City Limits 524e4v

City Limits According to St. Augustine, “Every city is a living body.” The following short response paper provides critical analysis of City Limits by Paul Peterson. According to Peterson, “cities are little political systems or miniature republics…numerous enough that one can identify systematic patterns of variation.” (3) American cities are young, new, and commercial. Furthermore, cities are constrained, out for their own interests, and operate under varying frameworks. Local city governments cannot make war or peace, issue ports, or issue currency. However, cities can restrict land use through zoning laws and eminent domain. “Urban politics is above all the politics of land use (because) land is the factor of production over which cities exercise the greatest control.” (25) Numerous factors help define cities including the pursuit of economic wealth, technological change, cultural changes, migration patterns, governmental policies, and local government structures. It’s important to note that “structures always limit the choices available to political systems.” (6) Undeniably, cities “seek to improve their position” (22) economically, socially, and politically in competition with other cities. Peterson argues that the most important interest of cities is to maintain and enhance their economic productivity. (15) Comparatively, Tiebout contends that cities attempt to “maximize – optimum size.” (19) I agree that city interests are not merely a summation of individual interests. In fact, public policies are “in the interests of cities whenever the policies maintain or enhance the economic position, social prestige, or political power of the city.” (20) Providing a structural explanation for the claim “city politics is limited politics” (4), Peterson argues that cities pursue policies in their best interests leaving city governments incapable of achieving certain kinds of social objectives attainable at the national level. Characterized by a high population density, urban areas make urban policy more complicated than rural politics. Increasing in complexity as the population size grows, a myriad of issues arise including inequity, varying needs, and inclusion. I agree with Peterson’s contention that the size of cities depends on extracting resources and commercial reach. Peterson also examines community power literature, literature analyzing the conflict between political machines and reform movements, literature on comparative urban policy, and federalism literature. Peterson claims, similar to Musgrave’s three branches in Theory of Public Finance, that there are three arenas of public policy including developmental, redistributive, and allocational. Developmental policies

improve the economic status of a community and enhance the local tax base. (41) One example of developmental policies helping enhance city productivity is the creation of an industrial park. According to Peterson, developmental politics is often consensual politics because it benefits the entire community. Comparatively, redistributive policies help disadvantaged, less fortunate, and non-taxpaying community . However, redistributive policies may harm developmental objectives by adversely affecting the economy exemplified by low-income housing. Lastly, allocational policies are developmentally and distributionally neutral exemplified best by police or fire protection. In chapter four of City Limits Peterson examines the structural differences between national and local institutions by analyzing how these characteristics affect public policy processes. Defining the concept of federalism, Peterson argues that the national government “bears the greatest responsibility for redistributive policies, while local governments are primarily responsible for allocational policies.” (16) Chapter five analyzes the local schooling function and shows that school policy can be developmental and redistributive. According to Peterson, “Policies vary depending on the structure of local government systems.” (16) Chapter six addresses the marginal roles played by parties and groups. Peterson claims “local politics is limited politics” (115), and that disadvantaged groups are restricted to formal political processes unlike wealthier groups. The result is local leaders promoting policies in the economic interests of their cities rather than developing redistributive policies. Chapter seven discusses developmental policies, community power structures, and the politics of urban renewal. Chapter eight studies the “pluralist nature of allocational politics” (16), and chapter 9 examines the politics of redistribution. Chapter ten provides a New York City case study followed by policy recommendations, which aim to broaden city limits. Peterson paints an image of citizens and city officials pursuing self-evident interests in cities unable to engage in redistributive policies. I believe that political actors continually redefine their interests and objectives in today’s uncertain world. According to President Obama, “our nation and our cities are undergoing a historic transformation.” In 2008, Obama garnered 63 percent of urban voters compared to John McCain’s 35 percent.

“Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears.” - Italo Calvino -