1.2: Evaluating a City

Cities with strong popular control systems exercise greater influence over capital investment by business and influence the course of economic development decisions. ‘Popular control’ may work to enhance development and provide projects with legitimacy, or popular control may serve as a focal point of opposition. Popularly elected councils are more open to welcoming new business and give endorsement to the construction of office buildings. They have also opposed highways and airport construction.

It is not easy to measure popular control because of cross-cultural differences. Voting and political party participation may mean one thing in Naples, Florida, and quite another in Houston, Texas. Nevertheless, we can gauge popular control by investigating local institutions, by examining citizen access to decision-making, and by looking at the prevalence of citizen groups. Competition for elected positions is also assessable as well as the role political parties play in transmitting citizen demands into community actions.

Thus, the concept of 'local culture' is applicable in a particular way. This phrase refers to the norms and values that create a disposition toward the development agenda. Cities bear a history, an experience with conflict and cooperation as well as a social structure that go into the making of local culture. That culture ultimately helps determine what kind of development popular opinion most values. Is it job and construction or is it green space and historic preservation?

There is a connection between what leaders negotiate for their constituents and the values of those constituents. Cities with a high 'materialist' (pro-business) culture will generally opt for jobs, income, and tangible benefits that are easily divisible. Cities with a strong degree of 'post-materialist' (social, for the people) culture are more concerned with preservation of the built or natural environment, and those benefits are generally indivisible. These preferences often mean that cities with materialist cultures are more likely to agree with business objectives than cities with post-materialist cultures. Bargaining and city development will then take different courses.

We can draw upon measures of local culture by examining data on a city's social composition. This data will tell us whether a particular city is predominantly blue collar or white collar. We can also rely on household size to determine whether cities are disposed toward a 'materialist' or 'post-materialist culture. Finally, one can look at attitudes toward development and assess popular priorities.

Generally, local governments compete for private capital in the international marketplace and they adopt policy strategies to influence the terms of their participation. City governments draw upon a variety of bargaining advantages or resources in support of these strategies. The more bargaining advantages held by a city, the greater its ability to shape city development. Variation in outcomes is a product of four specific kinds of resource variables by which one can evaluate cities: market conditions, governmental support, popular control, and local culture.

When these variables work cumulatively toward a strong public position, public actors are able to shift the risks and costs of development onto the private sector. An advantageous ‘bargaining position’ means that cities will pursue a development policy that Savitch and Kantor call "social centered." A social-centered development policy puts priority on strong public direction, activist planning, and preservationist policies. It also emphasizes collective benefits or public amenities. Social -centered development means that cities will make demands upon business and pursue 'linkage policies' - compensation to support a collective benefit in exchange for the right to develop. These include charging environmental impact fees, requiring contributions for moderate-income housing or mass transit, exacting public amenities, and imposing stringent architectural standards. In many European cities, social-centered development is part of a comprehensive planning process that establishes the location, placement, and design of construction.

However, when these variables work cumulatively toward a weaker public position, the public sector tends to absorb risks and costs. Often a disadvantaged bargaining position means that cities rely more heavily on an economic logic and pursue development that bears the label of "market-centered." This kind of development policy emphasizes fee development. Minimalist planning (little thought regarding the surrounding area or the effect on a city's citizenry), and strong economic growth. It accomplishes this by offering inducements to business such as tax abatements, providing public aid for capital projects, making land contributions, relaxing architectural standards, and doing away with zoning regulations. Cities that adopt such policy are essentially embracing a 'build as you may' policy toward business.

It is important to note that the difference between a ‘social-centered’ and a ‘market-centered’ orientation concerns the manner in which a city conceives its development strategy, controls its resources, and conducts its strategy. Do not confuse this with a lack of competitiveness or unwillingness to compete. Some cities legitimately see social-centered development in their long-term interests and as enhancing their competitive edge. Cities may see careful planning and an abundance of public amenities as a genuine attraction for investors, particularly for company headquarters or high-tech industry. To be social centered has more to do with how a city conceives and manages its development than with whether it competes in the international market. Historically, social-centered have become more competitive, but they also have retained their taste for collective benefits and demands of businesses that want to locate there. Naturally, market-centered cities are more consistently competitive both internally and externally. Their own development strategies center on competition and are undertaken because they appear to be the best way to perform in the international marketplace.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 portray these propositions and list major attributes of each variable. The alternatives center on 'ideal types'.

Figure 2.1 Social - Centered Development
Driving Variables (structure)	Market Condition (favorable) Evidenced by: high investment; job growth; successful economic conversion; sunk investments; high office rents and low vacancy rates; economic diversity; well established; market niches.
Steering Variables (agency)	Popular Control (active) Evidenced by: decentralized decision-making (neighborhood governments); numerous civic organizations; ward based voting; program-oriented involvement; policies favoring competition.
Governmental Support (integrated)	Evidenced by: vertical government integration; lateral regional integration; strong fiscal support; coordinated planning and development; and publicly supported borrowing.
Local Culture (advanced)	Evidenced by: white collar base; abundant managerial and professional employment; small sized households; values favor indivisible benefits.
Process	Bargaining Positions (public advantage) Evidenced by: demands on business; development fees; development linkages; stiff architectural requirements; location and design directives; restrictive zoning
Outcome	Development (social centered) Evidenced by: *strong public direction; Emphasis on public amenities and social redistribution; regulated development through intensive planning; historic preservation; green space and environmental protection; disfavor toward subsidized housing and mass transit.

Source: Savitch and Kantor. 2002. Cities in an International Marketplace.

Figure 2.2 Market - Centered Development
Driving Variables (structure)	Market Condition (unfavorable) Evidenced by: low investment; declining or stagnant employment figures; unsuccessful or struggling economic conversion; mobile capital; low office rents - high vacancy; non-diversified economy; poor market niches
Steering Variables (agency)	Popular Control (passive) Evidenced by: centralized decision-making (neighborhood governments); weak civic organizations; at large voting; non-competitive policies.
Governmental Support (diffuse)	Evidenced by: Low or non-existent integration; lateral regional integration; low fiscal support; Non-existent or uncoordinated planning; private borrowing
Local Culture (worker orientation)	Evidenced by: Blue collar base; stagnant managerial and professional employment; large sized households; values favor divisible benefits
Process	Bargaining Positions (public disadvantage) Evidenced by: Inducements to business Tax abatement; No linkages; non-existent or few architectural and design controls; lax or non-existent zoning; low cost or free land and clearance
Outcome	Development (market centered) Evidenced by: Weak public direction; emphasis on income, growth and jobs; free development and limited to no planning; pursuit of higher property tax and base; disfavor toward private housing and automobile routes.

Source: Savitch and Kantor. 2002. Cities in an International Marketplace

The figures link each of the four variables to a bargaining and development process. Note that two of the variables - market conditions and governmental support - are designated as driving variables while the other two - popular control systems and local culture - are designated as steering variables. Driving and steering variables derive from the metaphor of an automobile, whereby the drive train furnishes power to propel the vehicle, while manipulation of the steering mechanism puts the vehicle on itsactual route. In this sense, driving variables confer economic power to cities and grant public leaders leverage as they bargain with business. By comparison, steering variables have more.

Although these resources do not usually change rapidly, they are more likely to reflect local habits and institutional developments. For example, steering resources can change in response to electoral reforms, immigration of new social groups into the community, voter registration drives, or even the rise of civic leaders with new ideas about politics.

The distinction between steering and driving forces is significant because it allows us to examine the play of structure versus agency in city building. One of the central questions has to do with the actual choices (agency discretion) that citizens have in coping with global restructuring. Do local political efforts and resources matter or, are cities driven to accommodate forces of global magnitude? The driving concept helps to identify variables closely connected to structural circumstances. The steering notion points to things over which there is more agency. By examining their interplay, you are able to highlight what, if anything, cities can do to alter their trajectories of development. This also enables the comparison of constraints on policy choices in different cities. Additionally, it helps to explain why particular cities take different policy roads.

The variable labels in each figure are within their respective development patterns. Market conditions categories are favorable or unfavorable, and the attributes follow. The governmental support centers on ‘integrated’ or ‘diffuse’ and a list of attributes. The popular control classification is either active or passive. Local political culture centers on ‘materialist’ or ‘post materialist’. Each attribute of either type of culture appears in the list. The process explanation extends from two bargaining positions - public advantage or public disadvantage. The outcome classification is either social-centered or market-centered development. It is important to note that these models are not purposeful in defining causal theory but rather to indicate policy directions and alternatives, or the lack of alternatives that might exist in a city.

Of course, any variation of market- or social-centered development is possible, even likely. City development has more to do with nuance than with a simple set of choices about whether or not to develop. Many studies on the politics of development use the phrase "pro-growth" or "anti-growth." These perspectives may oversimplify the issue because the norm for most cities, most of the time, is to undertake some kind of development. That development may be market-centered and produce jobs, or it may be social-centered and create museums. Both kinds of development are different, but both are also meaningful.

In a parallel manner, some scholars make distinctions between policies that promote "development" versus those that promote "consumption." Presumable, building infrastructure for an industrial park is "development while constructing a museum is "consumption." In reality, those distinctions are difficult to make because the line between development and consumption is quite porous. Access roads for industrial development can also be useful to private motorists on a consumer vacation. Museums and city attractions visited by consuming local residents can also attract tourists and stimulate a recreational industry. Whether a policy is developmental or consumptive can be subject to rapid and incessant shifts in usage. Public amenities (a form of social-centered development) are useful to enhance job development in some cities.