Structuring the Debate on Consolidation: A Response to Leland and Thurmaier

In their essay "When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons from 30 Years of City–County Consolidations," published in the July/August 2005 issue of PAR , Leland and Thurmaier make an important contribution to understanding how city–county consolidation occurs. They revise the widely accepted Rosenbaum and Kammerer model of consolidation and posit that "strong arguments" based on economic development, especially in the absence of organized opposition, led to victory for consolidation advocates. In this response, we argue that efforts to identify a set of arguments or charter provisions that will lead to successful consolidation are misguided. The real story in consolidation campaigns is how participants use heresthetical arguments in an effort to turn their opponents into political losers. What makes arguments strong or weak is not their substantive policy focus, but how they are structured.     

Regional Place and City Space: How Metropolitan Configurations Influence Central City Policy Responsiveness

The debate between proponents of metropolitan consolidation and polyarchic fragmentation poses many conflicting arguments, offers varied hypotheses, and reaches multiple conclusions about the effects of political structures and institutional arrangements on democratic governance. Despite varied and widespread attention to the topic, however, little resolution has been offered to appease either side. Additionally problematic is that implicit in both of these schools of research is the assumption that efficiency, whether achieved in fragmented or consolidated settings, is the prime preference of the citizenry. In this article, I specifically pursue the following research question: How do jurisdictional and metropolitan configurations influence the responsiveness of urban governments to public opinion? My findings illustrate that not only is considering the effect of metro place on city space a necessary and important pursuit, but a broader conceptualization of citizen preferences is of critical importance to scholars of urban politics, especially when assumptions about public opinion motivate choices about institutional sizes and structures.     

The Political Economy of Border Checkpoints in Shadow Exchanges

ABSTRACT

This introductory article revisits cross-border shadow exchanges in a comparative perspective and reflects on their theoretical implications. It explores the diversities and complexities of shadow operations and critically examines the concept of informality that is commonly used to describe such non-state-sanctioned practices. It further underlines the key role played by checkpoint politics in border governance. Border checkpoints serve both as a state institution in regulating border crossings as well as a political site where material and power exchanges among state and non-state actors are negotiated. Such negotiation of selective passage through state-controlled gateways is often predicated upon the skilful manipulation of time and space by experienced traders and brokers.