| Abstract: | The existing urban politics literature is insufficient in explaining why redistributional policymaking flourishes in some contexts and not in others. This article attempts to move beyond the structure versus agency dichotomy and uses a close comparison of the living wage movements in Chicago and San Francisco, not only to argue that “history matters,” but to illustrate how historical narratives are actively (re)constructed by social actors to further their agenda(s). Although each city started with similar campaigns to enact basic “contractor‐only” forms of living wage laws, by the end of a 10‐year period the resulting level of change in San Francisco stood in stark contrast to Chicago, where advocates failed to extend the living wage to “big box” retailers. Using a brief history of economic restructuring and an empirical assessment of the business climate valence of each city's political regime, this article finds that economic and political factors jointly structure the depth and pace of policy change by setting the terms of debate within redistributional policy discourses. This joint determination occurs because “problem frames” are path‐dependent and because inherited political structures, such as the availability of binding referendum, allocate agenda‐setting power and opportunities to challenge entrenched interests. |
