Transcript City Politics—Who Governs?

City Politics—Who Governs?
Elites or Masses?
Remember: Normative and
Empirical Dimensions
Elites Govern: Floyd Hunter
Study of Atlanta
Who Has Influence in Decisions?
Top 40: Business/Downtown
Development, Real Estate made
decisions to Protect their interests
Government Leaders not in the Top 40
Problem with Method?
Robert Dahl: Elites Govern
Redux
Study of New Haven, CT
Studied Actual Decisions and found that
power was noncumulative
Local Politics was more democratic than
Hunter argued, but still elite dominated
Notion of “Pluralism of Elites”
Mass Participation Possible?
Berry, Portney and Thomson
5 cities—Dayton, Portland, Birmingham, San
Antonio, St. Paul--with structured
opportunities for average citizens to
participate in neighborhood organizations
Results seemed to contradict the “Overload
Theorists” and their arguments about
conflict,alienation, and delay
What About Springfield?
What Elite interests are at work perhaps
trying to protect their interests via
political decision making?
Any Evidence of mass participation?
Grassroots Organizations,
Collective Action and City
Government:
Exploring Theories of
Neighborhood Mobilization in a
Single-City Context
Theoretical Framework:
Research Questions
Why?


1. Unique, quick emergence of several
neighborhood organizations in the last 4-5
years.
2. Need more studies that hold the city
context constant and compare several
neighborhood organizations within the
same city.
Research Questions
What factors triggered these orgs into
existence?
Who are the leaders?
What do they feel about their successes
and failures?
What is their view of city hall?
City Context is Key
Rabrenovic: “...neighborhood associations
are embedded in and limited by their
environment. Even if they do everything
right…the strategies and outcomes of their
action depend on the social, economic, and
political characteristics of their cities”
(Community Builders, 1996, p. 4).
So, what about Springfield? Rusk Report!
Political Context
Growth Machine Regime pre-1990
Progressive Regime post-1990
Theoretical Framework
Rational Choice Theory


Problem of Collective Action, Particularly
Problematic in Poor Neighborhoods
Importance of Selective Incentives/Goods/Benefits
 Material
 Solidary--intangible
 Purposive--intangible
 Developmental--intangible
 Service--intangible
 Pam Oliver: “If I don’t, no one else will”
External Emphasis
City Hall’s role
Outside Decisions, e.g., Business
Development Decisions
Dramatic Events: Drive-by Shootings
Importance of Contextual Factors


Progressive v. Growth/Machine
Economic Factors
Leaders and Activists
65 percent women (DeSena’s notion about
Women being the “gatekeepers of urban
neighborhoods” is supported here)
84 percent were homeowners
95 percent had incomes above the citywide
median
UPSHOT? Significant elite-dominated
leadership
What were their motivations?
Environmental Triggers--8
Issues: Standpipe Alliance (Park); Warder
Park (Traffic/Safety
Crime/Decay: South Plum (Drugs);
WestWatch (Cop Stop); Wheldon Park
(Negative Media Image)
Public Goods: WestEnd (Streets); Centrac10
(Water in citizen’s yard)
Business Development: (S. Yellow Springs)
Environmental Triggers
(cont’d.)
Private Redevelopment: S. Fountain
External Enemy: Neighborhood Pride
(Housing Development); College Hill
(Wittenberg)
Physical Upkeep: EastEnd (Code
Enforcement); North Hill #2 (“some
dead thing”
Social Services: SNAP; Hayward
Highlights of Key Findings
Mobilization



City-Instigated: WestEnd, SNAP, S.
Yellow Springs, CenTrac10, EastEnd
Salient Issues: Neighborhood Pride,
Warder Park, WestWatch
Individual/Small Group: (Oliver’s
“pessimism” argument) Standpipe, Warder
Park, Hayward, North Hill #2
Key Findings (cont’d.)
Collective Action Problem:
Selective Benefits




Ability to Sleep at Night
Material: Harvey Howard
Information
Anonymity
Key Findings (cont’d.)
City-Neighborhood Relations



Older NA’s were more conflict oriented under the
Growth Machine
NA’s have become liaisons or intermediating orgs
between the city and neighborhoods (for whose
benefit?)
More supportive environment in the midst of
scarce resources; still the potential for NA’s to
disband due to collective action problem
How to Structure
Participation?
Historical Efforts to Create
Opportunities
Effects of these efforts?