Suchergebnisse

9 Bosses, & their tollowers & apologists, perennially inquire noNN alternative sources for leadership may be developed in lieu of a boss. A boss is the principal but not the sole leader of a pol'al clique or faction at the top of a monolithic power structure in a community with a monopolistic pol'al style. Alternatives to a boss are a clique or faction, a popularly elected mayor, a city manager, or a pol'al party. Some Fla communities exhibit a monopolistic pol'al style; others, a competitive style. Town with a monopolistic style show a narrow set of econ interests; the entrance of competing econ interests leads to competitive pot. Ruling cliques are of varying kinds & can exist in either amonopolistic or competitive situation. A popularly elected mayor also can function as the leader in either situation. A manager is a source of policy leadership, but several factors condition his leadership. The elected mayor often inhibits the manager. The manager's scope may also be greatly restricted in a monopolistic setting, for he usually has no pol'al base of his own in such a situation. He will often have more scope when competition is the style. A few managers succeed by forming their own bases, ie, that composed of city employees. Party participation is a concomitant of competitive pot in a few Fla cities, but the rise of the Republicans may lead to some local monopolies. Alternative sources of leadership are enhanced by competition. AA.

Bosses, and their followers and apologists, peren nially inquire how alternative sources for leadership may be developed in lieu of a boss. A boss is the principal but not the sole leader of a political clique or faction at the top of a monolithic power structure in a community with a monopolistic political style. Alternatives to a boss are a clique or faction, a popularly elected mayor, a city manager, or a political party. Some Florida communities exhibit a monopolistic political style; others, a competitive style. Towns with a monopolistic style show a narrow set of economic interests; the entrance of competing economic interests leads to competitive politics. Ruling cliques are of varying kinds and can exist in either a monopolistic or competitive situation. A popularly elected mayor also can function as the leader in either situation. A manager is a source of policy leadership, but several factors condition his leadership. The elected mayor often inhibits the manager. The manager's scope may also be greatly restricted in a monopolistic setting, for he usually has no political base of his own in such a situation. He will often have more scope when competition is the style. A few managers succeed by forming their own bases, as, for example, that composed of city employees. Party participation is a concomitant of competi tive politics in a few Florida cities, but the rise of the Republi cans may lead to some local monopolies. Alternative sources of leadership are enhanced by competition.

The article asks how political leadership and community involvement together can contribute to legitimate and effective policy making in the context of urban governance. Particularly, the question is discussed if the interplay between both increases capacities for governing localities. Conceptually, this is based on Jessop's assumption that every mode of coordination is failure prone and that there is a need for enduring "metagovernance." The concept of metagovernance is then linked with considerations on institutional contexts and a comparison of four case studies, situated in different contexts. Whereas the case studies can show different practices or failures of metagovernance in the interaction between political leaders and involved societal actors, the institutional contexts are shown to more or less facilitate these practices.

Pol'al bossism in US cities developed as a pragmatic response to the rise of US urbanism. Its pol'al style developed out of a combination of the new directions of US society as it entered the age of enterprise & of the existing pol'al system which was geared to a Ru, decentralized mode of life. The power structure of bossism was based on a 2-fold relationship maintained by the city machine: the patron-client relation with blocs of voters - esp ethnic minorities - & a brokerage relationship with business. Relations with state gov were directed more toward the maintenance of control over the city than to substantive gov policy. The appropriate pol'al response to an Ur, technological society came with the reorg of nat'l pot by F. D. Roosevelt & the instit of New Deal SE reform. This change affected Ur pot by making it increasingly pluralistic & program-oriented. The new style of Ur pot may be called a cosmopolitan pot, & it strongly affected, if indeed it did not dominate, state pot in most places. The city of New Orleans is a special case of the development of a cosmopolitan style of Ur pot out of an earlier bossism within a state which has not yet assimilated to cosmopolitan pot. AA.

Political bossism in American cities developed as a pragmatic response to the rise of American urbanism. Its political style developed out of a combination of the new direc tions of American society as it entered the age of enterprise and of the existing political system which was geared to a rural, decentralized mode of life. The power structure of bossism was based on a twofold relationship maintained by the city machine: the patron-client relation with blocs of voters—par ticularly ethnic minorities—and a brokerage relationship with business. Relations with state government were directed more toward the maintenance of control over the city than to sub stantive government policy. The appropriate political response to an urban, technological society came with the reorganization of national politics by Franklin Roosevelt and the institution of New Deal economic and social reform. This change affected urban politics by making it increasingly pluralistic and program- oriented. The new style of urban politics may be called a cosmopolitan politics, and it strongly affected, if indeed it did not dominate, state politics in most places. The city of New Orleans is a special case of the development of a cosmopolitan style of urban politics out of an earlier bossism within a state which has not yet assimilated to cosmopolitan politics.

The authors reassess the recent history of U.K. urban politics. Following the local entrepreneurialism promoted by the Thatcher governments in the 1980s, they trace the gradual emergence of a more inclusive approach to urban policy. This shift, which began with the Major government in the early 1990s, marks a move toward a more community-orientated vision of social regeneration. Through a survey of the evolution of partnership styles and economic development in Leeds and informed by recent cross-national work on regime theory, the authors provide insights into the structural factors that have shaped the formation, composition, and actions of local coalitions in U.K. governance.