Background: the community power debate
In the 1950s and 1960s, community power research divided between elite theory, which held that a small elite ruled cities, and Dahl's (1961) pluralism, which held that different groups shared influence across issues. Elkin (1987) highlighted the division of labor in American cities, where public authority is formed by elections but economic resources are controlled by private markets. Building on this, Stone (1989) argued that governing a city requires cooperation between elected officials and actors who control private resources.
Power to govern and regime types
Stone analyzed how Black political leaders and white business elites in Atlanta formed an informal coalition for decades to pursue agendas such as downtown redevelopment. He saw power less as 'power over', suppressing opponents, than as 'power to', the capacity to achieve shared goals. Stone (1993) classified regimes as maintenance, development, middle-class progressive and lower-class opportunity expansion regimes, noting that more ambitious goals require more resources. This relates to the second face of power in agenda formation.
Extensions and critiques
Stoker and Mossberger (1994) examined whether regime theory applies to European cities and saw limits where central government plays a larger role than in the United States. Mossberger and Stoker (2001) criticized overly broad use of the concept that labels any cooperation a regime. Davies (2002) argued that the theory overemphasizes cooperation and underestimates conflict and structural inequality. Even so, it remains a core framework for urban governance research.
FAQ
- What is urban regime theory in simple terms?
- City hall lacks the power to change a city alone, so it forms long-lasting partnerships with businesses and groups to run the city.
- What is power to govern?
- Not the power to suppress others, but the capacity of many actors to pool resources and achieve goals.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. University Press of Kansas. The founding Atlanta study.
- Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1), 1–28. Power to and regime types.
- Elkin, S. L. (1987). City and regime in the American republic. University of Chicago Press. Division of labor between state and market.
- Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press. Pluralist predecessor.
- Stoker, G., & Mossberger, K. (1994). Urban regime theory in comparative perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 12(2), 195–212. Comparative application.
- Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. (2001). The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban Affairs Review, 36(6), 810–835. Conceptual challenges.
- Davies, J. S. (2002). Urban regime theory: A normative-empirical critique. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1), 1–17. Normative-empirical critique.