Who Really Governs Vancouver? Community Power and Urban Regime Theory Revisited by Kevin James Ginnell M.A. (Political Science), Simon Fraser University, 2001 B.A. (Hons.), Simon Fraser University, 1999 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science Faculty of Arts and Sciences Kevin James Ginnell 2013 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2013 Approval Name: Kevin James Ginnell Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) Title of Thesis: Who Really Governs Vancouver? Community Power and Urban Regime Theory Revisited Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Doug Ross Graduate Chair Dr. Patrick Smith Senior Supervisor Professor Departments of Political Science and Urban Studies Dr. Stephen McBride Supervisor Canada Research Chair, Professor Political Science McMaster University Dr. Maureen Covell Supervisor Professor Dr. Noel Dyck Internal-External Examiner Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Dr. James Lightbody External Examiner Chair/Professor Department of Political Science University of Alberta Date Defended: August 20, 2013 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Ethics Statement iv Abstract The central research question herein is “how do coalitions of government and non- government actors get created and influence the decision-making processes of municipal government in Vancouver, British Columbia?” The goal of this effort is to better understand “who really governs?” (Dahl, 1961) at the municipal level of government in the city during two ‘adjacent’ eras – the development of the post-Expo ’86 lands in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and the creation and implementation of the Vancouver Agreement (VA), including the development of Vancouver as North America’s first supervised/safe injection site/harm reduction model, in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. This dissertation considers not only the structures, actors and ideas of municipal governments but also the creation, influence and power of the various coalitions, the urban regimes, as defined by Stone (1989), that form around local decision-making. It is clear from this examination that coalitions of government and non-government actors, urban regimes, were created and influenced the decision-making processes involved in the development of former Expo ’86 lands and the creation and implementation of the Vancouver Agreement. In addition, there were continuities and discontinuities identified, linked to the type of policy being considered by the Vancouver municipal government. In sum, this analysis found that the nature of the decision-making processes, and by extension the urban regimes that were created, were issue-dependent. Urban regimes involved in what Bish and Clemens (2008) have described as “hard” (or “engineering”) issues, such as land development, were substantially different in nature to those involved in “soft” (or human policy”) issues, such as the provision of addiction services - the substance of policy issues mattered more than institutions. Keywords: municipal; government; non-government; regime theory; Expo ’86; Vancouver Agreement v Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my late grandparents Bert and Jean Graves; my late father Patrick Ginnell; my mother Wanda Ginnell; my brothers Erin and his wife Jay; Daniel and his wife Leslie; and most of all to my five nephews Derek, Liam, Sean, Brad, and Riley. I also dedicate this dissertation to my good friends David Anderson and Diane Griffith who have stood by me through this adventure —good times and bad. vi Acknowledgements No undertaking such as this would be possible without the support and assistance of a good many people. I would like to particularly thank the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University for everything that was done for me during my “rather long” time on the mountain. Going to SFU literally changed my life, on a few occasions, and I really appreciate my time spent with the many faculty, staff and colleagues over the years. In particular, I would like to express my thanks to Undergrad Assistant Eliza So and Chair’s Secretary Sherry Lloyd who always were eager to help and listen to me, I am very grateful for your assistance over the years both when I was taking classes and later during my graduate studies, TA/TM’ing and Sessional instructing. I would like to express thanks to the kind folks at the Centre for Online and Distance Education (CODE), in particular Sophie Larsen, who was very supportive and made my work with them so enjoyable. I would like to also thank colleagues Shaun Tyakoff and Jeanette Ashe from Douglas College for their encouragement and listening skills during this adventure. Finally, I would like to thank the many students I have worked with as colleagues over the years and those that I have taught over the recent years it was, and is, my pleasure to work with you. I would also like to thank the members of my examining committee - Dr. Douglas Ross; Dr. Patrick Smith; Dr. Maureen Covell; Dr. Noel Dyck; Dr. Steven McBride and Dr. James Lightbody. Your participation is greatly appreciated by me. I owe my academic career to Dr. Paddy Smith. At various times this pride of Utopia, Ontario has been my editor, teacher, mentor, friend, sounding board, employment counsellor, protector, and co-conspirator. Paddy always provided me with opportunities, advice, confidence and challenges, and many laughs – for that I am eternally grateful. I am particularly thankful that I have him to thank for my attitudes about engaging students and actually enjoying Political Science. Finally, I would like to thank the Tour de France, Blenz Coffee, and the Seagull across the lane that gave birth to 3 little chicks in the final two weeks of writing, this dissertation would not have been completed without the distractions and caffeine you provided. vii Table of Contents Approval .............................................................................................................................ii Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................. iii Ethics Statement ...............................................................................................................iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................. v Dedication .........................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ viii List of Tables .....................................................................................................................xi List of Figures................................................................................................................... xii List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. xiii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................ 11 1.1.1. Literature Review/Theory ......................................................................................... 11 1.1.2. Context ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.3. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 12 1.1.4. Cases ....................................................................................................................... 12 1.1.5. Findings and Analysis .............................................................................................. 12 1.1.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13 2. Literature/Theoretical Review ............................................................................. 14 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 14 2.2. Elite Model ............................................................................................................. 17 2.3. Elite Model Critique ................................................................................................ 24 2.4. Pluralist Model ........................................................................................................ 28 2.5. Pluralist Model Critique .......................................................................................... 32 2.6. Growth Machine Model .......................................................................................... 33 2.7. Growth Machine Model Critique ............................................................................. 35 2.8. Urban Regime Model ............................................................................................. 36 2.9. Urban Regime Critique ........................................................................................... 44 2.10. Contemporary Community Power Analysis ...........................................................