[English] “Regime Concept” and City

Source: Judge, D., Stoker, G., & Wolman, H. (Eds.). (1995). Theories of Urban Politics. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Chapter 4 – Regime Theory

RETHINKING URBAN ELEMENTS IN TERMS OF THE “REGIME” CONCEPT

Regime theory has come to the fore in urban politics studies since the mid-1980s. It is newer and less developed than pluralism or elite theory. It lacks the scope of empirical studies.

In the context of regime theory in urban politics, the regime refers to a coalition or network of actors, both governmental and non-governmental.

Elkin states that:

“The ownership of productive assets in the city has largely passed into private hands. While public authorities should scrutinize this situation carefully, they approach the situation with the concern for votes”.

Regime Theory

In the context of regime theory, the term “Systemic Power” comes to the fore. This concept relates to the influence of the wider socioeconomic system on the predispositions of public officials.

The founding premise of regime theory is that urban decision-makers have relative autonomy.

Regime theorists argue that the organization of politics leads to very inefficient forms of popular control. That makes government less responsive to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

Elkin argues that urban politics is also weakened by failures in social intelligence.

Regime theory is the opposite of hyper-pluralism. Regime theory is concerned with how the capacity to govern can emerge within a political system. That should be considered in the midst of diversity and complexity.

It can be said that the salient question of regime theory is “What is the impact of social complexity on politics?”.

According to Stone, “complexity is central to the regime perspective.” Institutions and actors are in a highly complex web of relationships.

Politics in complex cities is about establishing overarching priorities. It is a question of how to get different elements to cooperate.

Stone emphasizes that “to be effective, governments must support their capacity with non-governmental actors.”

Network

Regime analysts emphasize the concept of “network”. In this model, organizations learn to cooperate by recognizing their interdependence.

Stone states that “power is a matter of social production rather than social control”.

In contrast to the proponents of elite theory, regime theory argues different idea. Namely, the capacity of any one group to control in a complex world is low and unlikely.

“The power to rule does not come with electoral victory,” Stone writes. US-based theorists consider two groups as key players: 1- Elected officials 2- Business

The theory has been criticized for its empirical weakness. Theorists speak of the danger of the “localist trap”.

For regime theory to gain a universal identity, it needs to develop and have a deep-rooted accumulation.

Attorney Semih TEMİZER