regime. These actors with access to institutional resources in their own right blend
their capacities in order to establish a hegemonic control over the policy agenda in
a locality. In the US literature it is typically the local municipality and key private
corporations who blend their capacities and resources to occupy such a strategic
position.
The second important relationship in understanding regimes is between the
core of the regime and other actors it draws into the governing coalition. Having
created the conditions to exercise pre-emptive power, regimes are then able to
secure the participation of other actors through the distribution of selective
incentives, such as contracts, jobs, community facilities, and other small-scale
beneWts. Thus an eVective regime requires a core set of actors to occupy
the strategic position in a city and have the capacity to exercise pre-emptive
power through a combination of blending their own resources and oVering
selective incentives to ensure the cooperation and participation of more peripheral
actors.
A regime then emerges as a bridging institutional construct that draws
together actors, with those who have access to institutional resources at its core.
Having access to institutional resources is vital because actors in that position
can enter the game in terms of setting the vision for a locality and combining
their resources with others to ensure that the vision is delivered. Control
over institutional resources is also necessary in order to bargain for the support
of more peripheral interests so that they are encouraged to stay as part of the
partnership.
4 Regimes in Comparative Perspective
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The North American literature on regimes is substantial (for a review see
Mossberger and Stoker 2001 ; Davies 2001 ). The key starting point remains,
however, Clarence Stone’s study of Atlanta. That study focuses on a development
regime that dominated Atlanta for much of the postwar period. Stone shows, with
careful historical analysis, how the regime maintained a steady focus on the
regeneration and expansion of the city. He shows how the business community
came to an accommodation with the African-American political leadership of the
city and how, through various selective incentives and deals, key community
leaders were also bought into the project. Against the odds in many ways, and
comparative local governance 505