Two Concepts of Polarization

Urban–National Tension and its Effects on the Liberal Trajectory of Cities

Bibliographic Data

ID24214483
AuthorsHarel Nachmany (0000-0003-4522-1766), Tal Alster (0000-0002-3126-1671), Nufar Avni (0000-0001-8317-808X)
Year2026
Publication date2026-10-05
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0309-1317 • E-ISSN: 1468-2427
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/1468-2427.70145
OpenAlexW7220707639
LanguageEN
References cited35

This study examines how urban–national polarization shapes how progressive cities exercise local autonomy. It introduces a new framework for assessing polarization within specific policy domains, distinguishing between ideological and pragmatic polarization. The analysis focuses on five liberal‐oriented policy domains: gender equality, environmental sustainability, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and religion–state relations through the case of Tel Aviv–Jaffa, Israel. For each domain, it evaluates both the degree of polarization between central and local governments and the municipal strategies and mechanisms used for policy implementation. The research findings indicate that higher levels of urban–national polarization are associated with fragmented organizational structures, symbolic or tactical policymaking, and strong fiscal independence, whereas lower levels correspond to comprehensive strategic planning and institutional stability. These patterns, we suggest, affect the legitimacy, sustainability, and accountability of liberal autonomous local policies. As urban–national polarization intensifies worldwide, these insights contribute to broader theoretical debates on local autonomy, municipal activism, and urban progressivism.

Local Governance and Planning · Political Systems and Governance · Urban Planning and Governance

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access