The Atlanta Experience Re‐examined: The Link Between Agenda and Regime Change

Abstract

In recent years, Atlanta appears unable to move from diffuse problem recognition to the framing of a broad program of action, despite major problems associated with a high level of poverty. With its exceptionally fragmented structure of local government, a tradition of business wariness of a strong governmental sector, and continued reliance on personal and informal collaboration, the city has failed to put together a plan to address the city's social-investment needs. Atlanta's once-vaunted biracial coalition shows signs of a declining ability to adapt to emergent issues and frame purposes accordingly. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001.

The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis

“…It would also be concerned with economic growth, given the prediction in regime theory that the preferences of business elites will tend to be prioritised in the urban policy agenda. Finally, processes of regime governance would create governing synergy, allowing for the possibility of successful governance where there would otherwise be conflict or inertia (see Stone, 2001 for a similar list of regime characteristics).…”

“…It is now an umbrella term understood as the 'promotion of the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area' (LGA, April 1998). The research therefore examined a range of partnership activities in the spheres of education, a special interest of Stone (1998Stone ( , 2001, economic development and place-marketing. It became clear that a loose distinction between 'policy' and 'implementation' partnerships would be useful (see Skelcher et al, 1996: 5 for a similar distinction).…”

Zwischenstadtland Schweiz. Zur politischen Steuerung der suburbanen Entwicklung in Schweizer Gemeinden

“…Imbroscio , 2003Jessop 1997;Lauria 1999;Stone 1998;Strom 2001;Davies 2003;Stone 2004Stone , 2005. Gleichzeitig bleibt gemäß Pierre (1999Pierre ( , 2005 (Stone 1989(Stone , 2001, Detroit (Orr und Stoker 1994), Portland (Leo 1998), Chicago (Hamilton 2002) oder Phoenix (Collins 2008) analysiert. In Europa untersuchte man unter anderem London (Dowding et al 1999), Birmingham und Sheffield (DiGaetano und Lawless 1999), Zürich (Crivelli und Dlabac 2004;Devecchi 2010Devecchi , 2012, Berlin (Strom 2001) sowie die Stadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg (Kleger 1996 Pierre (2011Pierre ( , 1999 zu einem wichtigen Teil verantwortlich gemacht werden können für die vorhandenen Ressourcen und Kapazitäten lokaler Regierungen, und staatliche Akteurinnen und Akteure -entgegen der Darstellung von Governance ohne Government (Rhodes 1997) -zentral bleiben , Pierre 2011.…”

Leximin

“…Clarence Stone (1989) defines an urban regime as "the informal arrangements by which public bodies and private interests function together in order to be able to make and carry out governing decisions." These governing decisions are not a matter of control, but of managing conflict and making adaptive responses to social change (Stone 2001). Stone defines urban regimes in general terms as consisting of a set of arrangements through which a community is governed.…”