REGIME ANALYSIS AND THE STUDY OF URBAN POLITICS,A Rejoinder

Bringing together various criticisms of regime theory, David Imbroscio centers his argument on the need to rethink the division of labor between state and market. Though it has long been recognized that the business sector, through such means as public/private partnerships and “independent” redevelopment agencies, can capture control of significant instruments of governmental authority, Imbroscio points usefully to the possibility of movement in the opposite direction, the possibility of direct government involvement in investment activity. Moreover, he suggests, the governmental sector might tilt toward smaller enterprises over large corporations and might also encourage greater use of the nonprofit sector in economic production. As a policy strategy, he urges attention to the accumulation process rather than issues of what I call “opportunity expansion.” With the economic life of the community less in the hands of corporate business, Imbroscio argues, popular participation would gain a greater voice and local democracy would be served thereby. This is a thought-provoking line of argument, and I welcome the chance to comment on it and, at the same time, clarify some issues surrounding the analysis of urban regimes. Since some of the ground on which Imbroscio builds his argument is implicit, this exchange can serve to make theoretical alternatives more explicit. What is at issue may be less a matter of differing policy recommendations than of differing foundations on which recommendations are built.