This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1078087408320650v1 44/2/155    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Saltzstein, A. L. Articles by Skelcher, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Visions of Urban Reform

Comparing English and U.S. Strategies for Improving City Government

California State University, Fullerton

Colin Copus

University of Birmingham, England

Raphael J. Sonenshein

California State University, Fullerton

Chris Skelcher

University of Birmingham, England

This article compares the logics and institutional consequences of urban government reform in the United States and in England. We focus on the politics of ideas, identifying four common visions of urban reform: efficient public interest management, improved representation, local political leadership, and metropolitan-wide governance. National pressure groups, locality effects, and the status of city charters and council constitutions are key factors mediating the direction and pace of reform. These are embedded in different institutional norms for city government, related to national political and governmental cultures. The strengths and weaknesses of both systems are discussed.

Key Words: urban • reform • governance • cities • politics

This version was published on November 1, 2008

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 155-181 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1078087408320650


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?