One of the most viable frameworks within the urban regime literature has been Harvey Molotchs (1976) "growth machine" thesis. For Molotch, the central concern of local politics is commercial growth. The groups that dominate the local agenda within his political-economic framework are, accordingly, those that promote the growth of the local economy ranging from real estate companies to Chambers of Commerce. These groups share collective assumptions about development and are often united in their efforts to expand the economic base of their city or region. This is usually accomplished by competing with other cities or regions for more firms and a larger, more prosperous population. As far as the more dominant groups are concerned, the growth of the urban economy rewards the entire city equitably and effectively.
Others have generated more pessimistic views of local policymaking, even though their works have also been based on viable frameworks. Paul Peterson (1981), for instance, contrasts local governments "limits" against the economic pressures to which local firms must primarily respond. From this, another branch of the urban development literature has emerged, one which perceives local affairs as "ungovernable," a complex web of internal intrigue and externalities beyond the effective reach of local or even non-local policymaking (Yates, 1977; Kantor & David, 1988). The way in which policy occurs, and the reason why the system continues to tolerate systematic biases, is only clarified by default. Stone (1989), for instance, argues that a unified public-private elite is tolerated, despite its many biases, because, as a governing structure, it is virtually irreplaceable. Thus, ties between the policymaking system and the formal structures of government remain, within this literature, elusive which is crucial because this suggests our legal and institutional structures are mostly irrelevant. But, if they are irrelevant, this also suggests Molotchs growth machine is "running on automatic," as it were, and any attempt on the part of public managers to alter the allocation of the benefits and costs that flow from development may well lead to chaos.
The developmental enterprise, it is assumed and taught, simply operates in service to the local community and is subject in all important respects to its interests, if not its sovereign authority. This service is said to be solely in pursuit of capital growth; both are, then, justified on the grounds that this growth is "broadly shared" (Peterson, 1981; Logan & Molotch, 1987). Imperfect competition between cities may allow certain developers to exact undue compensation for their role in a citys growth (Mier, 1993; Euchner, 1993). Blind political ambition may, as well, be overwhelming, and bureaucratic incompetence may run amok but, these are mostly treated as aberrations. After all is said and done, the communitys interests remain in command. This is the "straight line" it is what the thousands who are subject to scholarly instruction in the field of economic development are taught every year (Kane & Sand, 1988; Luke, Ventriss, Reed & Reed, 1988; Sharp, 1990; Lassar, 1990).
Yet, despite its shortcomings, the urban regime literature is intriguing. Its best studies convey deep and sympathetic insights about the difficulties of governing local America in an era of international capitalism. Analytical precision leaves much to be desired, however. The analyses are, after all, fragmented. Seldom are developmental policy analyses combined to form a robust, normative theory of development that realistically underscores the need for individual ethical responsibility or for political-administrative leadership. This is especially so as it relates to a policymaking system that operates, on the one hand, within specific legal limits and organizational requirements, and on the other hand, within a considerable amount of political fragmentation that creates policy niches for eager public and private entrepreneurs.
For public administration theorists, this fragmentation accentuates a general inability to reference the economic development literature as a basis for ascribing personal responsibility to individual developmental administrators. Problems always appear to be the responsibility of "someone elses department" or beyond the reach of local government, and few norms are developed within the literature.3 As a result, theorists are left, in general, without a coherent intellectual framework against which they might evaluate the adequacy of the policymaking system from a normative (i.e., democratic) perspective. Instead, they are left with an indelible impression of extraordinary individuals who are, somehow, clever enough to direct complex interorganizational networks for their own benefit, even while some of the fields most sophisticated observers insist that these same networks are "ungovernable." This perverse belief in the efficacy of the unusually talented individual in an age of complex systems, perhaps, drives our search for "the leader." At all levels of government, we seem to base much of our hope on the next chief executive who will be the one who breaks through the red tape to more effective policy. As the founding fathers recognized, this can be a dangerous belief, particularly when coupled with popular elections; Ross Perot, at the national level, may stand as a modern day example of their concerns.
By contrast, the present analysis sees the same complex interorganizational policymaking system as most authors, but not as a backdrop for individual actors. Instead, the system is viewed as a dynamic policy mosaic, rich in actors and even richer in unexpected outcomes. Describing the system in more detail, however, will require more of an organizational perspective. Afterwards, this description is set within a brief historic account of the evolution of urban regimes in Cleveland, Ohio. From there, the analysis clarifies how development policymaking occurs, particularly as this relates to sports franchises such as the Cleveland Indians and Cleveland Cavaliers. This multi-tiered framework, adjusted by earlier criticisms of the urban regime literature, allows for a more complete understanding of urban policymaking and for a more fruitful direction for future research.
Author: Steven A. Maclin, Ph. D.
About the Author: Dr. Maclin has been a university professor since 1994, but from 1998 - 2004, he lived and worked with American military troops in Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea. He has previously edited and published dozens of articles in professional administrative journals and recently, in his ‘spare time,’ he’s been building websites for distributing materials to his graduate students. Hes now stateside, teaching graduate students online, writing articles and developing a small online business (see
http://buyfromart.com); he can be reached at info@buyfromart.com.