In Urban Power: Democracy and Inequality in Sao Paulo and Johannesburg (2024), Benjamin Bradlow delivers an illuminating account of urban governance processes and their potential to reduce inequality. He argues that the effectiveness of democratic governance in reducing inequality depends on how local states connect with civil society and coordinate internally. To develop this argument, the book delivers a rigorous paired comparison between two very similar cases with diverging development paths (p. 15). While structures of inequality have remained largely stagnant in one of those cases, the other has made successful strides to reduce urban exclusion. The two case studies are São Paulo, in Brazil, and Johannesburg, in South Africa, respectively.

Although largely qualitative, Bradlow’s methodological approach combines extensive fieldwork—including 225 semi-structured interviews—with quantitative and spatial analyses. This mixed-method design enables him to trace the historical evolution of local state capacities and capture the nuances of urban governance in contexts marked by rapid urbanization and deep-seated inequality. Bradlow contends that cities like São Paulo succeed in broadening access to essential public goods—housing, sanitation, and transportation—because they build strong “embedded” ties with social movements and demonstrate high institutional “cohesion.” In contrast, Johannesburg’s weaker state–society linkages and fragmented bureaucratic coordination result in persistent exclusion and uneven distribution of urban resources.

The book is structured in six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the concept of “urban power” as the key to understanding how cities govern the distribution of public goods under democratic regimes. Urban power is the source of more equal and inclusive cities, Bradlow argues in this chapter. He develops the theoretical framework, introducing the concepts of “embeddedness” and “cohesion.” Embeddedness refers to the degree of connection between municipal institutions and civil society actors, particularly social movements like those fighting for housing rights (p. 10). This connection can enable grassroots movements to influence policy directly, thereby challenging entrenched practices that favor exclusion, privatization, corruption, and violence (p. 11). Cohesion, on the other hand, captures the internal coordinating capacity of the local state. It is defined by the ability of municipal bureaucracies to organize and implement policy changes effectively across different levels of government. A cohesive state can translate social pressures and policy innovations into concrete actions that improve access to housing, sanitation, and transportation (pp. 12–13). Without adequate internal coordination, even well-meaning policies may fail in the face of competing interests or bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Chapter 2 establishes the empirical foundation for the book by situating the two megacities within their unique historical, political, and social contexts. Bradlow begins by detailing how both cities emerged from periods of authoritarian rule and became democracies, albeit ones that inherited profound legacies of urban exclusion that shaped their initial conditions. In São Paulo, rapid urbanization during the mid-20th century led to explosive population growth, creating a stark divide between a wealthy urban core and sprawling, under-serviced peripheral informal settlements, or favelas (p. 29). Historical processes such as mass evictions, market-driven redevelopment, and inadequate public investment deepened this divide. São Paulo, however, has made some meaningful reductions of inequality in the past 35 years (p. 41). Simultaneously, Johannesburg’s urban landscape was shaped by the apartheid regime. Racially segregated policies enforced through forced removals and the creation of separate townships resulted in a city where spatial inequality was codified by law. The apartheid structure persisted even after the democratic transition in Johannesburg, although racial segregation decreased (p. 49).

Chapters 3–5 then focus on specific policy arenas. In Chapter 3, the discussion centers on housing. In São Paulo, grassroots housing movements—embodied by organizations like the União dos Movimentos de Moradia (UMM)—challenged the inviolability of private property and built robust alliances with Luiza Erundina’s municipal government (1989–1993) (p. 59). As a result, self-build housing projects allowed informal residents to gain security of tenure and access public services. In contrast, Johannesburg’s local government remained largely disconnected from civil society (p. 75). Without the pressure from grassroots housing movements, elite interests, especially those of white private developers, continued to dominate (p. 94).

Chapter 4 examines transportation. In São Paulo, the municipal government used its cohesive institutional capacity to formalize and integrate the city’s bus system through private operators under centralized regulation. The city successfully reduced travel times and costs for marginalized communities by establishing a unified network with a single, subsidized, and multi‑leg ticketing system (p. 117). Conversely, Johannesburg’s transportation system remains dominated by an informal minibus taxi system. Given the absence of coordinated institutional reform, technological innovations did not translate into integrated service improvements (p. 121). The fragmented nature of the system results in higher costs and inefficiencies, hence reinforcing spatial inequalities (p. 132).

Chapter 5 deals with another critical public good: sanitation. Cohesive planning and robust coordination among municipal agencies have led to marked improvements in São Paulo’s sanitation, even within informal settlements. The city’s ability to enforce regulations and integrate services, as well as the expansion of sewer-connected toilets and other infrastructure, is presented as evidence that a well-coordinated state can overcome longstanding exclusionary practices (p. 148). In contrast, Johannesburg’s approach to sanitation is characterized by institutional fragmentation and competition. This fragmentation undermines the state’s capacity to provide consistent and equitable sanitation, which perpetuates inequality (p. 163).

The book’s theorization and the wealth of evidence underpinning it are as compelling as they are thought provoking. In light of the arguments presented, one might ask the author to elaborate on the following three points.

First, can grassroots leaders and activists use Bradlow’s notion of urban power to promote politicization and advance their goals? Although the book’s process tracing illustrates the collaboration between social movements and political authorities, it offers a rather institutional account of grassroots initiatives. Consequently, the ways in which social movements coalesce to challenge, influence, and support policy could be further developed both theoretically and empirically. Barlow, for instance, mentions the emergence of social movement coalitions dealing with the right to housing in Brazil, namely the UMM, the Frente da Luta por Moradia, and the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto. A deeper analysis of how and why these coalitions form, and how they negotiate autonomy while influencing policy, could enrich the discussion. Expanding on these dynamics would inform the work of grassroots leaders, whose ability to sustain organizing and collective action over time is key to the development of urban power.

Second, is urban power exclusively a matter of programmatic politics? The book speaks of clientelism and non-programmatic politics as phenomena that occur primarily in connection with right-wing administrations or systems marked by corruption and organized crime. While this simplification helps streamline the book’s argument—since embeddedness is portrayed as developing only when civil society engages in comprehensive, programmatic policies affecting the entire city (p. 11)—it requires further examination. On the one hand, the well-documented engagement of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) in non-programmatic politics in Brazil might lead informed readers to question the assertion that several PT administrations in São Paulo did not employ clientelism as part of their embeddedness process. On the other hand, recent work by political sociologists has highlighted that clientelism in the Global South can sometimes yield positive outcomes, such as the formation of safety nets, new survival networks, enhanced empowerment of brokers, and community building. Additionally, as the book explains, clientelism in Johannesburg undermines redistributive policies when it interacts with violent crime and a weakened state, rather than acting as an isolated phenomenon (p. 120). Perhaps recognizing some interactions between urban power and clientelism would open additional and more nuanced explanations of embeddedness and urban redistribution.

Third, how can we advance urban power in our current societies? Urban governance regimes and civil society seeking inclusion are facing an increasingly hostile environment. In its conclusion, the book highlights the rise of authoritarian, anti-rights, and violent far‑right actors, which have emerged as a palpable threat to urban activists. It would be interesting to further discuss how policy makers, politicians, and activists might shift governance practices to enhance cohesion and embeddedness, particularly in cities facing similar challenges to Johannesburg. This additional exploration could provide actionable insights for those working to foster more inclusive urban governance.

Urban Power is a must-read to understand the factors underlying urban inequality and the pivotal role of civil society in urban development. The book makes a significant academic contribution by challenging conventional theories such as the “growth machine” and “regime” models. The conceptual tools that Bradlow develops in the book allow for future comparative analyses of local governments’ ability to produce urban growth in combination with redistribution. In addition, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the book demonstrates how electoral competition can be a catalyst for inclusivity and urban development.