Zack Taylor
Dr. Zack Taylor is an Associate Professor in the Dept. of Political Science at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. His research focuses on the contemporary and historical politics of urban and metropolitan planning, urban political economy, and political geography.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Papers by Zack Taylor
tension between openness and closure in liberal-democratic
countries, arguing that domestic migration policy regimes
represent an equilibrium outcome between security, rights,
markets, and culture. This overstates national strategic control
over migration and borders. Through a case study of recent
developments in Canada, sometimes held up as the paradigmatic
centralised liberal migration state, we present evidence of
growing policy blurring, fragmentation, and decentralisation as
migration management programmes have been patched and
layered in response to controversies and pressure from domestic
interests, including employers, higher education institutions,
advocacy groups, and subnational governments. As a result,
volumes of temporary foreign workers and foreign students have
increased tenfold since 2000. More generally, we propose that a
strategy of disaggregation reveals the internal complexity of, and
political tensions within, contemporary migration states.
without a major, consistently anti-immigrant or nativist party? I argue that none of Canada’s major national parties have adopted an anti-immigration or nativist platform because of incentives established by the interaction of the concentrated metropolitan
geography of immigrant settlement, the geography of representation under the single-member plurality electoral system, and the regionalization of parties’ support bases. I demonstrate that Canada’s national parties have a strong incentive to reduce the cost of assembling electoral coalitions by appealing to densely institutionalized cultural communities, principally in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.
has embraced the concept of ‘planning culture’ as the basis for explanation, yet this work has lacked focus. This article argues that historical institutionalism as developed in the social sciences provides a more precise explanatory framework for comparative planning research.
tension between openness and closure in liberal-democratic
countries, arguing that domestic migration policy regimes
represent an equilibrium outcome between security, rights,
markets, and culture. This overstates national strategic control
over migration and borders. Through a case study of recent
developments in Canada, sometimes held up as the paradigmatic
centralised liberal migration state, we present evidence of
growing policy blurring, fragmentation, and decentralisation as
migration management programmes have been patched and
layered in response to controversies and pressure from domestic
interests, including employers, higher education institutions,
advocacy groups, and subnational governments. As a result,
volumes of temporary foreign workers and foreign students have
increased tenfold since 2000. More generally, we propose that a
strategy of disaggregation reveals the internal complexity of, and
political tensions within, contemporary migration states.
without a major, consistently anti-immigrant or nativist party? I argue that none of Canada’s major national parties have adopted an anti-immigration or nativist platform because of incentives established by the interaction of the concentrated metropolitan
geography of immigrant settlement, the geography of representation under the single-member plurality electoral system, and the regionalization of parties’ support bases. I demonstrate that Canada’s national parties have a strong incentive to reduce the cost of assembling electoral coalitions by appealing to densely institutionalized cultural communities, principally in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.
has embraced the concept of ‘planning culture’ as the basis for explanation, yet this work has lacked focus. This article argues that historical institutionalism as developed in the social sciences provides a more precise explanatory framework for comparative planning research.
The invited speakers provided insights on specific aspects of the law and their implications. Karen Chapple discussed the inspiration for the reform, American “strong mayor” cities. Matt Elliot probed how the relationship between the mayor and councillors might change. Alison Smith talked about the provincialmunicipal intergovernmental relationship and the politics of housing policy. Finally, Gabriel Eidelman examined the implications of the change for the relationship between elected officials and professional administrative staff. Zack Taylor provides context for the
discussion and, in his conclusion, addresses questions such as the risk of politicizing the public service, the implications for small and regional municipalities, and the role of the province.
This report recommends strengthening the Regional Service Commissions along the lines of British Columbia’s regional districts—multi-purpose bodies that have coordinated service delivery and land-use planning in that province since the 1960s. The report outlines the history of regional districts, describes their key features, and shows how they could be implemented in New Brunswick through modest reforms to the existing Regional Service Commissions. We call this approach representative regionalization because it would strengthen local government, give a democratic voice to the 30% of New Brunswickers who live outside of incorporated municipalities, and distribute costs and benefits more equitably within regional housing and labour
markets. Importantly, representative regionalization would be minimally disruptive to existing institutions and longstanding practices—indeed, much less disruptive than other potential options such as forced municipal incorporation and amalgamation. Representative regionalization is not a centralizing move. Rather, it would enhance local autonomy by empowering local democratic institutions to make decisions in the interest of their communities.
from being static, Canadian municipal law is in a period of transition. The legal scope
of municipal authority has expanded over the past 25 years as most provinces have
revised their general municipal acts and adopted special laws for major cities. While
the overall trend has been toward more permissive authority and the recognition
of municipalities as democratic, accountable, and responsible governments, there
are significant variations across the provinces, and some have gone further than
others in expanding the legal authority of municipalities. We conclude that the
practical potential of this wave of legislative reform remains unknown and perhaps unrealized, and requires further research.
In Shaping the Metropolis Zack Taylor compares the historical development of American and Canadian urban governance, both at the national level and through specific metropolitan case studies. Examining Minneapolis-St Paul and Portland, Oregon, in the United States, and Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, Taylor shows how differences in the structure of governing institutions in American states and Canadian provinces cumulatively produced different forms of urban governance. Arguing that since the nineteenth century American state governments have responded less effectively to rapid urban growth than Canadian provinces, he shows that the concentration of authority in Canadian provincial governments enabled the rapid adoption of coherent urban policies after the Second World War, while dispersed authority in American state governments fostered indecision and catered to parochial interests.
Most contemporary policy problems and their solutions are to be found in cities. Shaping the Metropolis shows that urban governance encompasses far more than local government, and that states and provinces have always played a central role in responding to urban policy challenges and will continue to do so in the future.