“Nondecisions and the Study of Local Politics” by Raymond E. Wolfinger
Article Summary:










The article offers a critique that two researchers, Bachrach and Baratz, did on a
study by Robert A. Dahl titled “Who governs?” The study was conducted in New
Haven CT and considered where the political power of the community existed.
Dahl considered particular policy decisions that were made related to urban
renewal, political nominations, and education. His research considered the
outcomes of these policy decisions in order to determine who has power.
In their research, “Two Faces of Power” Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz
were critical of Dahl’s findings. They felt that the research methodology would
not allow consideration of a hypothesis promoting a finding of a “ruling elite”
working in New Haven.
B&B were especially troubled with the practice of studying policy decisions to
determine the location of power in New Haven. They felt the policy decisions
that were made might be more indicative of the ruling elites lack of interest in the
decisions or the result of setting the agenda and deciding which issues they did
not want held up for public consideration.
Wolfinger is critical of B&B, claiming that if we wish to consider only
“important” policy issues we would need to be able to objectively determine
which issues would qualify. Currently there is no way to determine policy
importance.
The issue of Urban Renewal was one that was considered by Dahl and one where
he and B&B disagreed. It is here that B&B considered the concept of nondecision. Dahl felt the presence of an advocacy group, CAC, were supporters of
urban renewal efforts b/c the Mayor Lee convinced them it was in their interests
to support these efforts. B&B concluded this same group was evidence of ruling
elite of businessmen making decisions behind the scenes.
One proposal is that the CAC was a part of the big business power structure and
the siginificant urban renewal efforts actually were promoted and managed by the
CAC, not the Mayor.
One proposal is that the Mayor was not powerful because he proposed only policy
that he knew would be supported by the CAC.
A similar proposal would be that the Mayor would not propose any policy that he
feared would cost him votes.
The problem with these theories that are put forth, according to Wolfinger, is that
it is impossible to determine which alternatives motivated policy decisions and
get an accurate response. Wolfinger asks, “How can ay comprehensive
attributions of power be made on the basis of anticipated reactions of
constituents?”
Wolfinger finds B&B proposal for determining power unworkable. He considers
three forms of non-decision:
- Abstention – a decision not to participate at all by people who have
grievances or goals that might be met by political action (1070)
-
Nonparticipation – people are unaware of their interests and therefore do
not demand that those interests be served (1072)
Renunciation – the abjuring of some alternatives by politicians.
Wolfinger feels B&B recommendations for research are impossible if one is
to reasonably study power. When considering non-decisions in light of power
it becomes difficult to truly know people’s “real interests” (1077) He asks,
“How can examples of nonparticipation and abstention be distinguished from
apathy and a lack of public spirit that characterizes political life?” Also, he
wonders how one assesses the impact of participation and the distribution of
governmental benefits and how can you identify who is responsible for all
this?







In summary, Wolfinger feels that while B&B raise reasonable
concerns about the study of power, their prescriptions are not viable
ones in research.
Another Wolfinger objection is that Those who are responsible for a
policy may not be its beneficiary; factors that increase participation in
politics may not equalize the distribution of common goods; and there
is no way to measure power from no decisions.
Wolfinger feels that B&B do show us the futility of trying to discover
community power structures.
One problem is indirect influence making it impossible to attribute
power to people who’s probable responses are not anticipated
How can we attribute power to those who are no a part of a power
structure but still manage to get their concerns into law?
B&B are right to argue that institutions and procedures shape policy
but the question becomes do they have a right to the claim they share
power in future policies that support their own.
Dahl’s research is limited and makes no claim about completeness but
this modesty of claims about his research results is desirable to
Wolfinger.
1. BEHAVIOR: What is the relationship of individual’s behaviors to the
exercise of power? What role does behavior play?
A: Wolfinger would say that the relationship of behaviors to power is a complex one
that is difficult to determine with any certainty. He would concur with Robert Dahl
(“The Concept of Power”) that one way to consider power is to consider who benefits
(and who is negatively impacted or omitted) when policy is enacted. Although
Bachrach and Baratz would take issue with this premise, Wolfinger would say that it
may be the best way to evaluate the presence of power, given the research limitations
that would make it difficult to assess the influence non-decision making has on the
policy making process.
Wolfinger would tell us that non-participation is a factor in determining who has
power and who doesn’t. However, this is difficult to analyze and quantify. Bachrach
and Baratz (“Two Faces of Power”) felt that Dahl’s analysis of power in New Haven
was inadequate and that power should be evaluated in light of what policies were not
placed on the “agenda” and who decides what get placed on that same “agenda” for
action. These researchers felt that non-participation could inform us as much as
action when evaluating power.
2. DECISION MAKING AND CONTROL: Who makes decisions and who has
control? How do decision making and control function in the exercise of
power?
A: This question is at the center of the dispute that Wolfinger considers in his article.
Robert Dahl examined this question in light of what decisions were made in New
Haven, CT and who benefited from these same decisions. His analysis determined
that the Mayor in New Haven was able to influence people in a manner that allowed
him to get his legislative agenda promoted. Bachrach and Baratz, who Wolfinger
labels “neo-elitists”, felt that the exercise of power was being done by a small group
of influential businessmen who acted in their own best interests.
Decision making and control are important factors in the exercise of power.
Wolfinger points out in his article that it is difficult to determine who is involved in
the decision making and who is not. For example, a politician’s decision to not
support a controversial piece of legislation b/c he fears repercussions at the poll
means that there exists a wielding of power on the part of a large, homogeneous
constituency. Yet, one would have a difficult time measuring how the real or
perceived response of a constituency might impact a politician’s decision making in
setting forth his legislative agenda.
3. CONFLICT: What is the status of conflict and what is its role in the exercise
of power?
A: Dahl defined power as “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do
something that B would not otherwise do.” Wolfinger, however, prefers a different
definition: “power is a relationship in which A gets B to do something that B would
not otherwise do.” (1079). This helps negate the concern of trying to verify all
possible potential power relationships. In other words, with Dahl’s definition one
would have to consider the importance of “they could if they wanted to” syndrome,
which is unverifiable. Wolfinger feels that with this alternative definition the
researcher can evaluate more limited kinds of statements that are more specific in
nature. Using Wolfinger’s definition, he seems to indicate that conflict is not
necessary in order to wield power. Influence can manifest itself in other ways.
4. INTERESTS: How are individual’s interests advanced? Protected?
A: Overall, Wolfinger feels that the following are problematic:
a) It is impossible to attribute power to people on the basis that their responses are
anticipated by politicians, especially if such indirect influence is manifested in
repeated anticipations
b) It is difficult to attribute power to the underrepresented who raise issues and
proposals that eventually become law. Although their influence may not be
immediately obvious, these “actors” often play an important role in making a
difference. The problem is determining the extent of their influence.
c) Do people who are responsible for the adoption of policies/procedures have a
right to claim power based on measures that might not have passed without the
procedural change? The example Wolfinger offers is, “Do the successful
sponsors of the 21-day rule in the 89th Congress deserve to be recognized as
powerful on each of the bills that were passed under this role?
5. MORAL ORIENTATION: What are the normative goals that the exercise of
power aims to achieve?
A: Wolfinger does not address this issue. He would feel that Bachrach and Baratz
would identify goals for the powerful elite stakeholders manipulate American politics
in order to achieve goals that are in their own best interests. In their explanation, they
would say that if an issue or conflict was viewed by these stakeholders as being
important/serious, they would mobilize in an effort to obtain an outcome they viewed
as favorable. (Wolfinger takes issue with this criterion b/c he felt no issue has
mobilized all affected stakeholders) IN their book “Power and Poverty” B & B revise
their crition. And identify a key issue as “one that involves a genuine challenge to the
resources of power or authority of those who currently dominate the process by which
policy outputs I the system are determined.” (1064)