Search results

The article analyzes the images of the Irkutsk city center in the memories of the representatives of two marginal groups — street children and venders, who lived and worked there from 1999 to 2006, as well as its mo dern images in the public statements of the urban elites. The aim of the study is to identify the functions that the city center performed during the years of deep social transformations and to reveal why today one wants to forget about it as soon as possible. The author argues that the places mentioned by the respondents and the actions performed in those places largely shaped the current ideas about the period of social chaos in the "post-Soviet" city — a period of uncertainty, violence and fear. Today, these places and functions are mostly memories, which are gradually being replaced by the simplified and emotionally rich myths about the past that are being broadcast by the urban political regimes. The latter displace marginal groups from the center and change the places they previously occupied, simultaneously altering the collective memory associated with these places. The article puts forward and justifies a hypothesis that starting from the mid-1990s and almost until the end of the 2000s these territories were used by the majority of citizens as an extra-institutional interface necessary for connecting to the city resource node. This function has become the primary cause of fierce conflicts, during which numerous enforcers tried to establish a monopoly on the collection of rents from the human and resource flows concentrated there. The image of the center as a deviant place was constructed simultaneously by the urban regimes and marginal groups: the former used it as a weapon in the struggle for the "right to the city," the latter associated it with the collective trauma they had experienced.

Mit den "Regimen urbaner Resilienz" wird eine empirische Forschungsperspektive vorgestellt, die die Auswirkungen verschiedener sozialräumlicher Krisen in belasteten Stadtbezirken untersucht und sie als relationale, vielschichtige und flüchtige Formen der Dominanz beschreibbar macht. Als Fallbeispiel dient in diesem Beitrag der Berliner Bezirk Marzahn-Hellersdorf.

This article examines the history of the use of regimes in urban politics. It argues the highlight is Stone's Regime politics because he uses the concept of regime to answer a specific problem – why did politicians with different electoral bases of support create similar governing coalitions? Stone's answer acknowledges the need for the 'capacity to act' within structures of power. Broadening the account to different types of regime makes analysis more descriptive and less explanatory. But rather than dismissing broader accounts, it is better to unpick the components underlying different regime forms to understand the capacity to act in different contexts. Here we find that factors which go into explaining collective action provide the foundations for regime analysis.Cet article étudie, dans une perspective historique, l'application du concept de 'régime' en politique urbaine. Il présente Regime politics de Stone comme l'ouvrage‐clé, son auteur employant le concept de régime pour résoudre un problème particulier – pourquoi les politiciens issus de bases électorales différentes créent‐ils, pour diriger, des coalitions similaires? La réponse de Stone admet la nécessité de la 'capacité d'agir' au sein des structures de pouvoir. Élargir le propos à divers types de régime rend l'analyse plus descriptive, quoique moins explicative. Toutefois, plutôt que d'écarter une généralisation, il vaut mieux négliger les éléments qui sous‐tendent diverses formes de gouvernement afin d'appréhender la capacité d'agir dans des contextes variés. C'est ainsi que l'on peut identifier des facteurs qui, tout en entrant dans l'explication de l'action collective, fournissent les bases pour une analyse des régimes.

The authors suggest how regime politics is influenced in systematic ways by particular kinds of bargaining environments. They describe a theoretical framework designed to examine the interplay of local democratic development, market environments, and intergovernmental networks on regime dynamics in eight cities in Western Europe and the United States since the 1970s. The authors explain how structural forces influence critical aspects of local regimes, particularly their governing coalitions, means of public-private coordination, and prevailing policy agendas on economic development.

Why has the Chinese regime been resilient in the most populous country in the world? Based on survey data collected from five large Chinese cities, this study finds that a majority of Chinese urban residents show a certain degree of support for the current political regime and do not favor fundamental regime change. This diffuse regime support is largely determined by satisfaction with government performance in a number of policy areas that affect people's daily lives.

"Der Ansatz der urbanen Regime ist ein prominentes Forschungsparadigma der lokalen Politikforschung, insbesondere in der angloamerikanischen Tradition. Unter dem Oberbegriff der Governance geht es um die Beziehungen zwischen öffentlichen und privaten Akteuren in den Städten, somit um die Konsensfindung über die gemeinsam zu erreichenden Ziele bzw. Agenden. Die deutsche lokale Politikforschung konzentrierte sich bislang stark auf die öffentliche Verwaltung als Untersuchungsfeld. Diese Schwerpunktsetzung steht im Zusammenhang mit der vergleichsweise hohen Autonomie der öffentlichen Verwaltung in Deutschland. Demgegenüber stehen Allianzen zwischen verschiedenen Gruppen öffentlicher und privater Akteure im Zentrum des Ansatzes der urbanen Regime. Die institutionelle Einbettung der Akteure auf lokaler und supralokaler Ebene und deren dadurch strukturierte Handlungsräume werden allerdings in diesem Ansatz bislang nur unzureichend thematisiert. Gerade bei international vergleichenden Analysen kann dies durch die Kombination mit neo-institutionalistischen Ansätzen gewährleistet werden." (Autorenreferat)

Urban regime theory has shaped the urban politics research agenda in the United States for the past two decades. The article argues that urban regime theory draws on public and corporate behavior and strategies that were typical to the industrial era in the United States. As a result, the theory is insensitive to changes in institutional hierarchies, economic globalization, and the emergence of new types of actors and issues in urban politics. Urban governance theory conceptualizes agency more generically that allows the theory to travel better than urban regime theory in time and space.

The relative hegemony of land rentiers and real estate developers over the process of urban socio-economic reproduction is a defining characteristic of the "collusive regime" of Rome. Through the analysis of a case study, we tried to establish if the realisation of Urban Development Projects in this regime favours the unequal distribution of the benefits deriving from urban development. Applying a neo-Gramscian lens to urban political economy, we identified an interpretative model for explaining the role of UDPs in the urban regime of Rome. First, UDPs are suitable occasions for realising accumulation strategies based on the capture of rent gaps and the valorisation of urban assets. Second, the actors involved in UDPs mobilise ideational and material resources for gathering consensus for a project, that rewards their specific interests, by framing their investment as the best solution for localised collective needs. UDPs in Rome, therefore, facilitate the concentration of benefits and the generalisation of costs of urban development. Our research contributes to the understanding of Rome's fragile trajectory of growth and offers insights on the mechanisms reinforcing unequal urban development.