Developmental Politics Reconsidered

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This essay is a critique of Paul Peterson's treatment of developmental politics in City Limits. In contrast with Peterson's view of the city as a utility-maximizing entity with a unitary interest in development around which consensus can be built and public action organized, we argue that conflict and the pursuit of particular interests are characteristic of the developmental arena in city politics. The consequences of development projects are often uncertain, and, as policy moves from general concept to operational reality, coalition building and conflict management become essential. Policy reflects these processes. With regard to the specifics of Peterson's argument, once a distinction is made between the politics of announcement and the politics of execution, Peterson's characterization of New Haven's Mayor Richard Lee as "able servant" of the city's unitary interest in development appears questionable. Similarly, on close examination, Peterson's depiction of Oakland's council-manager government as "inefficient slave" of that city's business-backed redevelopment program can also be challenged. The New Haven/Oakland comparison suggests that developmental policies are influenced by the political character of a community's governing coalition.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: