ABSTRACT
Comparative analysis of urban politics should be guided by an explicit analytical strategy. Charles Tilly proposes four comparative analytical strategies, as follows: (1) individualizing comparisons, which 'contrast specific instances of a given phenomenon as a means of grasping the peculiarities of each case'; (2) universalizing comparisons, which strives 'to establish that every instance of a phenomenon follows essentially the same rule'; (3) variation-finding comparisons, which attempt to find the 'principle of variation in the character or intensity of a phenomenon by examining systematic differences among instances'; and (4) encompassing comparisons, which concentrates on 'different instances at various locations within the same system, on the way to explaining their characteristics as a function of their varying relationship to the system as a whole' (Tilly, 1984: 82-83). This comparative study of urban politics in Curitiba and Portland uses the method of individualizing comparisons, in that it attempts to explain some peculiarities of each case study, which become more apparent by contrast with the other case. The cities studied highlight differences across nations. However, urban governance in these cities constitutes, to varying degrees, unique cases within each nation as well. I do not claim, therefore, that these cases are either representative or generalizable of the trajectories of urban governance in their respective countries. Thus, a comparative analysis of more case studies within each nation could evidence similarities as well as differences with the cities herein studied, both in the same country and across countries.
