Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article examines New York City's response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in the context of the post‐9/11 US security regime. While the federal level 'all‐hazards' approach made for greater depth of support, it also generated unrealistic assumptions at odds with an effective local response. The combination of structurally induced opportunity and actor specific strengths (size, expertise) made for effective local governance by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. By underlining the importance of locality as a first line of defence and linking defence function to policy initiative in regard to health governance, this study illustrates the continuing relevance of Weber's insight into the institutional structure of the city.

This article brings regulation theory and the broader post‐Fordist debate together with an empirical study of the emergence and consequences of tourism in Harlem. It shows that the valorization of cultural diversity, as well as under‐served markets, has helped reposition this formerly unmarketable area in relation to city, state and capital markets. Moreover, as development occurs, the nature of regulation pertaining to Harlem begins to change. The author argues that the failure to disaggregate – to link the elements of the restructuring economy to outcomes for specific areas and residents, leads to an overly pessimistic view. Tourism‐based development may act as an equalizing force, helping to rebalance the uneven urban spatial development characteristic of Fordism and symbolized by the social isolation and concentrated poverty of the racial ghetto in the US. The role of cultural capital as the engine of growth in Harlem, has meant that revitalization promotes cultural differentiation along with standardization. Overall, cultural tourism requires substantial civic engagement. This gives the community control, but at the same time disciplines and stabilizes. Urban tourism thus incorporates a new mode of regulation, making for greater social/political and economic inclusion, but with the associated costs as well as benefits.Cet article allie la théorie de la régulation et le débat plus large du post‐Fordisme, à une étude empirique sur l'apparition et les conséquences du tourisme à Harlem. Il montre que la valorisation de la diversité culturelle, de mäme que les marchés sous‐approvisionnés, ont aidéà repositionner cette zone auparavant sans attrait commercial dans une relation avec les marchés de la ville, de l'État et des capitaux. En outre, avec l'expansion, la nature de la régulation propre à Harlem a commencéà changer. L'absence de désagrégation – qui associe les éléments de l'économie en restructuration aux résultats en faveur de zones et résidents particuliers – conduit à une vision des plus pessimiste. Toutefois, un essor basé sur le tourisme peut avoir une force compensatrice, aidant à rééquilibrer l'aménagement spatial urbain inégal, caractéristique fordienne symbolisée par l'isolement culturel et la pauvreté concentrée dans les ghettos raciaux aux Etats‐Unis. Le rôle du capital social en tant que moteur de croissance d'Harlem s'est traduit par une revitalisation favorisant à la fois différenciation culturelle et normalisation. Le tourisme culturel implique surtout un engagement civique réel, celui‐ci donnant la maä'trise à la communauté, tout en apportant discipline et stabilité. Le tourisme urbain amène donc un nouveau mode de régulation, créant une meilleure inclusion socio‐politique et économique, mais avec les coûts (et avantages) associés.

The opening of the formerly closed, state socialist societies of East Central Europe has provided the opportunity to bring new empirical evidence to bear upon models of profession-state relations developed in pluralist western societies. The classic view of Tocqueville and Durkheim has been that professions are an intermediary group linking individuals and the state. Although not always explicitly stated, this model served as the basis for scholarly work on the professions in the post-World War II period, where it (more or less) fit the image of a differentiated pluralist society. Most work on the professions was based on the Anglo-American case.But even in the United States, state support was more central to maintaining professional authority than was originally thought. Without explicitly discarding the model, Freidson (1970) introduced a distinction between corporate and technical (clinical) autonomy that provided a way out of the paradox he identified, that both aspects of professional autonomy are protected by the state. Corporate autonomy refers to the political power of the organized profession to define the social and economic context of professional work, and clinical autonomy, to the control of decision making in the workplace. Testing his hypothesis on the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, Freidson argued that despite differing degrees of corporate autonomy, the medical profession retained clinical control of decision making, the core of professional autonomy, even in the extreme case of the former Soviet Union.