GY302 LT1
Differences between politics, policy and theory?
Politics — set of beliefs in governing the nation/locality
Politics direct theory and policy, and policy is influenced by theory as well but tailored specifically to
context
Major differences between SG and London
The city is the nation, so centrally organised and decisions come from the ministry and statutory
boards in line with the city’s direction and future plans.
Master Plans — 5, 10 and 15 years, so very visionary. with concrete plans
Big role of government in providing housing 82% of residents
Businesses have less sway, the government decides specifically, to the exact detail, land zoning.
Bottom-up approach in US more prevalent than in UK - spatial organisation of gov systems
SCALE: 80,000 local gov units in US (counties, townships, communities, neighbourhoods) > 400
UK
More focused on managerial system? Neo-liberal influence, more efficient with direct contact with
habitants
US: Cities relation to state, not the fed
• Johnson Administration 1963-69: highpoint of democrats hey day (anti-poverty, welfare state)
increased federal intervention in cities (some bypassing state gov)
1970 retreat of fed from intervention and funding (quantitative and qualitative retreat)
UK: Cities and localities strongly regulated by central gov
• Community Partnerships, NHC influenced by central gov direction
Specific policy roles?
• Many shared functions between city and local gov - basic ‘everyday life’ services like roads,
paving etc.
• But diff cities in US have diff policy ‘portfolios’
• UK: local gov as delivery mechanisms for services associated with welfare state. Stronger
urban planning emphasis than US
• Responsibility of econ growth and place promotion, city marketing, some funding from
the state
• Germany: education is a state affair
Fragmentation:
Urban function areas vs. proliferation of jurisdictions (suburbanisation, special purpose districts)
• City gov and very complex, independent (don’t pay taxes to city gov) suburban governments
• Franklin, Columbus
Mechanisms of annexations (easier in some states e.g. Texas - city can annex suburbs so that
central city can grow etc., than others - their central city cannot grow, find other solutions for socio-
economic problems, e.g. gentrification)
Debates about metropolitan government, easier in relation to some functions then others
Finance:
Greater autonomy of US city gov in terms of finance (can issue bonds to raise money for mega
events or spectacles), but greater potential for problems (using financial instruments —> debt)
UK more redistributive than US, the financial activity in UK are constrained so more difficult to get
in to shit
,US federal system will not bail them out, political, ideological diff in attitudes towards Federal aid,
taxes, welfare — difficult to raise taxes in US
Role of political parties + organised interests
More entrenched role of parties in US in 19th century because of lack of bureaucracy - ‘machine
politics’ — links city gov to wards
After that 20th century, reforms and nonpartisan mechanisms — nonpartisan councils, city
managers, at-large elections and secret ballots, bureaucracy
British parties more cohesive (esp at national level), reinforced by central-local rships
Ideological diff: absence, weakness, socialism/social democracy in US —> conditions policy
orientation of cities
Different roles of business and other interests
Diff histories and concerns surrounding race and immigration
Crisis of Local Government in Great Britain: An Interpretation
Pickvance, 199
‘Urban crisis’ used on events: US urban riots 1960s, fiscal crises in US cities 1970s, France 1968
revolt — termed as such because they occurred in cities
But processes that cause urban problems occur in non-urban areas too e.g. congestion and spill
over urban-rural divide
Urban definitions? Can refer to local political process, spatial proximity, collective consumption
(Castells, 1977)
Britain crisis of local government — involves crisis of collective consumption, pop and employment
loss
• Inverse rship between settlement size and pop growth rate between 1971-81.
• Greater London lost 10% of its population —> move to accessible rural areas
Local gov responsibilities: police, roads, fire services, refuse collection, town planning, education,
council housing, social services — 24% of gov spending
• Territorial equality of service provision and tax burden controversies
Elections contested by national political parties, no partisan appointments of local gov officials by
incoming parties
Resistant to public pressure (unlike in US)
Get money from gov grants, rents, fees, charges for services — distribution depends on avail
resources, level of needs, costs
Structure:
England and Wales higher-tier councils cover whole conurbation and nonmetropolitan counties.
Lower-Tier (district/borough) cover smaller units
Attempts to control gov spending: 1970s + Thatcher era
Cut funding, house building (affected nonunion employees of private building firms)
Easier to cut future spending than current (less protest)
Privatisation of services, tenants forced to buy council houses
Affected high needs, low wealth councils more
1980: Local Gov Planning and Land Act
1. Impose penalties (reduced grants) on councils whose spending exceeded targets set by central
gov
, i. And those who receive max penalty = no more grants, they raised rent
2. Control capital spending by stipulating that authorisation is needed
CHALLENGE OF FREEDOM!
Conservative councils were not affected by cuts at first (they traditionally spend less) and labour
councils were penalised for traditionally higher spending (clearly taking more conservative sides)
Conservative national power
Responses:
Extensive lobbying
No challenge to change local gov responsibilities — only increase of private ownership of homes
(‘right-to-buy’ act)
Use of legal cases to claim gov acted unlawfully — not v successful because legislation mostly
permissive, not vulnerable to legal challenges
• Individuals against councils that they failed statutory responsibilities
• Councils against central gov illegally forcing spending cuts
Liverpool’s 1984 rebellion — to adhere to gov target: triple rates or cut 5000 jobs so defiance but
eventually, council increased rate by 17%, central gov still gave grants
• Only successful because of council’s determination and unity (Militant group) and close
integration of Labour party and public trade sector unions.
Dundee rebellion: opposed sale of council houses, campaigned with unions
But few rebellions because of embedded respect for the law and lack of unity among Labour
councillors + trade union + community to rebel
Exploration of legal loopholes — avoid spending controls by using reserve funds etc.
Effects of spending cuts on Employment and Services
Reduction in quantity, quality of provision, higher charges
• Council house completions fell 57%, state of repair of homes declined, rents increased
• Education: range of subjects taught declined, books and equipment low supply, school
buildings in disrepair. Parents have to raise funds for essentials, volunteer (promotion of
parents as social capital)
• Cuts in residential homes for children and elderly (bigger burden on relatives and double
burden of women)
Council employment fell — mainly manual jobs (but some pleased to work under worse
conditions), except police, social services, recreation, part-time jobs replaced many full-time ones
—> industrial conflicts, strikes
Increase rates? The act allowed gov to influence rates, councils have to consult before rate setting
Business ratepayers object because profits reduced, threatens employment — ‘taxation without
representation’ because they don't have voting power unlike residents (but they still have power
through strings + involving biz priorities into civic initiatives for local econ dev)
But much council spending supports biz interests (building BTMICE facilities)
GLC incurred maximum penalty for overspending yet could use rates to cover — ineffectiveness of
penalty system in preventing overspending
• Reduced public transport fares, redistributive mechanism but obliged to raise fares and had an
appointed board reporting to central gov
Link between Econ Crisis & Local Gov Crisis
UK local gov accounts for nearly 25% of all gov spending so effect of national economic crisis swill
affect local gov greatly
But buffered because they get grants instead of only from rent (US more affected by fiscal crisis
because greater autonomy + UK can deflect financial pressures onto central gov and ratepayers
because of power o local gov)
, Ideologies about public spending and welfare state: neoliberal ideas so decline in local gov
spending
Concept of local autonomy:
1. Local gov freedom to set level of income
2. Proportion of income raised locally
3. Freedom to spend as it chooses
US local gov have stricter control over their power to raise income and little diff in proportion of
income raised locally compared to UK
Possible to say that UK has more local autonomy than US — UK still set rents, can spend freely
even with central funding
Social forces affecting local gov resistance of financial pressures
Castells: expansion of collective consumption —> new sphere of politicisation and social protest
Urban movements link up with political parties or unions to challenge but largely movements have
failed
Lack of consumer protest about service cuts — centralised tradition of provision, consumer has no
rights, cannot participate in decision making. Also stigma to receiving services, if they cannot
provide, they shouldn’t complain about
Local gov prevent protests about spending cuts by blaming central gov for lack of autonomy
Also cuts affect handicapped and infirm (less power), form of cuts have been small, gradual and on
future spending, also possibility of exit to private provision
Comparative urban politics : power and the city in the United States, Canada, Britain, and
France
Stone’s idea of urban regimes that compare cities within the US — looks at power and the city,
beyond gov institutions and economic determinism
Keating uses it to compare national systems of local gov — diff in political culture, structure and
choice
Governing capacity of local political arrangements — ability of elected councils to manage social
and economic change
• the ability to formate policies, mobilise powers and resources
Openness of local political arrangements to social and political interests, esp interetes of
disadvantaged
Governing capacity affected by political, economic, cultural, environmental factors
Politics of redistribution, opportunities, promotion of economic development are used to test gov
capacity of the systems
Mechanisms for redistribution mostly limited to local taxes and hiring policies (Keating is not aware,
Elgar, 1991)
Local gov capacity to influence, direct, local economy is very limited, and increases in economic
activities generated locally cannot be captured for local purposes
Wrong view that autonomy and independence have eclipsed the global economy
Peterson, 1981: growth is an imperative that strictly constrains the room for local politics
Rational-choice theorists and the reformers—
aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making
their individual decisions.
rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and
potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the
self-determined best choice of action.
