I chose this article by William Sites in the Urban Affairs Review from 1997 because it give a theoretical explanation of Regime Theory as it relates to local governments, economic growth, and politics. In looking at economic policy from a macro to micro analysis, specifically on how the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 affected local economic policies, it is important to understand the dynamics of policy change at the local level. Regime Theory is a well-known and well-used theory in urban studies to research public policy through the lens of local government.
Urban Regime Theory seeks to explain how local policy is shaped by the regime or political group in power (Sites, 1997). Development policies, which are put in place at the local level, have a huge influence on economic growth. In this article, Sites (1997) uses Regime Theory to look at the connection between urban development policy and politics at the local level in regards to the evolution of cities. The three regimes that build or maintain political partnerships at the local level are pro-growth, progressive, and caretaker (Sites, 1997, p. 537). The two main regimes are pro-growth, which uses market-oriented policies for urban growth, and progressive, which focuses on community-orientated development for economic progression. Caretaker, the third regime, avoids policies influencing development and focuses on fiscal stability and maintaining basic public services (Sites, 1997). In comparing these to the major political parties at the state and national level, pro-growth would be Republican, progressive would be Democrat, and caretaker would be most like Libertarian.
In this journal article, Sites (1997) uses New York City as a case study to show how 3 different successive mayors had three different regimes, and how they uniquely affected economic and housing policies. The mayors are Edward Koch, pro-growth, from 1978-1989, David Dinkins, progressive, from 1990-1993, and Rudy Giuliani, caretaker, from 1993-1998 (Sites, 1997). Even though this appears to be a great case for Regime Theory based on the chronology of regimes, Sites describes how the theory does not explain all the policies that were put in place, counter to the desires of the regime in power. Sites (1997) argues “local development and housing programs have been strongly oriented toward market interests irrespective of political administration” (p. 538).
Even though Regime Theory does not account for all policy causality in the case of New York, Sites claims that it is still a very useful analytic theory. Public officials lack direct control of the economy and therefore have to align coalitions of support to influence urban development in the way the administrators feel is the best outcome for their city. This political alignment and specific regime of pro-growth, progressive, and caretaker are the foundation of studying local policy through a Regime Theory framework.