*****
![]() |
Jack Lucas
|
Urban
political authority is complicated. To explain who governs our cities, we first
need to acknowledge that our answers will vary across time: a city that looks like a beacon of pluralism today may have
been governed by a closed elite only a few decades ago. We also need to
acknowledge that political authority varies across cities: take a snapshot of North American urban governance at any
point in history and you will find a range of political institutions, embodying
widely varying authority structures, in different cities across the continent.
Even within our cities, political
authority varies across policy domains; authority structures in education, for
instance, might look very different from those in policing or public works.
How
can we compare and explain long-term patterns of urban political authority
without getting lost in this complexity? In my article, I suggest that the
“American Political Development” approach, or “APD”, can help us answer this
question. For more than three decades, scholars in the APD tradition have been
working to explain the historical development of political authority within and
across the American state. They, too, have discovered that political authority
is complicated, varying not only across space and time but also across
different parts of the American state itself. To capture this complexity, APD
scholars have suggested a concept – “intercurrence” – to describe the way our
snapshots of particular states or time periods always capture multiple forms of
political authority within a single frame.
“Intercurrence”
thus gives us a concept with which to describe the complexity that we find in
our cities. But APD also gives us the tools to explore how intercurrence really
works, a method that is focused on tracking concrete changes to governing
structures. In my article, I seek to demonstrate the promise of this approach
by describing long-term changes to concrete institutional structures in five
policy domains – schools, public health, policing, transit, and water – across
six Canadian cities. By tracking these insitutional structures, I suggest, we
see not only that urban governance is indeed characterized by “intercurrence,”
but we also discover the important patterns of political authority, across
cities, policy domains, and time, that scholars of urban governance need to
explain.
What
makes the APD approach so useful, I think, is that it gives us an organizing
concept, intercurrence, with which to characterize the complexity of urban
governance, as well as an approach, focused on concrete governing structures,
that allows us to identify patterns of authority in an empirically tractable
way. Like many others, I believe that scholarship on urban governance and urban
political authority has much to gain from long-term comparative analysis,
provided we can find a way to capture the complexity that we will inevitably uncover.
The American Political Development approach, suitably extended both to the
urban scale and to the international context, provides some of the tools that
we will need to do this work successfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments to the Urban Affairs Review blog. If you have particular questions about publishing in Urban Affairs Review or questions for the editors, please email urban.affairs.review@gmail.com directly.
Thank you.