{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016966067864271458, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.965277777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Politics of Alternative Economic Development: Revisiting the Stone-Imbroscio Debate

ABSTRACT: A recent debate between Clarence Stone and David Imbroscio focused on the transformative potential of regime theory. Imbroscio proposes a research agenda for regime theory in which the identification of alternative economic development strategies and ideas figures prominently. Stone questions whether such a shift represents a theoretical advance, arguing that Imbroscio’s proposed agenda fails to link ideas with political action. This article seeks to further this debate through a case study of an alternative economic development strategy in Chicago, the Local Industrial Retention Initiative (LIRI). The experience of the LIRI program partially supports Imbroscio’s optimism about the regime altering potential of alternative economic development strategies and ideas. However, it also suggests that regime theory’s lessons about coalition building are crucial in moving such alternatives forward.