voters elect public officials who reflect the public will by enacting policies and hiring bureaucrats to implement them, Democratic control of the bureaucracy is thus effected through control of bureaucrats by local elected officials, But Jones argues that empirical studies of implementation and principal-agent relations do not support the idea of popular control through elected representatives. This then raises the question of ‘who controls’ the bureaucracy, and leads Jones to seek the answer in terms of “who benefits’ and a recognition that who benefits is time dependent. From this perspective he proceeds to sketch out an alternative approach based upon the different incentives that may be generated from different institutional designs for the delivery of services. In this approach the contingency of control, particularly the contingency of time, is recognized: ‘Because of the complex interactions between goals, means, and insti- tutions, particular controls over public agencies are highly time- contingent’, Thus, in highlighting the inadequacies of the existing model of ‘overhead democracy’, Jones outlines an analytical model designed to discover how incentive structures can be modified ‘to encourage bureau- crats to adapt to proper objectives’. At this juncture Jones’s chapter reveals both its prescriptive nature and its contribution to theorizing (as a process of conceptualization). In Chapter 5 Stone examines the nature of democratic political leadership in an urban context. He makes it clear that there is no well developed theory of political leadership. His purpose therefore is to define the concept of ‘leadership’ and to identify the challenge of leadership in the urban arena. In examining the careers of four prominent mayors in the United States, Stone uses these observations to construct hypotheses about how to measure leadership performance. Then, in an attempt to discover what American experience can teach us about urban leadership more generally, he contrasts leadership styles in the US with those in the United Kingdom. In this process, Stone specifies the relationships between political variables and provides the necessary insights to understand those connections. In contrast, Keating’s attention in Chapter 7 is upon competing theories that underlie debate about the most appropriate size for municipalities and the most appropriate organization for metropolitan areas. Public choice theory views municipalities as producers of local goods and services and individuals as consumers paying for these local products through the tax system, The metropolitan area is thus viewed as a market analogue with municipalities competing with each other by offering varying mixes of services at different (tax) prices and individuals choosing the tax/service package they prefer by moving to the locality that offers it (voting with their feet). As in product markets, efficiency is enhanced by large numbers of producers competing with one another; thus a fragmented system of local government in metropolitan areas, consisting of large numbers of8 Theories of Urban Politics small municipalities, is said to promote efficiency. Consolidationists, on the other hand, argue a more diffuse case. Their emphasis is on economies of scale as a promoter of efficiency. In addition, they contend that large, consolidated units are more efficient since they can bring about better coordination of activities. They are also better able to engage in redistribution. Consequently, consolidationists advocate large units of government, preferably at the metropolitan scale. In analysing the issues of principle that have divided ‘consolidationists’ from public choice theorists Keating illuminates the normative dimensions of this debate. Indeed, like so many other debates in urban politics it is one often driven by ideology, ‘interest’ and value judgements. Keating is particularly critical of public choice theory for attempting to conceal its normative principles behind deductive principles. Overall his conclusion is that theories about the size and efficiency of local government cannot be separated from broader political and value judgements. Wolman’s examination of local government institutions and democratic governance in Chapter 8 reveals both the normative and empirical dimensions of the debate. Wolman’s concern with institutional structure includes not only the internal arrangements of local government, but also informal norms, roles, relationships and operating practices that are so stable, structured and accepted that they can be said to be ‘insti tutionalized’. He notes that institutional structure is important because it is the vehicle through which the basic purposes and values a society wishes to pursue through local government are carried out. Accordingly, Wolman begins by setting forth and contrasting the fundamental values that underlie local government in the United States (a sometimes contrasting mix of participation, representation and economy and efficiency) and Britain (efficiency in local service delivery) and the way in which local government structure in each country reflects these values. He then asks whether local government structure in each country docs, in fact, promote the intended values — that is, does structure matter in that it produces intended results? Wolman reviews both the political and academic debate related to structure and its impact in both the US and Britain, including empirical research that sheds light on this debate in both countries, He concludes that the traditional debate has reached a dead end in both countries and that the recent change in focus from more formal insti- tutional structure to institutional norms underpinning local government activity is likely to be more productive. Part III is concerned with the role of citizens in urban politics. In Chapter 9, Lowndes provides an overview of the treatment of citizenship in urban debate. She notes citizenship has a long association with the city. The urban setting has been seen as an appropriate locus for the exercise of the rights and duties of citizenship. The debate is brought up to date and is seen by Lowndes to underlie a number of the current reforms and debates about the future of urban government. In Chapter 10 Fainstein and Hirst address urban social movements,Urban politics and theory 9 which they define as a new category of social movement (collective social actors defined by both their organization and aims) differing from traditional social movements in their non-class basis, operation outside the realm 6f production, and participatory ethos. As previously discussed, a concern with urban social movements is a contribution to urban theory in that it identifies specific features of reality that are worthy of attention ~ of being in the foreground of analysis; and raises questions about why, and with what effect, these aspects have been differentiated from the background of other experiences. Thus Fainstein and Hirst point out that before the urban protests and civil disturbances of the 1960s and early 1970s, urban scholars had a largely non-conflictual view of city life. However, changes in the political terrain of American and European cities from the 1960s onwards, and the emergence of urban social movements, led to a questioning of these dominant theories of urban politics. Chapter 10 is important therefore in noting that the existence of urban social movements ‘challenged the carlier preoccupation with decision making at the top, forced recognition of social divisions resulting from other bases of solidarity besides class, and broadened the definition of urban politics to include interactions within the realm of civil society that were not necessarily tied to the state’. Moreover, in reviewing recent developments in the theorization of urban social movements, Fainstein and Hirst make clear the necessity of understanding the relationship between these movements and the sociopolitical framework within which they operate. A particularly striking example of how theories sclectively “foreground” some concepts rather than others is provided in Chapter 11. There Clarke, Staeheli and Brunell argue for a more gendered perspective on urban politics. They contend that a feminist perspective contributes to urban analysis in three significant ways: first, by providing an epistemological critique of existing gendered, analytical frameworks; second, by contributing to the theoretical debate on gendered local restructuring processes; and third, by providing a normative perspective on urban governance and citizenship. Clarke and her colleagues argue that, in the absence of a feminist perspective, urban scholars construct a view of localities that is partial and misleading. By looking at localities through a “feminist lens’ their intention is to ‘bring into focus a number of features neglected by other perspectives’. In calling for gender to be taken seriously in urban research they also highlight the need to develop more historically and empirically grounded feminist theories of ‘interest’, and for a recognition of the importance of contextual variables (especially changes in political opportunity structures) in feminist analyses. More particularly, they call for an enlarged research agenda; one that will ‘require rethinking of existing theories in terms of their sensitivity to gender relations and then attempting to disaggregate analytical categories by gender’ Part IV is concerned with the economic and political framework in which urban politics takes place. In Chapter 12 Goldsmith examines the political and economic limits to local autonomy. He establishes a typology10 Theories of Urban Politics in which countries can be placed and then reviews the available evidence to see how far the typology is supported. He concludes that ‘there is pressure on local autonomy in many political systems today’. In Chapter 13 Pickvance provides a good example both of how theories choose to foreground some concepts rather than others, so identifying new issues for analysis, and of the conceptual diversity to be found within some theories. Marxist and neo-Marxist theories are essentially deductive theories in that they start from the premise that the mode of production basically determines the nature of social and political relations within a capitalist state and that the state, in capitalist systems, supports the interests of capital. Pickvance states that Marxist theories of urban politics view urban political institutions as part of the state apparatus and hence are inescapably marked by the role which the state plays in capitalist society. Linked to this premise is a rejection of the basic tenets of most other theories on urban politics. Hence, Marxists argue that non-Marxist theories are ‘biased’ in favour of western capitalism in their choice of which questions are deemed to be of importance in the first instance and how then to test for that importance. Indeed one characteristic feature of Marxist theories is a general dismissal of rival theories in favour of the ‘scientific’ methodology of historical materialism. However, if there is agreement about what Marxist theory is not there is considerable disputation, even among Marxists, as to what if is. Pickvance reveals these differences by distinguishing between ‘instrumentalist’ theorists, those who see the state as a class instrument, and ‘structural- ists’, those who are willing to concede some relative autonomy to the state. In outlining and reviewing Marxist writings on urban politics Pickvance examines the respective influence of instrumentalist and structuralist analyses in this field. He also maps out the scope and levels of external criticisms — revolving around the concepts of ‘class’, ‘class reductionism’, and ‘class conflict’ — and concludes that ‘the argument that the local state is capitalist remains no more than a theoretical assertion’. Nonetheless, Pickvance credits Marxist theories with drawing attention to the significant roles played by economic and class interests in the formation of urban policies. In doing so they have impacted upon other theories - most notably pluralism, elite theory and regime theory — causing them to address central issues about systemic power and the relationship between economic forces and political action. Certainly, Pickvance is correct in his conclusion that Marxist theories have ‘widened the questions asked and suggested new explanations’. Equally, they have generated a series of conceptual and methodological controversies along the way. In Chapter 14 Painter addresses regulation theory. One of the new questions posed by Marxist theorists in the 1970s was how and why had capitalism survived over time and across space? The answers were sketched out by Marxist economists in what was to become ‘regulation theory’. The prime concern of this variant of Marxist theory was with the explanation of economic change and development. Political institutions, structures andUrban politics and theory nl practices were undoubtedly part of the explanation but not the central focus of the theory itself. Indeed, the primary concern of most regu- lationist writers remains the regulation of the economy rather than a conceptualization of the role of the state. Where the regulationist approach has been applied to urban politics it tends to draw an analogy between the organization of the process of production (‘Fordist’ or ‘post- Fordist’) and the organization of local government institutions and the manner in which local services are provided (centralized/bureaucratic or decentralized/non-hierarchical). The labour process within local govern- ment is thus seen to be of central significance, with some ‘regulationists’ arguing that information technology has affected both state production processes and the nature of collective provision of local welfare services However, as Painter observes there is no single and unified regulation theory. Further it is only within the past decade that the concepts of regulation theory and post-Fordism have been applied to the ficld of urban politics. Attempts to operationalize these theories have at best been sporadic and far from systematic. In these circumstances Painter calls for greater refinement of the concepts associated with regulation theory, for more empirical testing, and for more comparative studies to be undertaken at the urban level. ‘Theories in comparative perspective In this book we are concerned primarily with urban theories that have currency in the United States and/or Britain (although many of the theories have relevance in — indeed, in some cases, may have originated in ~ other countries). Within this context it is as well to ask the question of how generalizable are these theories across countries — that is, how well do these theories travel? Clearly theories that are pitched at a high level of generality — macro level theories ~ such as those concerned with the relations of capital and the state, local autonomy or who rules, are likely to be of relevance in most countries, at least in terms of the questions they pose. However, theories that focus attention on behavioural phenomena that may not exist to the same degree in all countries — urban, growth machines, regime theory, urban social movements ~ or exist in insti- tutional contexts that differ substantially ~ urban leadership, bureaucratic ‘Control — may be inore or less relevant across countries. Empirically based theories explaining relationships or phenomena must, of course, be tested in each country (even though theories may posit an invariant relationship across all countries); pluralism, for example, may characterize urban political systems in one country, while elitism does so in another. Throughout this book readers should be alert to the potential applicability of the various theories not only in their own country but also in a comparative context. It may also be helpful if readers note certain fundamental differences2 Theories of Urban Politics between the urban government systems of Britain and the United States. These differences are explored in various chapters throughout the book and in some instances — notably the chapters by Goldsmith, Keating and Pickvance ~ the comparative analysis moves farther afield. By way of an introductory orientation certain fundamental contextual differences between Britain and the United States can be identified: © Differences in governmental structure that result in a greater emphasis, ‘on spatial politics in the United States and party politics in Britain, The federal structure of the United States means that urban governments are in effect creatures of state governments. Party conflict and partisanship are central to the unitary British system. The weaker party politics of the United States creates greater scope for a local politics. ©. The more direct role of central government in Britain (and greater local autonomy in the United States) provides less scope for British local governments to engage in activity of their own choosing but a greater * central government interest in local services and policies. © A much more fragmented local government structure in the United States that encourages economic competition among localities. The US system is incredibly more complex. There are some 80,000 local government agencies in the United States, approximately 200 times more agencies than there are elected local authorities in Britain. © The lack of a focused local executive in Britain compared with the United States where the elected mayor, or in some instances the city manager, has a prominent role in urban politics. © A local fiscal structure in Britain that substantially reduces incentives for local governments to compete against each other's tax base. The British system retains a strong emphasis on resource equalization with funding being brought into line between richer and poorer localities. The contrast with the US system is clear where the heavy reliance on local property-based taxes creates a considerable incentive to attract businesses to sustain the tax base of local government. Cross-national research requires conceptual and theoretical rigour if comparison is to advance beyond description into the realm of expla- nation. This book, by reviewing various theories and examining their, application on both sides of the Atlantic, aims to make a modest contribution to the development of cross-national urban research. In effect it is a ground-clearing exercise to enable a serious assessment of the conceptual foundations that might be available for the comparative study of urban politics.