The New Privatism, Federalism, and The Future of Urban Governance: National Urban Policy in the 1980S

Two policies of the Reagan administration threaten the traditional role of cities both as basic elements in the nation’s governing structure and as socio-economic communities. The long-standing belief that an important criterion for judging both public and private action is its contribution to the welfare of the city has been abandoned. Under what may be called the New Privatism the existence or creation of any community is now primarily justified by its capacity to serve the locational needs of private firms in a technology-driven national market. To continue Federal development aid to economically declining cities would contribute to inefficiency in the national spatial economy and cannot be justified. The Reagan version of the New Federalism calls for devolving greater power to the state and local levels. For cities, the opposite effect is more likely. The ending or reduction of most federal programs relating to cities and their residents has put many cities in a double bind. They must choose between using scarce local resources to compete with other communities to lure or hold job-generating firms and attempting to meet the needs of large numbers of their citizens who formerly received federal social and welfare aid. Further, much of the national money which is still available for economic development and social needs is now administered by state governments under block grants. States have seldom been responsive to such needs in urban areas. If our assessment of the negative effects of these policies on the viability of cities as governing units is correct, then the question that must be addressed is: what is to replace local government as the primary means for citizens to act collectively below the state level?