Abstract
In Majoritarian Cities, political scientist Neil Kraus explores the linkages between public opinion, urban policy and inequality in two US cities. Minneapolis, Minnesota and Gary, Indiana serve as the field of inquiry for research on the politics of urban education, police oversight, affordable housing and economic development. Kraus argues trends in urban politics research have pushed scholarly attention too far away from discussions about the influence of the mass public on the policy choices of city governments. Drawing a careful contrast to pluralism and urban regime theory, Kraus presents a clear argument on majoritarian politics. He argues, ‘I maintain that reelection-seeking local officials, aware of the broad contours of public opinion as it relates to the major policy issues they face, are still responding to more than a small number of elites, regime partners, or narrow interest groups’ (p. 16). Local politicians, and consequently urban policy, are responsive to the will of the majority, as communicated through public opinion polling, local election results and various forms of public consultation. While majoritarian responsiveness may be assessed positively by some standards of representative democracy, bending to majority opinion may prevent cities from addressing some vexing local problems. ‘Specifically, I argue that majority-driven local policy decisions frequently illustrate and ultimately reinforce existing patterns of inequality’, Kraus posits (p. 5). Through a series of policy case studies in the two cities, Kraus draws out various forms of evidence to show the consequences of majority opinion for social and economic inequality.
In Chapter 2, Kraus situates the majoritarian argument within the urban politics literature and introduces the reader to the fields of public policy and the case study cities discussed in the following chapters. Kraus overviews a wide range of national and local-level political science research in the USA in order to help the reader understand the barriers to government action on policies that address inequality. The chapter closes with a brief sketch of the recent history and politics of Minneapolis and Gary, setting the stage for more detailed chapter-length inquiries into inequality and urban policy in the remainder of the book. Chapters 3, 4 and 5, respectively, address education, law enforcement reform and affordable housing in Minneapolis. Chapter 6 addresses economic development in Gary, while Chapter 7 assesses education in the same city. The concluding chapter draws out comparative lessons from the cases and comments on the consequences of majoritarian politics in cities. Through the policy-focused chapters, Kraus illuminates the links between majority opinion, city policy choices and the status of social and economic inequality. An example from each city can provide insight into the author’s approach, argument and evidence.
Affordable housing has been a salient local concern in Minneapolis, with soaring property values challenging low-income residents for almost two decades before the economic recession in 2008. Kraus presents a variety of data to illustrate public opinion on affordable housing. In 1987, the city’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NPR) institutionalised a process through which neighbourhood-based non-profits across the city receive funding from the city to address local priorities with the stipulation that 52.5% of the funds must be spent on housing-related projects. Through a content analysis of the planning documents produced by the neighbourhood organisations, Kraus shows that 26 of 65 plans noted affordability as a concern, though only 10 discussed economic diversity and 13 discussed racial diversity. He argues, ‘the Phase I NRP planning documents indicate that most residents do not desire increasing the amount of affordable housing and the population diversity that accompanies it in their neighborhoods’ (p. 142). Kraus uses this example to draw a distinction between general public concern about affordability and the adoption of specific affordable housing policies that might bear on the instance of inequality in the city. Elections provide another measure of public sentiment on affordable housing in Minneapolis. Before the competitive 2001 mayoral election, Kraus cites city surveys that showed only 40% of city residents were satisfied with the city’s efforts on affordable housing. Yet, only 20% percent of respondents viewed affordable housing as the most important issue facing the city. While the election provided voters with candidates who offered different approaches to affordable housing, the mixed opinion data hints at the challenge of using mayoral election results as a signal of public sentiment on any single urban policy problem. The chapter on affordable housing is an important contribution in this book because the inquiry illustrates the challenging work undertaken by Kraus to disentangle general mass opinion versus opinion on specific policy initiatives with redistributive consequences.
In Gary, Kraus documents the emergence of riverboat casino gambling as a favoured approach to spurring economic development. Demonstrating public support for casino gambling was easier in this case study because an advisory referendum was held. The vote showed 60% of voters in favour of casino gambling in Gary, though only 32% of voters participated in the single-issue election. While the state legislature was the key decision venue to allow riverboat casino development, Kraus compiles various pieces of evidence to show that local support was present for casino development and that local concerns were represented in agreements between the city government and casino developers. Kraus reviews research reports that show economic benefits for the locality outweigh social costs in this case. Concerns about urban inequality linger, explains Kraus, because of challenges in achieving local resident hiring targets at the casinos over time. These two policy examples illustrate the scope of evidence gathered by Kraus to support the argument that city governments follow mass public opinion on important policy questions, with consequences for inequality and redistribution.
Upon finishing this book, readers will have lingering questions about the implication of mass opinion for inequality in cities. For example, some readers will question case selection and attempt to identify cities in which the author’s argument does not hold. Rather than scrutinising the selected cases, a more constructive approach might be to use the research presented by Kraus as a template to construct medium-size sample studies of multiple US cities so that the majoritarian argument can be assessed on a broader scale. Readers might also inquire about other policy examples within the selected case study cities. For example, have politicians or interest groups attempted to mobilise public sentiment on the general question of inequality, as discussed in the concluding chapter? Additionally, some policy examples, such as law enforcement reform in Minneapolis, raise questions about the relationship between interest groups or community advocacy and mass opinion. For example, can advocates raise the mass public salience of issues, even if only for a limited period of time? These questions do not detract from the book, but point to the need for ongoing inquiry into the role of mass public opinion in urban politics and policy.
Majoritarian Cities illuminates urban policy debates in Minneapolis and Gary and challenges readers to think about the consequences of majority public opinion for economic and social progress in US cities. The book will interest local readers in Minneapolis and Gary, but the book should also receive attention from urban policy advocates in other cities. Kraus presents a convincing argument that the advocates of education reform, affordable housing and other policies that bear on local social and economic opportunity have common cause in shaping public opinion not only on their favoured issues, but also on the broader questions of social and economic inequality within their cities. As discussed in the concluding chapter, fostering public dialogue on inequality at any level of the US political system will be difficult. To this end, political scientists should give careful thought to how this book can be incorporated in the classroom. The book is ideal for an upper-level undergraduate course on urban politics. However, instructors should also consider using this book in broader survey seminars with political science or general education curriculum students. While the theoretical detail of the first chapter is most relevant to urban politics students, the policy cases in the remainder of the book are accessible to a general reader and the details of the cases will no doubt provoke classroom discussion. In sum, Majoritarian Cities should provoke new scholarly inquiry and general public discussion about the links between public opinion, urban policy and inequality in US cities.