Comparative Civic Culture

The Role of Local Culture in Urban Policy-Making

Laura A. Reese, Raymond A. Rosenfeld

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781138271128
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317163206
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The quest for a theoretical framework for understanding urban policy-making has been a recurring focus of research into local governments. Civic culture is a means for understanding how municipal policy-makers weigh the interests of different groups, govern the local community, frame local goals, engage in decision-making, and ultimately select and implement public policies. While it seems that culture 'matters' in local policy making, how to measure culture in a valid and replicable fashion presents a significant challenge which the authors address in this book. They present their findings of a large multi-city research project to explore the nature of civic culture in cities in the US and Canada. The focus of their analysis is on three overarching 'systems' of community power system, the community value system, and the community decision-making system. The authors address a number of questions around the nature of civic culture and the relationships between the three systemic elements of civic culture, to refine and apply a more sophisticated theory of urban policy-making.

PART 1

Chapter 1
Comparative Civic Culture: Theory and Methods

The quest for a theoretical framework for understanding urban policy-making has been a recurring focus of research on local governments. Civic culture is a means for understanding how municipal policy-makers weigh the interests of different groups, govern the local community, frame local goals, engage in decision-making, and ultimately select and implement public policies. Interest in, and discussion of, the importance of culture in understanding local politics has expanded in recent years, lending renewed vigor (and rigor) to the study of urban politics (see Sharp 1999, Reese and Rosenfeld 2002, DeLeon and Naff 2003, and Sharp 2004, for example). And, while it seems that most everyone agrees that culture “matters” in local policy-making (that is, we know it when we see it), how to measure culture in a valid and replicable fashion presents a significant (indeed, some would say insurmountable) challenge. Simply because it is difficult to measure, however, does not mean scholars should turn away from an examination of the role of local culture in urban policy-making.

This book presents findings of a large multicity research project to explore the nature of civic culture in cities in the United States and Canada. It is based on earlier work by the authors categorizing local civic culture and exploring its connection to local economic development policy (Reese and Rosenfeld 2002) and was designed specifically to answer some unresolved questions about the role of culture in local policy-making:

• Is it possible to develop a replicable operationalization of civic culture applicable to cities across the US, and perhaps, other comparative contexts?

• How well do current taxonomies of culture apply to a diverse set of large cities?

• Do large cities with heterogeneous populations have a single civic culture?

• Are there different civic cultures for different policy areas?

• What sorts of events are likely to effect change in local civic culture?

• What are the connections between local civic culture and public policy?

Measuring Culture

A Brief History of Culture Research

An extensive body of work in political science has explored the role of political culture in understanding international, national, and state-level institutions, policies, and processes. To a lesser extent, local political cultures have also been explored, though usually tied to regime approaches. The comparative political culture literature has offered important direction in empirically measuring the concept as well as hypothesizing and testing relationships between national political culture and various aspects of democratic performance. For example, Almond and Verba (1963) identify three components comprising political culture (orientational, affective, and evaluational) that interact with the political system (roles/structures, incumbents, and policies). Based on these components they identify three primary theoretical political cultures: parochial, subject, and participant; and three subcultures: parochial/subject, subject/participant, and parochial/participant. In revisiting this literature, Jackman and Miller (1996) conclude that “cultural accounts of political life” are overrated and the “political culture approach needs to be recast in institutional terms that more directly acknowledge the role of political considerations in explaining performance,” (1996: 633) since their analysis fails to reveal any significant effects of political culture using earlier data sets with different measures and indexes. This empirical failure suggests that the indicators do not identify different kinds of political cultures, that the performance of the indicators used is unstable, or that culture is not strongly associated with political system performance.

Elazar’s work on US cultures (1994) has served as a base for much subsequent sub-national research. As a general framework, Elazar suggests that political culture has a dual “manifestation” based upon individual and community beliefs expressed through political symbols and community and individual political styles. In short, political culture encompasses perceptions of how government should function, who has access to it, and how and what policy outputs result. Earlier, Kluckhohn (1954) identified six pivotal themes underlying cultures: language, aesthetic expression, standardized orientation to life problems, means to perpetuate the group, individual demands for order, and individual demands for survival. Based on this definition, Elazar described three identifiable political subcultures: individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic. Using these types, Elazar mapped the “American cultural matrix,” the distribution of political cultures among states and geographic regions within states. His analysis was based on descriptive interpretations, however, rather than on an empirical analysis of data representing aspects of political culture.

Elazar’s original cultural types have been tested several times by researchers examining state political culture (for example, Erikson et al. 1993, and Koven 1999). Elazar’s (1966) three cultural categories—individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic—were broadened into a nine-point scale by Sharkansky (1970) and ten sub-categories by Liske (1993). While Putnam (2000) has suggested that the original Elazar typology appears to define state cultures of the late 1980s, Sharp (2004) found little correlation between Elazar’s measures and more current census and survey indicators of culture. That such efforts to test for the presence of Elazar’s cultures provided only weak support suggests that refinements are needed to the schema either to account for cultural complexity (beyond narrow race, religion, and ethnicity measures) or change in culture over time (Sharp 2004).

Shifting focus from national or sub-national political cultures to the level of individual communities opens a wider research agenda. Although Banfield and Wilson (1963) recognized the role of political culture in urban politics, earlier work not specifically referencing political or civic culture was rooted in essential contextual questions of who has power in communities and whose interests predominate. Dahl’s (1961) work on New Haven presented the pluralist “culture” as an alternative to the elitist frameworks of Hunter (1953). Stone’s (1980) systemic power theory, Peterson’s limited city (1981), and Logan and Molotch’s growth machine (1987) all argued for economistic interpretations where development-based, land-holding or capitalistic interests dominate by holding resources that elected officials need to attain and stay in office. Stone’s regime theory (1989), with its emphasis on governing coalitions, implied that each local system varied in response to systemic power interests. Thus, the door opened for consideration of different local governing cultures that define the extent to which economic interests are favored, under what circumstances, and to what policy effect.

More recently, scholars have begun to explore the larger cultural context in which local governing regimes are embedded. For example, Ferman (1996) uses political culture as a central concept in examining progressive regime formation, tying it to the larger culture of liberal individualism. Other research has focused on “unconventional” (Rosdil 1991, Sharp 2002), “new” (Clark and Inglehart 1998, DeLeon and Naff 2003), or “creative” political cultures (Florida 2000). Perhaps as a result of the emphasis on progressive or new cultures, attendant dependent variables have included identity and tolerance, morality issues, and progressive forms of development policies. Thus, while Elazar’s measures of culture (and later revisions by Lieske 1993) relied heavily on gross categories of race, ethnicity, and religion, the newer culture literature focuses on social change, life-styles, and the extent of social traditionalism or conventionalism.

Defining culture in this way has resulted in an operationalization that includes women’s social roles, higher education, non-traditional households, human service and technical employment, religious fundamentalism, new social movements, and gay and lesbian presence (Rosdil 1991, Sharp 2002, Clark and Inglehart 1998, DeLeon and Naff 2003, Rosdil 2006). Yet, the precise definition of local culture along with its attendant empirical indicators is still being debated (Ross 2000, Sharp 2004). Research using the indicators just noted, even drawn from different sources (census versus survey, for example), has resulted in relatively consistent results (DeLeon and Naff 2003, Sharp 2004). Thus, some definitional consensus is appearing at least when looking at unconventional cultures and policy outcomes.

Ideological Versus Governing Cultures

Political culture is defined as the normative context within which politics takes place. This context includes the ideals, beliefs, values, symbols, stories, and public rituals that bind people together and direct them in common action. Political action then emanates from political culture, is a reflection of that culture’s ideals and reinforces its normative boundaries (IASC 2007).

The preceding quotation represents one of the best overall definitions of what is meant by political culture. This is a general definition, however. Past and present local culture research suggests conceptualizations that focus on two different, albeit related, aspects or interpretations of culture, causing researchers, in some cases, to talk across each other. Both of these conceptions are embedded in the broader definition above.

One conceptualization of local culture is social or ideological in nature, focusing on individual values, beliefs, and ideologies. This conceptualization is evident in the works of Ross (2000), DeLeon and Naff (2004), and Sharp (2005). Local ideological cultures include party preferences, liberal or conservative leanings, life-style choices, political tolerance, religious values, and the like. Indeed, such a conceptualization is in line with standard definitions of ideology as “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class or large group” (Random House 2006). The concept of ideological culture has led to the research noted above, focusing on unconventional or progressive political cultures. Similarly, the new political culture literature emphasizes national level values, social-psychological dynamics, and individual attitudes and values presenting an ideal cultural type as opposed to a system for measuring variation in culture (Clark and Inglehart 1998, Clark and Hoffmann-Martinot 1998, Putnam 2000).

The other interpretation of local culture rests on a systemic conceptualization of culture (Parsons 1951, Easton 1965). This definition of culture is not social or ideological but rooted in governance, and thus represents “civic” as opposed to “ideological” culture. Civic specifically refers to that “of or pertaining to a city, to citizenship, and of citizens” (Random House 2006). Governing and public decision-making are conducted collectively. Municipalities have collective memories and identities that are not the simple sum of individual preferences and values. Thus, there is a history and sense of community as a political, economic, and social place, necessitating an assessment of the culture of the system. Culture is also more than internal local institutional arrangements. Local “civic cultures,” as conceptualized here, represent systems of individual and group interactions in a public policy-making context that inherently necessitate the “allocation of value,” with processes reflecting both individual and community values and goals. Governing the local community is an activity that can more effectively be understood as a system of cultural interaction. Thus, local culture as defined below differentiates the individual (internal or ideological) from the civic (relational or governing):

The frame of reference concerns the “orientation” of one or more actors—in the fundamental individual case biological organisms—to a situation, which includes other actors. The scheme, that is, relative to the units of action and interaction, is a relational scheme. It analyzes the structure and processes of the systems built up by the relations of such units to their situations, including other units. This is not as such concerned with the internal structure of the units except so far as this directly bears on the relational system (Parsons 1951: 4).

Table 1.1 below lays out the difference between the ideological and civic components of local culture. Examples of individual level variables include (but are not necessarily limited to): individual political ideology (liberal versus conservative, for example), partisanship, religion and religious values, life style preferences, tolerance toward other groups, attitudes about personal responsibility, trust in government, feelings of personal political efficacy and so on. Again, these are the individual ideological traits that, in the aggregate, comprise the local ideological culture that effects how political action, governing, and policy-making are conducted. The governing or civic culture is defined as “the range of accepted modes of governance … the formal and informal structures for policing discourses and practices” (Clarke 2007: 10; see also Healey 2004). Elements of the civic culture are measured at the community level and are portrayed in the last column in Table 1.1: input opportunities, power relationships, how and which groups have access to and participate in the political system, extent and acceptance of conflict, tolerance for risk, community volunteerism, and approaches to policy issues (extent of innovation, planning, evaluation, rationality).

Table 1.1 Local Culture Map

An important element in the discussion of governing or civic culture is to explicitly identify what is not civic culture. As many scholars have pointed out, if the culture is everything then perhaps it is really nothing. Local civic culture is not everything. There are exogenous features of the environment of cities that certainly impact the local culture but are not part of it (see the first column in Table 1.1). Most prominently, demographic factors are not considered part of the culture including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education, workforce characteristics, geography and the like. While these variables almost certainly col...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Contributor Biographies
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• PART 1
• PART 2
• PART 3
• PART 4
• Index