POLICY REGIMES IN THE DYNAMICS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
Introduction
Development is one of the important things in the dynamic development of human
civilization. Development shows the development of human achievement in various aspects
of life as well as an effort to give meaning to a better life. Thus, development will greatly
affect the dimensions of human life. As a consequence of the dynamic development of human
life, development becomes a necessity that tends to be viewed as something positive. A
society without development will be considered as a society that has not developed and is
even underdeveloped. Therefore, development is not only important as a process to do
something but more than that it is a symbol of the achievement of a society's progress. This
causes the majority of people in the world to consider that the development process must be
maintained, therefore development issues will always be related to issues of development
sustainability.
As a concept that covers various aspects of people's lives, development is a very
complex concept. This is Because development is both theoretical and political, inherent,
complex and ambiguous, it is currently used in a sense that tends to be limited to the practices
of development agencies, especially those that aim to reduce poverty in order to realize the
Millennium Development Goals1 . What Thomas points out is that individuals'
conceptualizations of development vary due to the wide scope, diversity of views, and
different schools of thought that tend to overlap. Nevertheless, there is a generally accepted
trend of understanding that development involves continuous change in various aspects of
human life and society. With the diversity of aspects of human life such as economic, social,
political, legal, institutional structures, institutional structures, technology in various forms,
environment, religion, art and culture, what can be captured in this interpretation is that the
concept of development is a very complex and broad concept so that its implementation
requires a series of interpretation processes and even reductions in its meaning so that it can
be applied more precisely to a certain goal desired by the designers and perpetrators. Thus,
development will also be related to how the context that exists in a society in interpreting the
meaning and purpose of development itself, including development efforts carried out in
urban areas.
Urbanization is an area with a rapidly advancing development process. Development
seems to be a must for a city if it wants to be considered a developed and modern area. This
makes development a must that must be fulfilled. However, the development process that
occurs in the world, including in urban areas, does not always produce what is called
community welfare. At least, according to the United Nations (2013), the world is currently
facing challenges in the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely economic,
social and environmental. More than 1 (one) billion people still live in extreme poverty and
income inequality that occurs in many countries where at the same time many countries have
experienced a decline in income increase. In addition, unsustainable patterns of consumption
and production have resulted in large economic and social costs and can jeopardize life on the
planet. Thus, maintaining sustainable development processes requires global action to meet
legitimate aspirations for economic and social progress, which require growth and
employment, while at the same time strengthening environmental protection.2 . This shows
the tendency that policies to sustain the development process may be problematic from the
start. The problems that often arise in the development process and its surrounding aspects
cannot be seen partially, because the development process is understood as a
multidimensional space in which various actors and various interests will also meet in
interpreting the meaning of development and the aspects related to the various policies that
support the development process.
In general, attention to development is often only focused on the structure and form of
policies and activities carried out and the effects arising from the development process.
However, the understanding that development is a very complex and dynamic concept has
basically shown the importance of paying attention also to how stakeholders, especially
policy makers, understand and interpret the concept of development and its suitability in the
local community context. With diverse backgrounds and interests, the development policy
process has the potential to produce disagreements on the rationale and interpretation of the
meaning of development that is manifested in the policy structure that will underlie every
development process carried out by a certain regime that has great influence in the policy
process.
As a guideline for programs and activities carried out in urban development, the policy
choices set will become the standard of activities that are believed to have a major impact on
society. When the choice of development policy becomes important, the process of realizing
the policy becomes very important because it will affect not only the structure and content of
the policy, but also the implementation of the policy but also how the policy can achieve its
ideal goals for the welfare of society. The fact that a policy is the result of the interaction of
actors, in this case including actors' interpretations of the meaning of development, it can be
said that the perspective and meaning of each important actor in the process becomes an
important point of a development policy. In this context, the interpretation of the idea of
development is very likely to be related to the preferences and interests of each actor. This
shows the tendency that the development policy process is a dialectical space of various ideas
and interests of the actors in the construction of the available system. This understanding
shows the tendency that the actors' perspectives and interpretations of development
phenomena are the most important aspects in understanding how a policy then exists in its
current form. Thus, development policy becomes an arena for interpretation battles and how
efforts to realize their point of view and interpretation of the form of development policy.3
This will be an important key to how policies will be produced and ultimately implemented.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
Urban Regime Theory
Theory can be defined generally as a set of statements or propositions that describe
different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993; Senese, 1997). In the
context of application, theory can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns,
concepts, processes, relationships, or events. In a formal sense, social scientists usually define
theory as a system of logical statements or propositions that explain relationships between two
or more objects, concepts, phenomena, or human characteristics-what are sometimes called
variables (Boobie, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Polit & H ungler, 1993).
In addition, theories may also represent attempts to develop explanations of reality or
ways to classify and organize events, describe events, or even to predict events or occurrences
that may occur in the future (Hagan, 1993).5 This is also a fundamental aspect of Urban
Regime Theory.
Urban regime theory has been the dominant paradigm in urban politics and policy for
more than a decade. Initially used to explain the interplay between the public and private
sectors in American cities, the concept has developed into an analytical tool that is also
relevant for looking at different arrangements at the regional level (Leo 1998; Clarke 1999).
The concept has been used to analyze what or how various interests are incorporated into
governance by coalitions of women (Turner 1995), lesbian and gay issues (Bailey 1999),
African American issues (Whelan, Young, and Lauria 1994), environmental issues (Ferman
1996), and also black middle class issues in Atlanta (Stone 1989).6 The evolution of the
concept of urban regime occurs in various aspects through new questions that are applied to
various fields of life in urban areas.
Initially, this theory, as stated by Dowding et al. (1999) showed itself more as a
concept or model than a theory as it still had limited ability to explain or predict variations in
regime formation, maintenance, or change (see DiGaetano 1997; Lauria 1997a; Orr and
Stoker 1994).7 Hence, several modifications have been proposed in an attempt to integrate
other perspectives into regime analysis to increase the theory's explanatory or predictive space
(see Lauria 1997b).8 The various accumulations made in an effort to expand the space of
analysis have then become another very important way of expanding the explanation of
power.
The analysis in this theory views power as fragmented. In this case, the regime is
related to a collaborative arrangement in which the government, private actors form a certain
pattern of relationships related to the existence of the government's commanding capacity that
exists. The most important reason for fragmentation in the regime is the division of labor
between the market and the state (Elkin 1987).9 In this case, the existence of the regime in
urban development policy is seen as a resource needed by the government and also business
actors in order to have legitimacy in determining the policy-making process. This condition
makes Stone (1993) describe regime theory as very thick with a political economy perspective
that rejects pluralist assumptions that view the government as an adequate authority to make
and implement policies independently, as well as structuralist assumptions that state that
economic forces determine policy.
Thus, the analysis provided by urban regime theory according to Stone is an attempt
to "explore the middle ground between" the conceptualization of the regime as an "organism"
that sits between causal variables in the space of policy processes and outcomes. 10
Furthermore, although this regime analysis also shows the existence of actors that attempt to
mediate external pressures such as economic changes to the policy process and its outcomes,
the focus in the regime analysis is mainly on the internal dynamics of coalition building
whether it is cooperation between civil society or models of coordination and interaction
across government institutions.
Furthermore, Stone places development policy in relation to his conceptualization of
power as a social product derived from the encounter between systemic power and pre-
emptive power. Stone emphasizes the aspect of pre-emptive power to challenge the hegemony
of ideology as an explanation for the characteristics of the regime described as "social control
paradigm" in relation to structuralism. In this understanding Stone proposes a model of social
production, or power, where the government needs a solution and sees the right ally for it.
It is essentially a critique of arguments based on a Marxist understanding that the
governance aspect is insignificant in a capitalistic society. As such, change occurs not through
a process of alteration but as part of an evolutionary process of various cooperatives. Hence
the importance of A development process is not linked to an ideology but specifically to how
people organize themselves.
Still according to Stone, people organize themselves in an effort to take advantage of
small opportunities, selectively compare incentives, goals, and solutions. Over time, actors
attempt to respond quickly to opportunities and challenges. If power is linked to the ability to
get things done, then getting things done will be linked to a small opportunity. Therefore, an
important focus of observation in the process developed by Stone is on the agenda setting
process. This shows that agenda setting is an important point that has a significant effect on
the form of policy that will be produced. In this process, Stone uses Tillian's model of low
social coherence where no single ideology is dominant, even when they dominate politically.
In this understanding, there is a very open space for various interpretations and meanings of
development and welfare as the main thing that is done and wants to be aimed at from a
development policy from the government, including the city government.
As such, governance is not dependent on any particular control but rather related to
how to bring together different elements in a fragmented world. Hence, regime formation is
partly related to an evaluation of actors in terms of whether or not they benefit from a
coalition format. This means that how dominant actors perceive development and community
welfare as important pillars of development planning, how these perceptions are
communicated to other actors, the dynamics of interaction and the models of approach taken
by actors are important aspects of understanding urban politics.
An Examination of the Role of Policy Regimes in Urban Development Policy
The politics of development in urban areas is very complex. There are many sides that
can be examined so that the aspects analyzed can be very diverse. Each part observed is
always in a certain space within a deeper context, including in the context of urban
development policy. Each part of the observation may show a different space and context, but
in the context of Urban Regime Theory, it still shows something that tends to be the same.
The same tendency is the belief that development policies in urban areas are basically
influenced by various actors where there are dominant actors who have the most fundamental
role. This fundamental role is related to their position as the determinant of a policy that is
formally guaranteed by law. This then makes them an important actor in various dynamics of
urban development policies in many countries. this can be observed from several studies that
have been conducted before.
In a study conducted by Bertrand Zuindeau (2005), Zuindeau found that one of the
important elements of urban development is related to spatial planning. This aspect is the
roadmap that forms the basis of development policies that will be carried out by the city
government. Through spatial planning, Zuindeau sees that the challenge in trying to utilize
space and territory in sustainable development is related to how the logic of sustainability is
understood and the competition that occurs in the development process. In this case, Zuindeau
sees that the role of government with all its functions and duties becomes very important. It is
in the hands of government institutions that the basic foundation for sustainable urban
development policies will be formed and established. Thus, the role of these government
institutions as institutions that are given the role to make and implement policies will depend.
In line with Zuindeau, Carl Grodach (2011) in his analysis of the politics and
implementation of urban policy in Austin Texas sees that there are important aspects such as
how interests in the local context, local government and cultural sectors influence the
direction of policy. Trends show that the influence of policy and planning culture, context-
specific factors such as economic development priorities, the organization of government, and
forums that allow for the interaction of actors from city government and non-governmental
coalitions. In the context of The character of the economic culture of a city will influence the
policy outcomes.
Based on the results of this analysis, Grodach sees that the current state of urban
policy culture is not something that is simply due to the development of creativity in urban
discourse. Rather, it is the result of the evolution of past policy structures, sharpened by local
institutions and actors. In this context, Grodach shows how aspects such as the local
economic, institutional and political context create a path for the future of policy.
Furthermore, Grodach also shows how the diversity and influencing power of the cultural
sector has shaped new policy directions. Although in Grodach's analysis there is an attempt to
distinguish the organizational perspective of government agencies, private entities and non-
profit entities, where they tend to accept their situation as a given environment in which
decisions are made. However, this still cannot be separated from the context of the
government's role as the leading sector in the process. In this case, Grodach analyzes urban
development mainly on how "institutional regimes" design a structure and resources of
political institutions and formal organizations to create a rule of the game that can also be
accepted by every other actor.
In this case, Grodach points out that the analysis of urban policy sees that one of the
important things that need to be observed in the politics of urban policy is what he calls the
institutional regime which is basically a policy regime. According to him, this regime has the
ability to create a space for interaction in the policy process that is in accordance with its
wishes but can be accepted by other actors.
Furthermore, David Gibbs and Andrew E.G. Jonas, through their study on
environmental policy and urban development, point out the existence of intervention factors.
They found that there are certain forces that will have a significant influence on the outcome
of the process. In the study of environmental policy and sustainable urban development there
is an increasing emphasis on local ideas that can be an important aspect of intervention.
However, this is still rarely demonstrated in policy terms and barely addressed from a
theoretical perspective. In correcting a significant void in the analysis of local environmental
policy in development contexts, they show that both in terms of policy and discourse, some
important aspects of the local can be influential in the process of rescaling governance within
the state.
Furthermore, although the rescaling process can be understood as an integral part of
the problem of social regulation after-Fordism, it has important implications for local
governance and local forms of policy. Although policy rescaling appears to be predominantly
bottom-up (i.e. a process of localization). To understand the uneven development of local
environmental policy-making and sustainable development it is necessary to ascertain directly
the links between local contexts of governance and social regulation.
Thus, an important thing that must receive important attention in the process of
forming a development policy and its relationship with other aspects such as the environment.
This context will always involve certain issues and discourses that will be considered
important to be the basis for policy formation. Therefore, there will be a process of rescaling
or determining the degree of importance of the issue to be able to enter as the main problem in
the activity process, which in this case will be related to selected issues in the agenda setting
process. Thus, attention to the context of the government system and the social conditions of
society are aspects that always have an important effect on the policy process through various
interventions made by policy actors. Through the regulation approach, they suggest the
importance of including aspects of political economy in the context of urban regimes that can
be a means of conceptualizing policy forms and at the same time can make connections
between regulatory processes at various spatial scales.
Grubović Ljiljana V (2004) tries to show a way to analyze the political dynamics of
development in urban areas. Grubović tries to analyze two important issues: organizational
rules and informal networks. For him, these two themes are likely to form the theoretical basis
for explaining many of the problems that occurred in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, for
example on the issue of illegal building. Rather than simply analyzing the rigid structure of
communist institutions and the weaknesses they inherited, Grubović argues that attention
should be focused on the new institutions, the rules and routines created in the new political
system, and the corruption that became so dominant at the time. According to his analysis,
political elites actively transferred power from institutional power to individual power in their
hands. The massiveness of this in the era of communism had marginalized the institutional
aspect to personal but less powerful power. This then led to the collapse of various state
institutions including those related to urban development planning. The weakness of
democratization and institutional aspects at that time made Yugoslavia weak as a state with a
control function. This in turn led to widespread corruption. In relation to the widespread
phenomenon of squatter settlements and the political conditions in Belgrade at the time,
Grubović sees that it can be explained using the new-institutionalism approach. For her, the
use of this theoretical framework would allow her to not only analyze what was happening in
the institutional context, but also to look at other aspects, such as informal networks, which
she believes were an important factor that influenced the problem of squatter settlements. This
will provide a broader picture not only of the formal institutions but also of the shift in
conceptions of institutions from formal to informal in influencing policy direction. In the end,
it once again shows that there are dominant actors who influence development policy in urban
areas.
The above studies basically show that urban politics related to urban development
planning is indeed something very complex. There are many sides that can be observed and
analyzed. Each side of the analysis offers a certain result that can show the condition of urban
development policy. Some of these studies seem to touch on various important aspects,
namely the interaction of important actors in the policy process, especially in the urban
development policy process. The context of their interpretation of the meaning of
development and community welfare that will be generated through a development policy.
Therefore, although the use of regime theory can be generally applied to various
contexts, the focus is mainly related to how a regime is formed and in what context the regime
has the authority to determine development policies. Thus, the position of the government is
indeed the most important aspect in the context of this theory in the dynamics of urban
development policy.
Under these conditions, urban development policy should not be viewed in romantic
terms as a free agency. When not strictly controlled by determinant laws, there are various
tendencies in political behavior that must be considered in the policy process. Significant in
this analysis is the duality of structure understood as both a space and an outcome of
processes. Thus, institutions that act as agents in the process are not subordinate to the
structure but act within it and at the same time have the opportunity to change it.
Conclusion
As a dynamic and very complex process, efforts to interpret the politics of
development certainly cannot only be seen in the technical aspects of spatial planning alone.
Likewise, it cannot only be examined from the institutional side (institutional approach) or a
combination of institutional aspects and the interaction of actors and interests (new-
institutionalist approach). This is closely related to the fact that the context of development
policy will always be related to actors who compete to influence each other.
In practice, there is always controversy among policy makers themselves, including
institutions that play an important role in the city, namely the executive and legislative bodies
that have the authority to make development decisions. In this context, Urban Regime Theory
has a very strong relevance to be present as an analytical tool in examining the dynamics of
development policies in urban areas. With the assumption that the process Since development
policy is a dynamic spatial structure with various interests in it, actors will continuously strive
to take "advantage" of the existing policy regime structure. This is done through a series of
interaction patterns involving other actors outside the city policy regime, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians who have direct or indirect social, economic and political
benefits from the presence of development policies.
The building blocks of the theory basically state that there is a relationship that links
various parties because of a common perspective or interest. There is a regime framework in
the context described by previous studies that can provide more insight into the position of
urban policy regimes in development policy. It certainly cannot be viewed simply as a narrow
locality.
There is a tendency for shifts that can occur fluidly from various actors due to
similarities or differences in interests. In this context, there are hardly any strictly adhered
ideologies but rather similarities or differences in interests and perspectives on a particular
issue. This condition makes the analysis in this theory involve attention to the reasons for
interaction, goals, feasibility, closeness of interests, and networks that arise.
Therefore, in the context of this theory, governance is understood not to be dependent
on a particular control but rather related to how to bring together different elements in a
fragmented world. Thus, regime formation is partly related to an evaluation of actors in
relation to whether or not they benefit from a coalition of interests format. This means that
how dominant actors perceive development and community welfare as important pillars of
development planning, how these perceptions are communicated with other actors, the
dynamics of interaction and the approach models taken by actors are important aspects of
understanding urban development policy.
