Introduction
The studies on urban political power as the capacity to influence the development of cities have resulted in several theories applicable in different settings. Clarence Stone’s in his fundamental work on the case of Atlanta presented the theory of urban regime as the most powerful model to accumulate economic development and sustain social equity. The main feature of the approach is the emphasis on municipal power as the capacity “to accomplish goals rather than power over others” (Mossberger 2016, 43). Such a model implies that all the actors work together on achieving mutual growth, while the urban environment benefits from this cooperation.
Although the theory has been successfully applied for decades, today, it receives significant critique as unable to answer pressing questions. The approach does not include the role of agencies and governmental influence that promote the interests of society. Social equity beyond the scope of economic relationships has been eliminated from the theory making it insufficient in a modern environment and requiring improvements. Nonetheless, the urban regime still provides a basis for politics and can be utilized to its full potential after transformative adaptation to modern-day reality.
Overview of Urban Regime Theory
Urban regime theory implies the model of cooperation between political and economic forces that reshapes the city and facilitates its growth. The approach has been dominating for several decades, explaining how local actors engage in coalitions to develop neighborhoods. The vision of coalitional power instead of unilateral offers four main categories of urban regimes, including development, maintenance, middle-class progression, the expansion of or lower-class opportunity” (Mossberger 2016, 43). The letter variation is believed to be applicable in the case of equity achievement.
However, the theory developed on the example of post-war Atlanta faces significant challenges today. An urban regime based on gaining benefits for all participants fails to notice non-economic problems such as racial discrimination. Many scholars claim that the model “ignores racial inequality as a structuring factor in cities” (Seamster 2015, 1053). Addressing issues of social justice requires substantial efforts from business-government coalitions that are often not justified by economic motivations. The theory is found to underestimate the role of agency and political governance in managing problems that cities face today.
Although the urban regime has failed to address these issues, it still has the potential to respond to contemporary challenges after modernization and transformation. Many scholars, including Stone, who has founded the theory, work on its improvement and adaptation to modern-day reality. Public-private coalitions are still seen as the core of urban governance, while the issues of urban governance are paid greater attention (Rast 2015, 139). Thus, the government can create policies that motivate private local actors to engage in current issues, while the cities can still benefit from such relationships.
The Background on Race Issues in Toronto
The demographic pattern of Toronto is known as extremely diverse, entailing the issues of inclusion and equity. According to the recent census, 52% of the city’s population represents racial minority with the majority of them identifying as people of African descent (“2018 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” 2017). This population group experiences unequal policing, violence victimization, and economic segregation. Census data demonstrates that people are distributed unequally across the city, with the majority of racial minorities living in impoverished neighborhoods (“Wellbeing Toronto” 2018). The brief assessment of the demographic structure of districts and average incomes per household demonstrates staggering differences. For example, racial minorities constitute 94% of the population of Milliken, with an average family income of $69,226. In contrast, such wealthy districts as Princess-Rosethorn have yearly household income rates at more than $200,000, with the minority representation of 14,1% (“Wellbeing Toronto” 2018). This pattern prevails in most of the districts making Toronto racially segregated.
Increased street violence and unequal policing regarding racial minorities is another pressing issue in Toronto. The reports by the city’s governments state that 85% of all victims of hate crimes are the Torontonians of African descent (“Toronto Action Plan” 2017, 33). Additionally, these cases may go unreported due to a low level of trust in police. The city council reports that over-policing and racial profiling lead to the overrepresentation of black Torontonians in prisons (“Toronto Action Plan” 2017, 33). Moreover, racial minorities are reported to have higher rates of school dropouts than non-minorities, which is motivated by the “absence of relevant or culturally inclusive curricula and the stigmatization” (Herbert 2017, 144). These issues are to be addressed both separately and as a part of the overall economic opportunity expansion plan.
As the problems of racial discrimination persist, the city council recognizes the disparity and structural discrimination that occurs in everyday interactions. The current strategy of the problem solution does not imply any radical actions from the municipal government. Instead, the policies are designed to motivate local actors to engage in racial diversification. The city is responsible for policing, education, and a significant proportion of working places, while businesses sustain the economic prosperity of the neighborhoods. Numerous education programs and tools teach employers how to identify and avoid racism at the micro-level and motivate hiring diversity. For example, Anti-Black Racism Analysis provides the instrument that allows the assessment of decisions and practices from the perspective of racial diversity descent (“Toronto Action Plan” 2017, 14). Thus, the primary approach that Toronto currently uses in addressing anti-black racism implies the involvement of multiple public and private actors.
Analysis of Urban Regime Theory Application
The problems of race are intermingled in all social relationships in North American cities. The case of Toronto demonstrates how discrimination exists both on the macro and micro levels. Racial disparities result in institutional discrimination, economic segregation, and social injustice concerning minorities. Thus, the task of those holding political power is to eliminate these problems using their levers of influence. Apart from politics, public opinion is also a significant predictor of minority well-being. Scholars argue that mass media has the power to influence these attitudes through “the dominant media’s coverage of systematic, structural social injustices” (Kim 2012, 76). Thus, the role of public services such as mass media should not be underestimated in developing power coalitions.
The application of urban regime theory to the problems of racial discrimination has its strengths and weaknesses. The approach has the potential to be used in addressing Toronto’s issue. While urban governance cannot influence all aspects of economic activity, it can motivate businesses to promote social equity. Moreover, the theory proved to be successful in developing cities, and its application in particular neighborhoods may bring positive results. Racial segregation in Toronto is not only a social construct but also the result of economic marginalization. Thus, by emphasizing economic growth among targeted neighborhoods, the urban regime can eliminate disparities and improve the social well-being of the minorities.
Despite its feasibility, the urban regime has mostly failed to address the problems of race in the city, because social well-being is beyond the scope of the theory that focuses mainly on economic growth. Although the approach can expand the opportunities of lower classes, discriminated populations have limited capacity to act and cannot use the potential of the theory to its maximum. The examples of black urban regimes in the U.S. have demonstrated that they were not able to serve different social groups as they represented the interest of the urban elite (Seamster 2015, 1053). That is why urban regime theory is not the ready solution for the problems of social injustice in an urban environment.
These implications, however, do not mean the inapplicability of the theory to address racial discrimination but rather suggest the need for modernization and change. The scholars exploring urban regimes recognize the necessity of incorporating agencies and political institutions. Thus, the new urban regime does not lack its core – coalition, and cooperation, but it has an increased impact of government that sets the goals that serve social needs. In the case of Toronto, the city council attempts to collaborate with businesses to achieve racial equity, which may be seen as a modification of urban regime. However, the theory implies that the coalition should bring mutual benefits to the participants that lead to economic growth. That is why it is recommended for the city government to develop programs of financial motivation for the businesses that engage in racial equity policies.
Conclusion
The racial diversity of Toronto leads to numerous problems as the city struggles to fight anti-black racism. Today, the city council calls for support from local actors, which may be seen as the modification of urban regime. This is a feasible assumption, as Stone’s theory explains how the power in cities is constructed through the cooperation of different local actors. The urban regime addresses the issues of economic growth through the collaboration of private and public sectors. However, it often fails to notice the problems not directly involved in the economy. Nevertheless, the approach can still be used to tackle racial segregation after modernization and improvement with the increased role of government. Cooperation and coalition are still critical aspects of urban politics, which can be used to achieve government-directed goals that address social well-being.
Bibliography
“2018 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion within the City of Toronto.” 2017. Toronto City Council. Web.
Herbert, Chanel. 2017. “Viewing the Toronto Education System through an Anti-Racist Framework.” In New Framings on Anti-Racism and Resistance, edited by Ayan Abdulle and Anne Nelun Obeyesekere, 143-59. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kim, Rose M. 2012. “Sa-I-Gu, Twenty Years Later: I Still Love L.A.” Amerasia Journal 38 (1): 62-83.
Mossberger, Karen. 2016. “Urban Regime Analysis.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio, 40-51. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Rast, Joel. 2015. “Urban Regime Theory and the Problem of Change.” Urban Affairs Review 51 (1): 138-49.
Seamster, Louise. 2015. “The White City: Race and Urban Politics.” Sociology Compass 9 (12): 1049-65.
“Toronto Action Plan to Confront Anti-Black Racism.” 2017. Toronto City Council. Web.
“Wellbeing Toronto.” 2018. Toronto City Council. Web.