The Politics of Urban Governance

Introduction 

Urban politics is clearly defined as the systematic organization of the city where political leaders define and regulate various factors. These include the allocation of resources, the city’s organization and how the city will be governed. Though the federal government plays a key role in ensuring the well-being of the citizens, it is the city politicians who ensure the materialization of these decisions by deciding on issues like welfare and public service. Therefore, it is important that citizens are well aware of the issues that shape their city and the individuals who are involved in making these decisions. Further, citizens will probably be able to influence some of the decisions and how they made. As a result, the following paper will discuss four models implemented by local authorities. These include managerial city, corporatist, pro-growth and welfare governance. 

Managerial City 

The managerial city identifies one of the most common city politics that is practiced in America. This is where the leadership of the city and majority of its decisions are dominated by non-elected individuals who are at the senior-level as managers or administrators. Though most of the urban governance models provide the professional managers with some role in shaping the city, it is only the managerial city that provides much of the control and shaping of the city. The politicians will usually come up with the significant political and economic objectives of the city while the professional managers are left to implement them (Pierre, 2011, p.29). Though it may be a smart and effective form of governance it is evidently controlled by managers. 

Corporatist Governance 

In corporatist governance one of the major aspects is the presence of NGOs and voluntary associations that are active at the local level. This may be identified as a clear indicator of democratic governance as it incorporates the whole community as a whole to participate in the shaping of the city’s future (Pierre, 2011, p.49). Therefore, this model of governance ensures that the members of the community participate in the NGOs and voluntary organizations as a means of urban politics and delivery of public service. The citizens are not forced into any form of voluntary organization rather they will participate in associations that matter most to them. These NGOs make significant contributions to the governance of the city as they deliver public service in areas that may be suffering. However, it is important to note that this public service is neither the fault of the public sector nor the narrow focus on profit by the professional managers (Pierre, 2011, p.49). 

Pro-Growth Governance 

The pro-growth model of urban governance takes into account the vision of economic growth as a means of ensuring every member of the community benefits. As a result, it is identified as the simplest form of governance as few people will challenge a government made in this arrangement (Pierre, 2011, p.679). The pro-growth governance also has the highest potential for ensuring the citizens governed lose their democratic rights. This is where the politicians will usually come closer with the members of the elite society in the city jeopardizing issues like transparency, accountability and concern for constituencies not involved in the coalition. 

Welfare Governance 

One major factor in the welfare governance model is the non-existence of growth in the objectives of the city. In this case, the local government focuses on sustaining the population of the city in a declining economy. As a result, this form of governance is presented where the private sector does not provide enough jobs to serve the entire population of the city. However, in cases where job opportunities are present, it provides low wages for the low skilled workers (Pierre, 2011, p.88). This is a clear indication of a declining economy. These cities are those left behind in terms of development as they failed to restructure and modernize. As a result, the public sector has to provide unemployment support and welfare programs rather than encourage individuals to move elsewhere for jobs (Pierre, 2011, p.89). 

Conclusion 

From the above discussion it is evident that the models of urban government incorporate a tension between the current events, in terms of the networks and markets, and the dominant political players in the city. This is quite evident in the way each model is incorporated where the objectives and direction of governance is closely related with the beliefs of the political actors. Nevertheless, it is evident that through understanding of these four models an individual is able to clearly identify how politics shape the society. 

References 

Pierre, J. (2011) The Politics of Urban Governance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.