Questions
• Does an average person have more influence
in local or national politics?
• Do the poor have more influence in local or
national politics?
Questions
• Do the rich (“elites”) have more influence in
local or national politics?
• Who was the most powerful person in a place
you came from?
Questions
• How would you identify the most powerful
people in a city / county?
Post-Reform Political Institutions
• Levels of Voter Participation in America (% of
VAP):
•
•
•
•
•
•
2014 Congressional:
2012 Presidential
2013 LA Mayoral
2013 Whatcom Co.
2007 Gubernatorial
2000 California local
35.9%
58.0
23%*
45.5%
38.1 (LA, KY & MS)
30.0
Levels of Local Participation in
America
In the last 12 months, did you / were you:
all poor wealthy dif
Attend public meeting to discuss school or town affairs
45%
Work on a community project
38%
Attended a PTA / school group meeting
24%
Participate in neighborhood / homeowner association22% 12
Participate in group that took action for local reform
18%
31
23
14
41
9
63
60
34
-29
30
-32
-37
-20
-21
Note: Poor = household income is $20,000 or less, wealthy = $100,000 or more
In this context, who has power?
A) Theory of Elite Rule (different than Moloch)
• in mid-large places, reforms & lack of urban
machine create "vacuum”
• in smaller, homogeneous places, limited conflict
= "limited stakes”
•
early studies (1929 - late 50s) stress model of
In this context, who has power?
Early studies (1929 - late 50s) stress model of
•
class stratification
•
lower = worker consciousness
•
mid = homeowner consciousness
•
upper = capital owner consciousness
– top layers control machinery of govt
Elite theory of urban politics
1) upper class rules what cities do
• class function of birth, ownership, wealth, old
money families, etc.
2) political and civil leaders beholden to upper
class
Elite theory of urban politics
3) single, homogeneous power-elite rules city
•
have influence over multiple policy spheres
• more so even than in national politics, since there are
no vehicles to represent lower status claims (e.g.,
parties)
4) power elite rule in their own interest
• the business of a city is business, and social amenities
are for the rich....
Elite theory of urban politics
5) political conflict = class conflict
Muted, one-sided class conflict
Findings from early reputational power
studies
1) Atlanta, GA 1953 (Floyd Hunter)
• determine top 100 elites
• reputational study
• survey of knowledgeable informers
• "who is the biggest man in town?”
• find inter-relations among top 100
• a small, homogeneous, interlocking group dominating
all policy areas
Findings from early reputational power
studies
1) Atlanta, GA 1953 (Floyd Hunter)
• cadre of businessmen who interact socially,
attend same clubs and schools
• "test of admission to circle of decision makers
is a man's position in the business
community"
Findings from early reputational power
studies
• 2) Muncie, IN 1929 (Lynd and Lynd)
• small wealthy clique of families own main banks,
downtown buildings, local press
• therefore they control nearly all politics
• a level of elite domination not possible at
national level ??
Findings from early reputational power
studies
3) Philadelphia, 1959; Morris, IL 1949
Business elite control local economy and hold
sway over public matters
“An aristocracy of wealth and privilege”
Findings from early reputational power
studies
• Q: today, is it more/less likely that a single
family could have such ownership control in a
mid size city?
• What has changed?
Details of Elite Theory of Power
• Elite rule not raw dominance, but "built-in"
upper-class "bias" in how things work
– resources to participate
– information on politics
– motivation (economic) to participate
– access (formal and social) to officials
– contributions in campaigns
Details of Elite Theory of Power
• Privilege place of private investors
– make decisions that increase/decrease land value
– cities built on private capita
– fiscal health depends on private investment
– bond ratings affects by fiscal health
– ability to borrow for school const, etc.
Details of Elite Theory of Power
• The "silent face" of power
– ability to keep things off the agenda
– power of elite reflected in what cities do not do
•
•
•
•
•
unemployment compensations
income taxes
social services
public housing
welfare services (?)
Problems with the Elite Model
• How homogeneous can "the" elite be?
– old money families vs.. "new rich”
– old industries vs.. new industries
• Do businesses have conflicts w/ each other?
– homebuilders vs. industry
– smokestacks vs. tourism
– sales tax vs. property tax
Problems with the Elite Model
What is the glue that might hold these elites
together:
low taxes?
infrastructure?
pro-development ideology
Problems with the Elite Model
How much do cites act only in elite interest?
What amenities do cities provide?
Pro sports teams
Symphony halls, museums
convention centers, retail meccas
parks, libraries,
mass transit
Or are these instruments of profit and social control
Overview: Elite Power model
1) institutional power
– Progressive reforms weaken public offices
2) structural power
– cozy links private & public financial, investment power
3) ideological power
– "growth is good”
4) "silent power”
– agenda control......
Overview: Elite Power model
• PROBLEMS
– does reputation = actual decisions?
– does wealth, social status = all political power?
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Pluralist Theory (R. Dahl, New Haven CT 1961)
• identify those having reputation as powerful,
then
• OBSERVE decisions they make/influence in 3
areas:
– economic re-development policy
– political nominations
– education policy
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Few have power in all 3 areas
– of top 50, only 3 (the elected mayor)
– most (27) had influence in just one arena
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Power diffuse, fluid and mobile
• new groups mobilize quickly when threatened
– bussing, building ugly homes
•
• groups don't withdraw from process less
satisfied
•
no personal/family "power structure"
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Democratic functions have real meaning
– Most adults registered to vote
– elections not corrupt
– New Haven elections partisan and competitive,
• competing slates
• this constrains elites
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Unequal distribution of resources, but
– Easy access to one resource of power ($$)
NOT mean access to others (voter support)
– No single resource dominant
• nominations = votes, popularity
• redevelopment = $$, information
• education = legal skill, use of courts
Comparing/Assessing the Models
• Cities are different
– culture: how "pro growth" or "post material”
– institutions: how reformed?
– heterogeneity of population
Comparing/Assessing the Models
• Methods and time of studies different
– ‘large’ business less locally owned
– family oligopolies giving way to nationalization,
globalization of capital
Comparing/Assessing the Models
• City power structure related to local
participation
– Activist cities
• Santa Monica, Berkeley, Portland, San Francisco, NY,
Chicago
– Low participation (reformed) places
• Atlanta 1950s, sunbelt cities, many homogeneous
suburbs
Pluralist Theory of Urban Politics
• Different resources of influence/power
– Power function of expertise, information,
education, skill with legal system
– Power function of voter support
– AND money
So, who governs?
• Does pluralist model apply better to national
or local politics?
• Does elite model apply better to nation or
local politics?
So, who governs?
• Can there be a pluralist model of power
without political parties?