American Urban Policy in the 1980s
| Published date | 01 October 1982 |
| Date | 01 October 1982 |
| Author | Dilys M Hill |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1982.tb00068.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
American
Urban
Policy
in
the
1980s
AMERICAN URBAN POLICY
IN
THE
1980s'
DlLYS
M
HILL
Domestic policies and urban distress
domestic policies in alleviating urban distress: the United States had a long
history of 'urban policies' which were in fact anti-city in effect. This was
because the post-war demand for houses and subsidies for new highways encouraged
suburban development to the detriment of inner-city redevelopment investment
(Huth,
1980,
p.127). And attempts which were made to deal with the 'urban crisis'
only resulted in 'programmatic, bureaucratic, institutionalized failure' (Masotti,
1979,
p.222).
It
could be argued that the first important 'urban policy' was the
urban renewal introduced by the Housing Act of
1954.
But its effects were limited
and controversial. Critics argued that such fragmented, programmatic approaches
avoided considering the overall viability of the industrial city, and deflected
pressures to deal nationally with cities' common resource problems (Ashford,
1980,
By the mid-1970s American scholars were sceptical about the effectiveness of
p.2).
Gappert and Rose suggest that the barrier to effective urban policies is the
political reality that the twenty 'least urban' states control
40
per cent of the
votes in the Senate:
if
they act in unison then they can block any distribution
of federal monies which ignores their interests (Gappert and Rose,
1975,
p.44).
Indeed, the greatest direct influence which the federal government has had on
localities has been through federal defence procurement contracts, rather than
through any 'national urban pol icy' consciously devised (Gappert and Rose,
1975,
p.45). By the late 1960s, however, the federal government was using categorical
programmes in health, education, social services, housing and transportation
to
establish nationally defined objectives. State and local governments, however,
still had the option of not applying for a particular programme, and federal guide-
lines were not always strict. Many federal agencies wanted successful local pro-
grammes to get congressional support to expand their programmes.
As
a result they
were willing
to
ignore guidelines or modify them by 'interpreting' them. This
lessened the overall, 'national' element
of
the policies. In the 1960s, also, the
federal government had taken its first steps to involve the states and regions in
the implementing
of
federal urban policy directives. But the hoped-for reforms
of
government structure (through a variety of regional mechanisms such as Counci 1s
of
Governments
-
COGS,
A95
Review procedures and metropol itan reform), proved dis-
appointing. Nor has there been a 'national urban policy' in the sense of a settle-
ment, land use policy (Burkhead,
1975,
p.51).
Intergovernmental relations
organizations
it
should be done, and what are the relationships between them
(Burkhead,
1975,
p.50). Intergovernmental relations are thus a major part of the
debate. Metropolitan America was the focus of President Johnson's Great Society
programmes and neither the War on Poverty nor the Model Cities programmes had a
role for the States. The States, however, fought to reassert their influence; their
objective was to obtain the monies and the right to administer federally funded pro-
jects. With Nixon's election in
1968
this move was strengthened.
At
the same
time
there was conflict between politicians and the professionals, ad hoc bodies, and
community groups involved in urban programmes. Federal money to the states was
distributed on a formula basis,
so
that money came by entitlement, not by having
competitive bids. But federal monies to the municipalities was in the form of
project grants: the game
of
grantsmanship not only meant professionals became adept
at the submission of plans but also that many
of
them established close relations
with their fellow professionals in Washington and in the state capitals, a form of
the famous 'picket fence' pattern of intergovernmental relations (Wright,
1978,
p.62). The mayors, for their part, were very keen to obtain a share of federal
Urban policy, Burkhead has argued, involves what is to be done, through what
To continue reading
Request your trial