Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:41:37.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bulpitt in America: Presidential Approaches, Territorial Politics and the Field of Urban Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

H. V. Savitch  and
Jeffery L. Osgood Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines Jim Bulpitt's seminal work on UK territorial politics within the American context. We approach territorial politics by examining the ebbs and flows of American urban policy during the period 1964 to 2008. In doing so, our analysis explores changes in presidential approaches towards urban policy, and thus center–periphery relations, based on the outcomes of electoral politics. We find that conditions specific to the USA cause American territorial politics to be continually fluid, often erratic and highly differentiated by party affiliation.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 45 , Special Issue 3: Territory and Power and the Study of UK and Comparative Politics , 2010 , pp. 406 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bulpitt, J., Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation, reissued edn, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2008, p. 30 Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 31; Reagan, M., The New Federalism, New York, Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 11 Google Scholar.

3 de Tocqueville, A., Democracy in America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1945, p. 65 Google Scholar.

4 US Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Governments, Washington, DC, United States Census Bureau, 2002.

5 To adapt Bulpitt's framework better to the American condition we have modified his order of presentation and some of the descriptive terminology.

6 Bulpitt, Territory and Power, pp. 64–6.

7 Bradbury, J., ‘ Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom after Devolution’, Political Studies, 54: 3 (2006), p. 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Selznick, P., TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organizations, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p. 13 Google Scholar.

9 Bulpitt, Territory and Power, p. 4.

10 Ibid., p. 66.

11 Ibid., p. 59.

12 Schlesinger, A. M., The Age of Roosevelt, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1957 Google Scholar; Burns, J. M., The Deadlock of Democracy; Four-Party Politics in America, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1963 Google Scholar.

13 Gelfand, M. I., A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933–1965, New York, Oxford University Press, 1975 Google Scholar; Kleinberg, B., Urban America in Transformation: Perspectives on Urban Policy and Development, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage,1995 Google Scholar.

14 Gelfand, A Nation of Cities.

15 Ibid., p. 75.

16 Anderson, M., The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949–1962, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1964 Google Scholar; Gans, H. J., The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans, Toronto, Free Press, 1962 Google Scholar; Talbot, A. R., The Mayor's Game, New York, Praeger University Press, 1967 Google Scholar.

17 The direct line from Washington to city neighbourhoods was later altered by modifying the legislation through a congressional amendment called the Green Amendment. In the event, the mayors of big cities had been confronted by aggressive neighbourhood leaders and calls to violence. Henceforth federal grants would be run through local city halls. While this did not change the national presence in cities, it did reroute it through the mayors.

18 US National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1968.

19 State governors in Illinois, Michigan and Maryland requested the president to send troops into their respective cities.

20 President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties, A National Agenda for the Eighties: Report of the President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties, Washington, DC, Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, 1980.

21 J. Carter, Address to the Nation on Energy and National Goals, Washington, DC, White House, 1979.

22 Vogel, R. and Harrigan, J., Political Change in the Metropolis, New York, Pearson, 2007 Google Scholar.

23 Rather, D. and Gates, G. P., The Palace Guard, New York, Harper & Row, 1974, p. 110 Google Scholar.

24 Kleinberg, Urban America in Transformation, p. 192.

25 H. V. Savitch, Urban Policy and the Exterior City: Federal, State and Corporate Impacts Upon Major Cities, New York, Pergamon Press, 1979.

26 Ibid., p. 175.

27 K. Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, New Rochelle, NY, Arlington House, 1969.

28 Orlebeke, C., ‘Chasing Urban Policy: A Critical Retrospect’, in Kaplan, M. and James, F. (eds), The Future of National Urban Policy, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1990, p. 197 Google Scholar.

29 G. Ford, Statement on the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Washington, DC, White House, 1974.

30 O. Woodard, ‘Rural Governors, Urban Presidents: Carter and Clinton's Quest for a National Urban Policy’, MA thesis, George Washington University, 2007.

31 R. Reagan, ‘US Presidential Inaugural Address’, Washington, DC, 1981.

32 Caraley, D., ‘Washington Abandons the Cities’, Political Science Quarterly, 107: 1 (1992), pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 J. Hackworth, The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2007.

34 Wolman, H., ‘The Reagan Urban Policy and its Impacts’, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 21: 3 (1986), pp. 311–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 G. E. Peterson and C. W. Lewis, Reagan and the Cities, Washington, DC, Urban Institute Press, 1986, p. 7.

36 Caraley, ‘Washington Abandons the Cities’.

37 Wolman, ‘The Reagan Urban Policy and its Impacts’.

38 Eisinger, P., ‘City Politics in the Age of Federal Devolution’, Urban Affairs Review, 33: 3 (1998), pp. 308–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Pacione, M., The City: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences, London and New York, Routledge, 2002 Google Scholar.

40 D. Judd and T. Swanstrom, City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America, New York, Pearson, 2006.

41 Caraley, ‘Washington Abandons the Cities’.

42 FAIR, ‘Reagan: Media Myth and Reality’, media advisory, FAIR, 9 June 2004, available at www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832.

43 Northeast-Midwest Institute, Federal Appropriations Drop for Community Development Block Grant Formula Funds, Washington, DC, Northeast-Midwest Institute, 2006.

44 Caraley, ‘Washington Abandons the Cities’, 1992.

45 Northeast-Midwest Institute, Federal Appropriations Drop.

46 Bulpitt, Territory and Power, p. 4.

47 http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/urban-policy, 2009.