@article{Peripheralized:10091,
      recid = {10091},
      author = {Ahn, Jae Wan},
      title = {The Post-machine Reality: Fragmentation of Politics and  Economy in a Peripheralized City},
      publisher = {The University of Chicago},
      school = {Ph.D.},
      address = {2023-12},
      pages = {325},
      abstract = {Since the early twentieth century, urban sociologists have  consistently documented diarchies in American cities. These  diarchies are composed of a close alliance between  municipal officials and various local economic actors  advancing the growth imperative. The growth machine theory  typologizes this as a growth machine; the urban regime  theory typologizes this as a development regime. Yet,  contemporary political economy has led to local economic  actors leaving, breaking down the diarchies. It has also  conferred much power upon state officials to intervene in  local civic affairs instead. Where do local economic actors  go? Through what processes do state officials interpose in  municipal problems? How do municipal officials act without  the diarchies? I analyze the case of fiscal crisis in  Hartford, CT between 2016 and 2018, utilizing descriptive  statistics and archival data from Connecticut and the city  to answer these questions. I find that until the late  1980s, Hartford had a typical diarchical structure with  corporate executives from insurance and banking companies  adhering to the growth imperative by directing downtown  revitalization. Yet, the advent of a post-industrial,  financialized economy prompted local economic actors to  flock to global cities like New York, peripheralizing  Hartford. With the diarchy collapsed and the development  regime fragmented, a new class of middle managers  professionalized charitable giving, managing the corporate  relationship with Hartford in the executives’ stead. As a  peripheralized Hartford sank into a fiscal crisis,  Connecticut officials utilized legal authority and  financial largess to intervene. The state itself was  experiencing a fiscal issue at the time, which state  legislators blamed on the state employees’ union. Depending  on their party affiliation, different legislators used  different languages to denounce state employees and express  their positions on Hartford’s fiscal crisis, but they all  relied on the growth imperative to justify their actions.  The neoliberal language of partnership that privileges the  market-based policies and promotes the veneer of harmony  juxtaposed the Keynesian language of partisanship that  emphasizes labor-business factionalism. Hartford municipal  officials mirrored their state counterparts in employing  different languages to match their ideologies. I find that  the economic style of reasoning, which privileges economic  efficiency over moral imperative to encourage state  intervention, dominates the municipal officials’ political  discourse. These findings reframe how American cities  operate. Important economic actors have largely departed,  leaving behind mid-level managers who wield no political  power. In order to manage the fallouts from the long-term  economic transition, municipal officials must ally with  state officials, who may not be willing to disburse their  resources to cities. The growth imperative remains dominant  as the unifying ideology of the new regime populated by the  state and municipal political actors. This new regime  emphasizes the importance of the federal polity while  possibly damaging local democracy.},
      url = {http://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/10091},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.10091},
}