The concern with the effects of different types of community power structures has produced two prominent research and conceptualization strategies—the separability and community mobilization models. When both models are evaluated using the same methods and sample, their predictive validity is disappointing. Examination of the relationship of various policy outputs to different types of leadership arrangements suggests a more basic conceptualization, routine versus nonroutine outputs, may be more salient than previous classifications. Because the conceptualization was derived from permanent community sample (PCS) data, it is also evaluated using a different community data set. More empirical support is obtained from the routinization model than from the separability or mobilization models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AIKEN, M. (1970) "The distribution of community power: structural bases and social consequences," pp. 487-525 in M. Aiken and P. Mott (eds.) The Structure of Community Power. New York: Random House.
2.
AIKEN, M. and R. ALFORD (1970a) "Community structure and innovation: the case of urban renewal."Amer. Soc. Rev.35 (August): 650-665.
3.
AIKEN, M. and R. ALFORD (1970b) "Community structure and innovation: the case of public housing."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.64 (September): 843-854.
4.
BONJEAN, C. M. (1971) "Dimensions of power structure: some problems in conceptualization and measurement," pp. 19-42 in F. M. Wirt (ed.) Future Directions in Community Power Research: A Colloquium. Berkeley: Institute of Government Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
5.
BRYANT. D. (1976) "The dimensions of reformism in urban policy analysis."Urban Affairs Q.12 (September): 117-123.
6.
CLARK, T. N. (1973) Community Power and Policy Outputs: A Review of Urban Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
CLARK, T. N. (1972a) "The structure of community influence," pp. 283-313 in H. Hahn (ed.) People and Politics in Urban Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
CLARK, T. N. (1972b) "Centralization encourages public goods, but decentralization encourages private goods." Research Paper 39 of the Comparative Study of Community Decision-Making, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.
9.
CLARK, T. N. (1971) "Community structure and decision-making, budget expenditures, and urban renewal in 51 American communities," pp. 293-313 in C. M. Bonjeanet al. (eds.) Community Politics. New York: Free Press.
10.
CRECINE, J. P. (1969) Governmental Problem-Solving: A Computer Simulation of Municipal Budgeting. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
11.
EDWARDS, A. L. (1954) Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
FROMAN, L., Jr. (1967) "An analysis of public policies in cities."J. of Politics29: 94-108.
13.
GRIMES, M. , C. M. BONJEAN, L. LYON, and R. LINEBERRY (1976) "Community structure and leadership arrangements: a multidimensional analysis."Amer. Soc. Rev.4 (August): 706-725.
14.
HOFFERBERT, R. I. (1972) "State and community studies: a review of comparative input-output analyses," pp. 3-72 in J. A. Robinson (ed.) Political Science Annual. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
15.
HUNTER, F. (1953) Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
16.
KRAEMER, R. (1969) Participation of the Poor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
LEVITAN, S. A. (1969) The Great Society's Poor Law. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
18.
LINCOLN, J. R. (1976) "Power and mobilization in the urban community: reconsidering the ecological approach."Amer. Soc. Rev.41 (February): 1-15.
19.
LINEBERRY, R. and E. FOWLER (1967) "Reformism and public politics in American cities."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.61 (September): 701-716.
20.
LOWI, T. (1964) "American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory."World Politics6: 677-715.
21.
MOLOTCH, H. (1976) "The city as a growth machine: toward a political economy of place."Amer. J. of Sociology82 (September): 309-332.
22.
MOYNIHAN, D. P. (1969) Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. New York: Free Press.
23.
NELSON, M. D. (1974) "The validity of secondary analyses of community power studies."Social Forces52 (June): 531.
24.
OSTROM, E. (1974) "Exclusion, choice and divisibility: factors affecting the measurement of urban agency output and impact."Social Sci. Q.54 (March): 691-699.
25.
ROSSI, P. and R. CRAIN (1968) "The NORC permanent community sample."Public Opinion Q.32 (Summer): 261-272.
26.
SAMUELSON, P. A. (1954) "A pure theory of public expenditure."Rev. of Economics and Statistics (November): 87-89.
27.
SHARKANSKY, I. (1970) The Routines of Politics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
28.
SMITH, R. (1976) "Community power and decision making: a replication and extension of Hawley."Amer. Soc. Rev.41 (August): 691-705.
29.
THOMPSON, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
TURK, H. (1977) Organizations in Modern Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1967) 1967 Census of Governments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
WALTON, J. (1973) "The structural basis of political change in urban communities."Soc. Inquiry43 (3/4): 174-206.
33.
WARREN, R. (1969) "Model cities first round: politics, planning, and participation."J. of the Amer. Institute of Planners35 (July): 245-253.
34.
WILLIAMS, J. M. (1973) "The ecological approach in measuring community power concentration: an analysis of Hawley's MPO ratio."Amer. Soc. Rev.38 (April): 230-242.
