The assessments of 75 councilors and mayors in eight cities in the Kansas City metropolitan area provide global measures of group organization, activity, and influence in community politics and measures of their specific involvements in 73 issues that arose in these communities. While variations in group involvement and influence—both in exercising social control and contributing to social production—are reported, the most general findings are that groups are less involved in city politics and their limited involvements are less conflictive than suggested by orthodox understandings of pluralist theory. I argue that these results point to the need to reformulate pluralist theory, not abandon it.
AikenM.MottP.1970. The structure of community power. New York: Random House.
2.
BachrachP.BaratzM.1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review56 (4): 947-52.
3.
BentleyA.1908. The process of government. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
4.
BerryJ. M.2010. Urban interest groups. In Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups, edited by MaiselL. S.BerryJ. M., 502-14. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
5.
BerryJ. M.PortneyK.LissR.SimoncelliJ.BergerL.2006. Power and interest groups in city politics. Cambridge: Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ.
6.
BrandD.1985. Three generations of pluralism. The Political Science Reviewer15 (Fall): 109-42.
7.
CampbellD.SchoolmanM.2008. The new pluralism: William Connolly and the new global condition. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.
8.
ConnollyW.2005. Pluralism. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.
9.
DahlR. A.1961. Who governs?New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
10.
DahlR. A.1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
11.
DahlR. A.1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven CN: Yale
12.
EisenbergA.1995. Reconstructing political pluralism. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
13.
ElkinS.1987. City and regime in the American republic. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
14.
FainsteinS.2010. The just city. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
15.
FergusonK.2007. William James: Politics in the pluriverse. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
GavantaJ.1980. Power and powerlessness. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
17.
KilburnH. W.2004. Explaining U.S. urban regimes: A qualitative comparative analysis. Urban Affairs Review39 (5): 633-49.
LamatheS.LamotheM.FeiockR.2008. Examining local government service delivery arrangements over time. Urban Affairs Review44 (1): 27-56.
20.
LowiT.1979. The end of liberalism. 2nd edition.New York: Norton.
21.
MadsenR.StrongT.2003. The many and the one: Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern world. Princeton: Princeton Univ. press.
22.
ManleyJ.1982. Neopluralism: A class analysis of pluralism I and pluralism II. American Political Science Review77 (2): 368-83.
23.
McFarlandA.2004. Neopluralism: The evolution of political process theory. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
24.
MenandL.2001. The metaphysical club: The story of ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
25.
MichelbachP.ScottJ. T.MatlandR. A.BornsteinB.2003. Doing Rawls justice: An experimental study of income distribution norms. American Journal of Political Science47 (3): 523-39.
26.
OstromE.1990. Governing the commons. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
27.
PetersonP.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
28.
PutnamR.2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
29.
RawlsJ.1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
30.
SapotichneJ.JonesD. B.WolfeM.2007. Is urban politics a black hole?Urban Affairs Review43 (1): 76-106
31.
SchlosbergD.1998. Resurrecting the pluralist universe. Political Research Quarterly51 (3): 583-615.
32.
SchoolmanM.2007. Series editor’s introduction. William James: Politics in the pluriverse, by Kennan Ferguson. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
SchumakerP.1991. Critical pluralism, democratic performance, and community power. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
34.
SchumakerP.2010. A reconstructed pluralist public philosophy: Elaborations and implications. Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
35.
SchumakerP.KellyM.2012. Ethics matters: The morality and justice principles of elected city officials and their impact on urban issues. Journal of Urban Affairs34 (3): 231-54.
36.
SchumakerP.KellyM.2013. The public assistance policies of cities and the justice concerns of elected officials: The centrality of the floors principle in addressing urban poverty. Policy Studies Journal47 (1): 70-95.
37.
ScottJ.BornsteinB.2009. What’s fair in foul weather and fair? Distributive justice across different allocation contexts and goods. Journal of Politics71 (3): 831-46.
38.
SharpE.2005. Morality politics in American cities. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
39.
SteinR. M.1990. Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
40.
StoneC.1980. Systemic power in community decision making. American Political Science Review74 (4): 978-90.
41.
StoneC.1989. Regime politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
WalzerM.1983. Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.
43.
WasteR.1986. Community power and pluralist theory. In Community power: New directions in future research edited by WasteR., 117-138. Beverly Hills: Sage.
44.
YoungI. M.1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
45.
ZiskB.1973. Local interest politics: A one-way street. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
