後期産業都市의 發電政策과 經濟社會的 構造改編

The central question in this essay is whether differences in national political systems and in national-local relations explain the diversity of forms assumed by economic restructuring and local responses to it. Three major conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, notwithstanding the diversity of forms that economic restructuring has assumed in specific localities and the diversity of policy reponses, larger translocal economic forces have far more weight than local policies in shaping urban economies. Fainstein asks what conditions made possible a convergence in urban policies between two such different cities as New York and London. She finds that in both, urban politics have become centered on economic development and withdrawn from broader public welfare objectives. The main explanation for this convergence are the impacts and the constraints of economic restructuring. Second, national policies are more influential in shaping cities than local policies. The central state has taken away power from the boroughs in London and put a large number of administrative entities in charge of areas the boroughs used to control. Among the measures implemented to curtail the power of boroughs are rate capping, cumpulsory letting (requiring private contractors to bid for public services), and selling public housing to private buyers and voluntary associations. Third, under certain conditions local governments or local initiatives can resist the tendencies of economic restructuring and of national political objectives. These specific conditions include the citizens' coalitions fighting the "growth machines," the municipalities run by leftist governments in France, and several cities in the United States and the United Kingdom that resisted the overall tendencies of economic restructuring. At a time when major economic forces are mostly beyond a city's control and politics are national, how can we relocalize the question of politics and economics? How can we specify spheres of action in a city that, while dominated by translocal economic forces, could be recovered for local action and control? And how can. we reestablish the importance for a locality of economic activities-notably, industrial services and various types of manufacturing - that under the current dominance of global finance and information industries appear as insignificant, even though they are central to the economic well-being of many localities? Two central Questions come out of the deciphering of economic and political process: one concerns the relationship between economic restructuring and political restructuring; the other, political restructuring and its meaning for local action. The specific form that political restructuring has assumed is the withdrawal of ferderal resources and hence the lifting of multiple regulations imposed on their disbursement. In the United Kingdom the growing power of the central state under Thatcher is in good part a response to the dominance, at the local level, of labor governmemts intent on public housing, public welfare, and manufacturing-based economic development. In the United States, the overall effect is similar, in that localities have lost federal resources for public expenditure and for economic agendas that respond to the interests of the workers and the poor. Notwithstanding a very different national government, loca:Jities in France have also wound up with less central government participation, beginning with the local movements for autonomy in the 1970s and further implemented by the French socialist government in the 1980s. In most cases this has meant that local governments have become more subject to pressure by the dominant business sectors and their call for a better bussiness climate, thus pressure to facilitate economic restructuring. The fact that in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France most localities have followed accomodation rather than confrontation is not simply an