TWO CONCEPTS OF POLARIZATION : Urban–National Tension and its Effects on the Liberal Trajectory of Cities

Source abstract

Abstract 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.