Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
