Urban Affairs Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dowding, K.
Right arrow Articles by Rydin, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, 515-545 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/10780879922184068

Regime Politics in London Local Government

Keith Dowding

Patrick Dunleavy

London School of Economics and Political Science

Desmond King

University of Oxford

Helen Margetts

Birkbeck College, University of London

Yvonne Rydin

London School of Economics and Political Science

The authors provide an encompassing eight-point characterization of regimes designed to cover all cases of this complex multicriteria concept, arguing that not all eight characteristics need be present for a regime to exist but that the larger the subset, the more a governing coalition constitutes a regime. The regime concept is then applied to six London boroughs during the early to mid-1990s. They demonstrate the utility and limits of the regime concept in identifying and explaining the politics of these boroughs at this time, suggesting that three of the cases constitute different types of regimes, and the other three constitute failed regimes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
B. Denters and K. Mossberger
Building Blocks for a Methodology for Comparative Urban Political Research
Urban Affairs Review, March 1, 2006; 41(4): 550 - 571.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban StudHome page
A. Thornley, Y. Rydin, K. Scanlon, and K. West
Business Privilege and the Strategic Planning Agenda of the Greater London Authority
Urban Stud, October 1, 2005; 42(11): 1947 - 1968.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban StudHome page
W. J. Nicholls
Power and Governance: Metropolitan Governance in France
Urban Stud, April 1, 2005; 42(4): 783 - 800.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban StudHome page
A. M. Wood
Domesticating Urban Theory? US Concepts, British Cities and the Limits of Cross-national Applications
Urban Stud, October 1, 2004; 41(11): 2103 - 2118.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
A. DiGaetano and E. Strom
Comparative Urban Governance: An Integrated Approach
Urban Affairs Review, January 1, 2003; 38(3): 356 - 395.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 European Urban and Regional StudiesHome page
N. A. Phelps, D. McNeill, and N. Parsons
In Search of a European Edge Urban Identity: Trans-European Networking among Edge Urban Municipalities
European Urban and Regional Studies, July 1, 2002; 9(3): 211 - 224.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
K. Mossberger and G. Stoker
The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization
Urban Affairs Review, July 1, 2001; 36(6): 810 - 835.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban StudHome page
A. Harding, S. Wilks-Heeg, and M. Hutchins
Business, Government and the Business of Urban Governance
Urban Stud, May 1, 2000; 37(5-6): 975 - 994.
[PDF]