Residents’ expectations from the municipality in an age of urban-national polarisation

In our recent research, we explored how urban residents navigate the growing divide between liberal cities and illiberal nation-states, focusing specifically on the experiences and expectations of residents in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. As researchers interested in the politics of cities, we were intrigued by how urban residents perceive their municipality’s role in advocating for progressive policies amidst a backdrop of political turbulence. We suggest that Tel Aviv-Jaffa reflects a global trend, where many municipalities increasingly position themselves as liberal strongholds, while their respective national governments become more right-wing, populist and/or illiberal. While much of the academic discourse has centred around macro-level explanations of the political polarisation between cities and states, we recognised a significant gap: what do residents think about their municipality’s role in promoting progressive agendas?

Through an original survey of 426 residents, we developed a typology categorising the respondents into three main groups: “Liberals,” who prioritise progressive policies; “Municipalists,” who appreciate liberal agendas but prioritise core municipal responsibilities; and “Conservatives,” who resist the expansion of liberal issues into local governance.

Our key finding revealed that nearly 80% of the city’s population express support for municipal involvement in “big” progressive issues, such as LGBTQ+ rights and public services on Shabbat. Importantly, about 28% of residents identified as Liberals, highlighting their expectation for the municipality to take a stand on these progressive issues, rather than confining itself to traditional local governance. However, more than half of the city’s population (53%), marked as Municipalists, still prioritises classical municipal responsibilities over such initiatives. This distribution highlights a notable gap between residents’ liberal tendencies and their practical preferences for municipal action. Moreover, we found that adopting a progressive agenda correlated with a pessimistic view of the country’s direction and future, implying that residents dissatisfied with national politics wish to expand the political role of municipalities.

By considering both residents’ broader worldviews and policy preferences, the novel typology we have proposed refines the traditional liberal-conservative distinction at the local level, thereby contributing to the ongoing academic discussion surrounding urban governance. Our findings also hold relevant implications for policymakers and city leaders. They suggest that the legitimacy of urban policies may hinge on public expectations, illustrating how residents increasingly look to their local governments to defend their values during politically turbulent times. Our research emphasises the importance of local governments engaging with their residents’ beliefs and preferences in a polarised environment. By bridging the gap between traditional municipal roles and the broader desires of their constituencies, a nuanced understanding of local governance can emerge—one that may inherently adapt to the evolving needs of urban populations who seek recognition and representation in municipal agendas.In conclusion, our work brings to light the complexities surrounding urban governance in the context of national political shifts, shedding light on the significant role municipalities can play in addressing these challenges. Tel Aviv-Jaffa serves not only as a unique case study but also as a potential point of reference for other urban areas grappling with similar political dynamics and dilemmas. Understanding urban residents’ policy preferences and expectations of their municipality is important today, more than ever before, considering the growing importance of municipalities in setting agendas on a national and global scale, as well as the power urban residents wield to legitimise or challenge municipal actions.

Read the full open access article here.