Introduction to 'Urban Politics' - Sage Library of Political Science Series

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Davies ◽  
David Imbroscio
2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 739-742
Author(s):  
Jody Miller

The back cover of Clarissa Rile Hayward and Todd Swanstrom's Justice and the American Metropolis concisely lays out a central challenge of contemporary politics: “Today's American cities and suburbs are the sites of ‘thick injustice’—unjust power relations that are deeply and densely concentrated as well as opaque and seemingly intractable. Thick injustice is hard to see, to assign responsibility for, and to change.” The fact that the topic of “urban politics” is not a major theme of political science scholarship both reflects and exacerbates this challenge. And so we have decided to invite a diverse group of social scientists to discuss the book in light of the very big question that it poses: How do American cities look when assessed in terms of their “justice” (or “injustice”), and how might they look if they were assessed in these terms more seriously? In considering this question, discussants have also been asked to consider a related question: How does American political science look when assessed in terms of the extent to which it takes the question of urban justice and injustice seriously?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-734
Author(s):  
Dianne Pinderhughes

The back cover of Clarissa Rile Hayward and Todd Swanstrom's Justice and the American Metropolis concisely lays out a central challenge of contemporary politics: “Today's American cities and suburbs are the sites of ‘thick injustice’—unjust power relations that are deeply and densely concentrated as well as opaque and seemingly intractable. Thick injustice is hard to see, to assign responsibility for, and to change.” The fact that the topic of “urban politics” is not a major theme of political science scholarship both reflects and exacerbates this challenge. And so we have decided to invite a diverse group of social scientists to discuss the book in light of the very big question that it poses: How do American cities look when assessed in terms of their “justice” (or “injustice”), and how might they look if they were assessed in these terms more seriously? In considering this question, discussants have also been asked to consider a related question: How does American political science look when assessed in terms of the extent to which it takes the question of urban justice and injustice seriously?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Henry J. Schmandt ◽  
George D. Wendel

This article discusses (1) the extent to which an introductory course in urban politics is currently offered by political science departments in American colleges and universities; and (2) the thrust or orientation of such a course as reflected in survey responses, syllabi, and textbooks. The discussion is based principally on the findings of a mail survey of the 485 political science departments listed in the 1987 Directory of Undergraduate Political Science Faculty and of the 246 departments listed in the 1986 Guide to Graduate Study in Political Science, both compilations published by the American Political Science Association. A total of 377 completed questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 51 percent. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents also furnished copies of course outlines as requested.The answer to the question of whether political science departments offer the introductory urban politics course recalls the old bromide of the “half full” or “half empty” water glass. Forty-nine percent of the respondents stated that they offer such a course while 51 % answered in the negative. A small minority questioned the importance of the offering, one respondent commenting, “An urban politics course is not of central importance to an undergraduate curriculum in the liberal arts.” Most non-offering departments, however, tended to be apologetic about the absence of the course from their curriculum, citing various reasons for its exclusion. The two factors most frequently mentioned are lack of resources (31 %) and the coverage of urban material in a state-local government offering (39%).


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 736-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Imbroscio

The back cover of Clarissa Rile Hayward and Todd Swanstrom's Justice and the American Metropolis concisely lays out a central challenge of contemporary politics: “Today's American cities and suburbs are the sites of ‘thick injustice’—unjust power relations that are deeply and densely concentrated as well as opaque and seemingly intractable. Thick injustice is hard to see, to assign responsibility for, and to change.” The fact that the topic of “urban politics” is not a major theme of political science scholarship both reflects and exacerbates this challenge. And so we have decided to invite a diverse group of social scientists to discuss the book in light of the very big question that it poses: How do American cities look when assessed in terms of their “justice” (or “injustice”), and how might they look if they were assessed in these terms more seriously? In considering this question, discussants have also been asked to consider a related question: How does American political science look when assessed in terms of the extent to which it takes the question of urban justice and injustice seriously?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 727-731
Author(s):  
Kent E. Portney

The back cover of Clarissa Rile Hayward and Todd Swanstrom's Justice and the American Metropolis concisely lays out a central challenge of contemporary politics: “Today's American cities and suburbs are the sites of ‘thick injustice’—unjust power relations that are deeply and densely concentrated as well as opaque and seemingly intractable. Thick injustice is hard to see, to assign responsibility for, and to change.” The fact that the topic of “urban politics” is not a major theme of political science scholarship both reflects and exacerbates this challenge. And so we have decided to invite a diverse group of social scientists to discuss the book in light of the very big question that it poses: How do American cities look when assessed in terms of their “justice” (or “injustice”), and how might they look if they were assessed in these terms more seriously? In considering this question, discussants have also been asked to consider a related question: How does American political science look when assessed in terms of the extent to which it takes the question of urban justice and injustice seriously?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


1966 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Robinson ◽  
Lee F. Anderson ◽  
Margaret G. Hermann ◽  
Richard C. Snyder

“Simulation” and “case studies” are supplementary teaching aids available for university courses in political science and international relations. The newer technique, simulation, has been used at several universities to augment instruction in international relations, foreign policy making, national security policy, urban politics, and political parties and elections. In fields other than political science, similar techniques abound. The number of business games or simulations exceeds 100, and less numerous games exist for educational administration, legislatures, career choices, and diplomacy, to name a few. Case studies also supplement a wide range of politics courses, including introduction to American government, public administration, party organization, legislative processes, and public law. The case method is the hallmark of schools of law and schools of business, and it is now emulated in teaching the history of science and in training in research methodology in sociology.Different types of simulations and cases and their uses have been described and discussed elsewhere. Evaluation of games and cases as supplementary instructional aids has almost invariably been impressionistic. The consumers of these teaching methods have reported their personal experiences with them and have advanced claims for and criticisms of them, but they have undertaken little empirical research to determine whether the claims for particular simulations or cases are valid or to compare the actual effects of alternative methods. Moreover, the Ford Foundation expended thousands of dollars to induce business schools to try business games, but their investment in evaluating the success or failure of this innovation extended to convening a conference to discuss the subject, not to carrying out research on it.


2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-47
Author(s):  
Hubert Heinelt ◽  
Margit Mayer

This article summarizes the development and peculiarities of research in urban politics in Germany. It is focused on the working group on Local Politics Research (Arbeitskreis Lokale Politikforschung/LoPoFo) within the German Political Science Association as the core of the scholarly debate in this country for nearly 30 years. The article consists of three parts. Part one highlights the paradigms of local politics research in Germany and its main distinctions from other disciplinary approaches in analysing urban topics - not at least sociology. The second part gives an overview of the different thematic orientations of the discussion since the 1970s. This leads to the third part in which strengths and weaknesses of local politics research in Germany are compared with the situation in other countries (especially the Anglo-Saxon world). It can be perceived as a strength that local politics research has been in many respects a front-runner in the disciplinary debate of political science in Germany. This is the result of the fact that most scholars engaged in local politics research do not act as 'urbanists' but as 'generalists', looking for urban topics as tokens of more general phenomena. However, this aspect reflects also a crucial weakness. There is not continuity in the debate, and a common understanding of theories and methodologies of research in local politics is missing. Last but not least, weaknesses and strengths are expressed in the structures of German universities where local politics is not institutionalized through curricula or job descriptions, as in the Anglo-Saxon world.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 735-736
Author(s):  
Mark Blitz

The back cover of Clarissa Rile Hayward and Todd Swanstrom's Justice and the American Metropolis concisely lays out a central challenge of contemporary politics: “Today's American cities and suburbs are the sites of ‘thick injustice’—unjust power relations that are deeply and densely concentrated as well as opaque and seemingly intractable. Thick injustice is hard to see, to assign responsibility for, and to change.” The fact that the topic of “urban politics” is not a major theme of political science scholarship both reflects and exacerbates this challenge. And so we have decided to invite a diverse group of social scientists to discuss the book in light of the very big question that it poses: How do American cities look when assessed in terms of their “justice” (or “injustice”), and how might they look if they were assessed in these terms more seriously? In considering this question, discussants have also been asked to consider a related question: How does American political science look when assessed in terms of the extent to which it takes the question of urban justice and injustice seriously?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document