The study of political behavior in cities has revolved around two issues: Who holds power within the community? And how much autonomy do urban policy makers have within national and global systems to make meaningful decisions? The use of the term ‘community’ is somewhat misleading, since the jurisdictional level discussed was usually that of the city. The ‘community power structure debate’ defined the theoretical terrain of urban politics throughout the 1960s and much of the 1970s. The two poles of this debate were elite theory and pluralist theory. In elitist thought powerful members of the business elite manipulated elected officials, while for pluralists urban politics consisted of the activities of multiple elites, with elected officials acting as ultimate arbiters. (At its extreme this theory produced a model of the city as ungovernable or ‘hyperpluralist’). The community power structure debate was displaced by political-economic analysis. On one side Paul Peterson presented a conservative view, arguing that market factors limited urban political autonomy and capacity. Consequently urban policy makers could only benefit the entire public by fostering economic development and would cause the relative disadvantage of their cities if they sought redistribution. On the left, analysts considered that the power of capital caused city governments to pursue policies that benefited the owners of capital at the expense of the poor. More generally they analyzed urban political behavior within the context of the global restructuring of capital, which made city governments helpless to prevent deindustrialization and spatial reordering. Within both these views community power and ensuing local political behavior had little ability to affect urban outcomes. Regime theory has become the prevailing standpoint in the study of community power. It represents a fusion of pluralist and left political economy approaches. Regime theory assumes that urban regimes make a difference in outcomes (‘politics matters’), and it presents various models of community power that vary temporally and from city to city. While business-dominated regimes are most prevalent, other possibilities allow political outcomes that are more favorable to redistribution. The development of theories of community power has been strongly shaped by actual events and ascendant ideologies rather than simply reflecting the dialectic of ideas.

The paper looks in detail at one particular interpenetration of academic theory and state policy making — filtering theory in urban geography. While household mobility and turnover are important processes in the housing system, they are extended in filtering theory to form a universal explanatory model embracing the entire housing system. In this model idealised concepts of the operation of the housing market—valid only under conditions that do not occur in practice — are used to legitimate a laissez-faire natural-market view of how the housing system should operate. Translated into government policy, used to justify the dominant private interests in housing, and supported by academic explanation, the theory then comes to legitimate the persistence of gross inequalities in housing provision and to maintain the allocation of resources away from those most in need. This paper reviews this use of filtering theory both in Britain and the United States, and makes a variety of empirical and theoretical criticism of its validity.

AntipodeVolume 10, Issue 2 p. 38-44 IDEOLOGY AND THE STATE: THE CASE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING FRED GRAY, FRED GRAY University of SussexSearch for more papers by this authorPETER DICKENS, PETER DICKENS University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author FRED GRAY, FRED GRAY University of SussexSearch for more papers by this authorPETER DICKENS, PETER DICKENS University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author First published: August 1978 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1978.tb00105.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume10, Issue2August 1978Pages 38-44 RelatedInformation

AntipodeVolume 8, Issue 1 p. 38-44 RADICAL GEOGRAPHY AND THE STUDY OF EDUCATION Fred Gray, Fred Gray University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author Fred Gray, Fred Gray University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1976 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1976.tb00687.xCitations: 3AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume8, Issue1March 1976Pages 38-44 RelatedInformation