ABSTRACT
In one of the urban field’s most influential books, City Limits, Paul Peterson argues
that ‘policy structures political relationships’ (1981, p. 131). Examining the implications of
mobile capital, Peterson concludes that cities are inevitably drawn ‘to give priority to the
maintenance and enhancement of their economic productivity’ (1981, p. 15). In this way,
an economic imperative dictates policy, and policy shapes politics. For Peterson, the
driving force is the unitary interest that cities have in developmental policy (and in
avoiding redistributive policies). Only in the economically neutral arena of allocational
policy do cities have room for the conventional politics of a give-and-take struggle among
conflicting interests. Since developmental policies (and avoidance of redistribution) stem
from an overriding imperative, Peterson argues, the politics they engender is consensual.
At the heart of that consensus is recognition that cities are limited in what they can do,
particularly on such issues as social exclusion.
