Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:00:55.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of Business Politics in U.S. Cities: A Developmental Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Paul Kantor
Paul Kantor
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although the political presence of business in the economic development of American cities has been richly documented, there has been much less attention to how and why urban business politics has changed in the course of our history. Indeed, the political circumstances and problems of the early Republic's merchant entrepreneurs in the towns seem remote from those of urban business leaders of postindustrial America, with its giant cities and megacorporations. The challenge remains of identifying forces of continuity and change that have shaped relations between business and city governments in urban economic development.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 4 , Spring 1990 , pp. 248 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I especially wish to acknowledge Stephen David. His contribution to the larger project to which this work is related was ended by his death in 1985. I thank Edward Greenberg, Richard Fleisher, and Paul E. Peterson for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Financial assistance was provided by the Fordham University Research Council.

1. Parts of this article describing the mercantile, industrial, and postindustrial political economies are also elaborated in Kantor, Paul with David, Stephen, The Dependent City: The Changing Political Economy of Urban America (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman/Little, Brown, 1988)Google Scholar, and in Kantor, Paul, “The Dependent City: The Changing Political Economy of Urban Economic Development in the United States,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 22 (06 1987):493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The focus on changing business strategies and demands over time appears for the first time in this Note.

2. See Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Molotch, Harvey, “The City as a Growth Machine,” American Journal of Sociology 82 (09 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, Clarence N., Economic Growth and Neighborhood Discontent (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Shefter, Martin, Political Crisis, Fiscal Crisis (New York: Basic Books, 1985)Google Scholar. The pluralist perspective—broadly interpreted—is also apparent in the work of urban historians. See, for example, Hammack, David C., Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1982)Google Scholar; and Warner, Sam Bass, The Private City (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

3. Even though more recent neo-Marxist theorists acknowledge the importance of political pressures, their assumptions about business's domination of the political process continue to confound their analysis. See Fainstein, Norman and Fainstein, Susan, “Regime Strategies, Communal Resistance and Economic Forces,” in Fainstein, Norman et al. , Restructuring the City (New York: Longman, 1986), 245–82Google Scholar; Castells, Manual, The Urban Question (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977)Google Scholar; The City and the Grassroots (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); O'Conner, James, The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Poulantzas, Nicos, State, Power and Social Classes (London: New Left Books, 1978)Google Scholar.

4. This notion of regime denotes a politico-economic order that is defined by its dominant control systems for achieving public and private purposes. See Lindblom, Charles E., Politics and Markets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A. and Lindblom, Charles E., Politics, Economics and Welfare (New York: Harper & Row, 1965)Google Scholar; and Elkin, Stephen L., City and Regime in the American Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)Google Scholar. Related perspectives are Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1944)Google Scholar; and Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1942)Google Scholar.

5. Peterson, Paul E., City Limits (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paul Kantor with Stephen David, The Dependent City: The Changing Political Economy of Urban America; Tiebout, John, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64 (10 1956):416–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice and Loyalty (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

7. Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

8. Lindblom, Politics and Markets, 133.

9. More narrow than the concept of democracy, the concept of popular control refers to the method or process of mass-authority linkage in a democratic order. Cf. Pennock, J. Roland, Democratic Political Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Dahl, Polyarchy.

10. Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, Power and Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

11. Dahl, Who Governs?

12. Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957)Google Scholar.

13. Dahl and Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare; Alford, Robert and Friedland, Roger, The Powers of Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), chap. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Accordingly, fundamental changes in the organization of the urban economy and in local democratic institutions define each of the three periods. Thus, the emergence of a central city-oriented economic order and the institutionalization of machine politics displaced the politico-economic arrangements of mercantile days after the Civil War. Despite important changes in the U.S. industrial economy and in city politics by the first several decades of the twentieth century, the industrial-era urban political economy did not undergo substantial alteration until after 1930. Then the pronounced dispersal of populations and businesses away from central cities and the decline of the machine heralded the postindustrial urban system. For a detailed explanation of these transformations, see Kantor with David, The Dependent City, chaps. 3–12. On the timing of critical urban economic changes, see especially Pred, Allen R., Urban Growth and City Systems in the United States, 1840–1860 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980)Google Scholar, and other works cited below in reference to each period.

15. Warner, The Private City; Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Dahl, Who Governs? 28; Bridges, Amy, A City in the Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wade, Richard C., The Urban Frontier, 1790–1830 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Spann, Edward K., The New Metropolis: New York City, 1840–1857 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

16. Pred, Alan, The Spatial Dynamics of U.S. Urban Industrial Growth, 1800–1914 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Taylor, George R., The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860 (New York: Rinehart, 1951)Google Scholar.

17. Goodrich, Carter, Government Promotion of Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890 (New York: Macmillan, 1960)Google Scholar.

18. Livingood, James W., The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade Rivalry (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1947)Google Scholar.

19. Kantor with David, The Dependent City, part 2; Belcher, Wyatt Winton, The Economic Rivalry between St. Louis and Chicago, 1850–1880 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947)Google Scholar.

20. Pred, The Spatial Dynamics.

21. Pred, The Spatial Dynamics; Gordon, David, “Class Struggle and the Stages of American Urban Development,” in Perry, David C. and Watkins, Alfred J., eds., The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1977), 19–54Google Scholar.

22. Bridges, City in the Republic; Warner, Sam Bass, The Urban Wilderness (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)Google Scholar; Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter D., The American Party Systems (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Oestreicher, Richard, Solidarity and Fragmentation: Working Class People and Class Consciousness in Detroit, 1875–1900 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

23. Shefter, Martin, “The Emergence of the Political Machine: An Alternative View,” in Hawley, Willis D. et al. , Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976)Google Scholar; Mandelbaum, Seymour J., Boss Tweed's New York (New York: Wiley, 1965)Google Scholar; Erie, Stephen P., Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

24. Glabb, Charles N. and Brown, Theodore A., A History of Urban America (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 206–7Google Scholar; Miller, Zane L., Boss Cox's Cincinnati: Urban Politics in the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Shefter, “The Emergence of the Political Machine.”

25. Shefter, “The Emergence of the Political Machine”; Mandelbaum, Boss Tweed's New York, 78.

26. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati; Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (1964): 157–69Google Scholar; Holli, Melvin G., Reform in Detroit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Issel, William and Cherny, Robert W., San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

27. Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (1964):677–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Katznelson, , City Trenches: Black Men, White Cities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Erie, Rainbow's End.

29. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati; Hammack, Power and Society; Shiesl, Martin J., The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1800–1970 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967)Google Scholar; Boyer, M. Christina, Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

30. Warner, The Private City.

31. Kantor with David, The Dependent City: chap. 7.

32. Studies that highlight the pressures of bureaucratic rationalization in respect to the machine-reform struggle during the industrial era include Wiebe, The Search for Order; Teaford, Jon C., The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Teaford, Jon C., “Technology, Expertise and Municipal Services, 1860–1940,” Journal of Urban History 10 (05 1984): 319–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mac-Donald, Terrence J., The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Socioeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Brown, Craig M. and Halaby, Charles N., “Bosses, Reform and the Socioeconomic Bases of Urban Expenditure, 1890–1906,” in MacDonald, Terrence J. and Ward, Sally K., eds., The Politics of Urban Fiscal Policy (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984), 14–37Google Scholar.

33. Chandler, Alfred D., “The Beginnings of ‘Big Business’ in American History,” Business History Review 33 (1959): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Thelen, David P., The New Citizenship (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Anderson, Douglas D., “State Regulation of Electric Utilities,” in Wilson, James Q., The Politics of Regulation (New York: Basic Books, 1980), chap. 1Google Scholar.

35. Yearly, C. K., The Money Machines (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1970), 130–31Google Scholar.

36. Hays, “The Politics of Reform”; Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: 1900–1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

37. Blumberg, Phillip, The Megacorporation in American Society: The Scope of Corporate Power (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975)Google Scholar; Storper, Michael, “Toward a Structural Theory of Industrial Location,” in Rees, John et al. , Industrial Location and Regional Systems (Brooklyn, N.Y.: J. F. Bergin, 1981), 17–41Google Scholar.

38. Pred, Allen, City Systems in Advanced Economies (London: Hutchenson, 1977)Google Scholar.

39. Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962), 44, 393Google Scholar.

40. Noyelle, Thierry J., “The Implications of Industrial Restructuring for Spatial Organization in the U.S.,” in Moulaert, Frank and Wilson-Salimas, Pokius, eds., Regional Analysis and the New International Division of Labor (Boston: Kluwer-Nijoff Publishing, 1982), 113–33Google Scholar; Pred, City Systems, 104–5.

41. Fainstein, Norman and Fainstein, Susan, Urban Social Movements (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974)Google Scholar, chap. 1; Cremin, Lawrence, The Transformation of the School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961)Google Scholar; Katznelson, City Trenches, chap. 6.

42. Harrigan, John J., Political Change in the Metropolis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981)Google Scholar; Fainstein, Urban Social Movements.

43. Shefter, Martin, “Political Incorporation and the Extrusion of the Left: Party Politics and Social Forces in New York City,” in Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, eds., Studies in American Political Development, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 50–90Google Scholar; Stephen P. Erie, “Rainbow's End: From the Old to the New Urban Ethnic Politics” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 1988). On postwar trends, see Banfield, Edward and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore J., At the Pleasure of the Mayor (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

44. Karnig, Albert and Welch, Susan, Black Representation and Urban Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Browning, Rufus, Marshall, Dale R., and Tabb, David H., Protest Is Not Enough (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

45. In 1964 there were only 184 black state and local elected officials in the entire United States (and only 280 black officials of more than a half-million officials at all governmental levels). By 1983, the number of black officials at all levels rose to 5,606, including 248 black mayors (another forty-seven cities had Hispanic mayors). See Kantor with David, The Depen-dent City, chap. 9.

46. Swanstrum, Todd, The Crisis of Growth Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

47. Clarence N. Stone, “Race, Power and Political Change” (paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1983); Michael P. Smith and Marlene Keller, “Managed Growth and the Politics of Uneven Development in New Orleans,” in Fainstein et al., Restructuring the City, chap. 4; Jones, Bryan and Bachelor, Lynn with Wilson, Carter, The Sustaining Hand: Community Leadership and Corporate Power (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

48. Kantor with David, The Dependent City, chap. 11; Logan, John R. and Molotch, Harvey, Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), chap. 6Google Scholar.

49. Friedland, Roger, Power and Crisis in the City (New York: Macmillan, 1983)Google Scholar; and Blumberg, The Megacorporation, chaps. 1–3.

50. Friedland, Power and Crisis; Mollenkopf, John H., The Contested City (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Fainstein et al., Restructuring the City.

51. Kantor with David, The Dependent City, chap. 11; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, State and Local Roles in the Federal System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), 356–60.

52. Kantor with David, The Dependent City, chap. 11.

53. Goodall, Leonard E., ed., Urban Politics in the Southwest (Tempe: University of Arizona Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Carl Abbott, The New Urban Politics: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press); David R. Johnson, ed., The Politics of San Antonio (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press); Bernard, Richard M. and Rice, Bradley R., eds., Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth Since WW II (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

54. Fainstein et al., Restructuring the City, chaps. 4, 5, and 6; Abbott, The New Urban Politics; John A. Booth, “Political Changes in San Antonio, 1970–1982,” in Johnson, The Politics of San Antonio, chap. 10; Stone, “Race, Power and Political Change”; Feagan, Joe R., “Sunbelt Metropolis and Development Capital: Houston in the Era of Late Capitalism,” in Sawers, Larry and Tabb, William K., eds., Snowbelt, Sunbelt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), chap. 4Google Scholar.