This article compares the logics and institutional consequences of urban government reform in the United States and in England. We focus on the politics of ideas, identifying four common visions of urban reform: efficient public interest management, improved representation, local political leadership, and metropolitan-wide governance. National pressure groups, locality effects, and the status of city charters and council constitutions are key factors mediating the direction and pace of reform. These are embedded in different institutional norms for city government, related to national political and governmental cultures. The strengths and weaknesses of both systems are discussed.
|Number of pages||27|
|Journal||Urban Affairs Review|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Nov 2008|