Introduction
A desire to understand the process of governance and decision making in local communities has occupied social science researchers for more than half a century. Recent research that has focused on “who” or “what” governs local politics has challenged numerous scholars and students of local government to think critically about how policymaking occurs at the local level and who exercises power and influence in the process. That the answers to these questions are important is almost inarguable; as one scholar succinctly put it, “the functions of government that have the most impact on citizens’ daily lives” occur at the local level (Oliver, 2001, 44). But whether or not these questions can be answered at all remains a subject of much debate and, after more than eight decades of research, the search for definitive answers about community power remains a daunting challenge. In addition, past and current research into community power structures and decision making have largely ignored the increasingly powerful nonprofit sector, with past efforts to include them in analyses offering little information about their role in local policymaking.
In this chapter, I will explore the relevant literature associated with community power research, including elite theory, pluralism, the “city limits” theory, and regime theory. After exploring these theories, I will describe how past studies have largely ignored the nonprofit sector’s role in community power structures and policymaking, a flaw that I believe leaves a large gap in our knowledge of how policymaking occurs in urban areas.
Community Power Defined
Before reviewing some of the most important research that has been done in the area of community power structures, it is first important to attempt to define the term “community power.” That it is a critical concept in political science is unmistakable; as recently as 2006 the American Political Science Association devoted a special conference themed to the topic of
“Power Reconsidered” that implored political scientists to devote more time and attention to the importance of understanding the uses of power and influence (Orr and Johnson, 2008). But power has always been an elusive concept, one that has proven difficult to define and even harder to determine. Famed sociologist Max Weber offered the following definition of power:
“the probability that one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests” (Weber and Parsons, 1997, 152). Polsby offers a similar definition: “one can conceive of power – “influence” and
“control” are serviceable synonyms – as the capacity of one actor to do something affecting another actor, which changes the probable pattern of specified future events” (Polsby, 3).
Clarence Stone offers the simpler and, perhaps, more elegant notion that power is when “A gets B to do what B would not otherwise have done” (Stone, 1980, 980).
All of these definitions of power have several items in common. First, the use of power is set up as a conflict between two opposing forces, actors that are attempting to assert their own will. Second, there is a tangible and visible outcome that is generated and that theoretically can be seen and measured if only we had the right tools. Even within these remarkably similar definitions of power, questions about the “who” and the “how” remain potent potential topics for researchers.
The search for an understanding of the exercise of power in local communities can be traced to a landmark study of Middletown (Muncie, IN) conducted in the 1920s and 1930s. In their examination of how policymaking occurred in this town, the researchers looked at the roles played by elected officials, business leaders, and other socially respected community actors and attempted to determine the extent to which each set of actors was able to wield power (Lynd and Lynd, 1929). The researchers found that business interests dominated the Middletown community to the extent that leaders of local enterprise alternatively controlled or ignored elected officials. They wrote: “the business class have…little respect for local politics and politicians, viewing them as a necessary evil which business supports and controls only enough to ensure cooperation in necessary matters” (Lynd and Lynd, 1929, 36). Research in the following decades by other prominent social scientists would also focus on the degree to which social and economic elites participate in, and often dominate, local communities and policymaking (Baltzell, 1958; Hollingshead, 1949; Warner, 1949). Thus, perhaps unwittingly, the Lynds’ work helped define what would become the main thrust of power research for the next half-century and beyond, as future researchers would generally focus their attention on the interactions between business interests, the governmental system, and social notables.
How to Study Community Power
As questions about what types of actors participate in exerting power within local communities began to be asked, a secondary emphasis for researchers also took hold – the notion of how to design and implement a methodology that will allow for the testing of power and influence in a systematic and measureable way. Much of the earliest research into community power structures focused primarily on single city cases (Lynd, 1929; Hunter, 1953; Dahl, 1961).
This type of research allowed for in-depth understanding of the case under review and provided opportunities for significant analysis of the actors, decisions, and outcomes, yet the generalizability of these results was often considered suspect. Gradually, this methodology gave way to cross-city analyses, where power relationships in two or more cities were compared and contrasted (Ferman,1996; DiGaetano and Klemanski, 1993). This type of analysis proved quite difficult and costly to produce, however, and given the complexity of individual cities and their governmental systems, histories and individual factors, it also proved difficult to isolate enough variables to provide for effective comparisons. Other researchers have adopted a different approach, where a number of cities are studied on one factor that is of most interest to the researchers, as they attempt to build upon prior theories and knowledge (Browning, Marshall, and Tabb, 1984; Eulau and Prewitt, 1973).
Another longstanding issue in community power research concerns the researcher’s approach to identifying, classifying and analyzing actors and outcomes. In general, three main approaches have been identified and utilized, each with notable positives and identifiable shortcomings. The reputational approach focuses on interviewing local actors who then assist the researcher in determining who is influential in the policymaking arena. In this sense, a
“reputation” for wielding power is in many ways more important than the actual influence a person had on policy decisions – something which critics of the reputational method point to as one of its key weaknesses. In addition, critics also charge that the most powerful people are often “successful at keeping themselves out of the limelight,” thus their influence might be overlooked by a researcher who utilizes a reputational method of analysis (Badie et al., 2013).
Interviewees also provide the researcher with the names of other individuals who can provide
additional insight into the power structure, which allows the researcher to utilize a snowball method of sampling to complete their research.
A second method of studying community power is the positional approach. Researchers utilizing this approach analyze the positions that individuals occupy in society, looking for overlapping spheres of influence and individuals who hold multiple positions in society. This method was ultimately criticized on a number of levels, including the idea that many wealthy individuals do not hold visible positions in society and the notion that an individual’s position in society is not a indicator of the degree to which they are able to effectively utilize and wield that positional power.
A third approach, the decisional approach to the study of community power, was largely introduced by Robert Dahl (1961). Researchers utilizing this approach study major decisions that were made in a local community and attempt to identify the individuals and organizations that were prominent in the decision-making process. This method generally requires that researchers limit their investigation to a set number of issues or policy decisions and that they rely upon the memories and records of community members to determine what happened.
However, one of the main criticisms of the decisional approach is that the researchers can only focus on what actually happened; left unknown and unexplored are the hidden aspects of power that keep items off the agenda and stop decisions from happening.
Debates about which method is the most reliable and produces the most accurate picture of the power structure in a community have largely been subsumed by a growing recognition that there are great similarities among the methods (Kadushin, 1968; Domhoff, 1978). In addition, research has demonstrated that the methods generally yield similar results (Thometz, 1963;
Perrucci and Pilisuk, 1970). Today, researchers in this area generally attempt to utilize as many methods as they can – given the specifics of their study.
The idea that power is a multi-dimensional concept that can be difficult to study is unquestionable, but in 1962, two researchers provided great insight into the concept of power’s hidden dimension, and in the process they revolutionized the definition of power. Bachrach and Baratz (1970) offered the thesis that there are “two faces” of power, which they went on to define more fully in their book. The first face of power is a visible one that is relatively easy to identify and can be viewed in the decision-making process and by understanding the positions that were involved in the outcome. However, the second face of power is largely invisible, in that this power is wielded behind the scenes and is often utilized to keep items off the agenda.
Measuring what didn’t happen is understandably quite difficult, yet Bachrach and Baratz and their adherents would argue that this is the only way one can truly understand the multiple dimensions of power in society.
Elite Theory
One of the earliest and most influential social scientists to investigate sources of community power and influence was Floyd Hunter. Writing about post-World War II Regional City (Atlanta, GA), Hunter’s Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers, laid the groundwork for the formation of a theory that would come to be known as “elite theory”
(Hunter, 1953). Although his original hypothesis was that power in Regional City would be shared between governmental and economic authorities, his findings did not support that conclusion. Hunter cited overwhelming evidence that business leaders and their interests reigned supreme in Regional City, much of it gleaned from interviews with leaders and a review of
media reports, personal correspondence, and other decision-making documents. In addition to his findings about the power wielded by the business community, Hunter also found that the people most empowered to act on behalf of the community’s interest – the elected leaders – were marginalized at best and co-opted by the economic elites at worst.
After documenting the ways in which these business leaders both directly and indirectly affect community decisions, Hunter went on to analyze the type of policy problems that were most likely to draw the attention of these elites. Somewhat naturally, economic interests, particularly the maintenance of a low rate of taxation and restrictions on governmental interventions in the marketplace, dominated the policy leanings of Regional City’s business leaders. Less critical were policies aimed at addressing social ills, and Hunter provides numerous examples of instances where Regional City’s social agency leaders and other professional workers who pushed for change too vociferously were dealt with harshly.
Eventually, though, Hunter concluded that the structure of power in Regional City was so concentrated that many community issues received scant attention, if for no other reason than the enormous time constraints placed on the relatively concentrated number of elite leaders.
Necessarily, this restricted the potential for community leaders to act upon issues outside of a very well-defined scope.
Hunter recognized the inherently troubling nature of this type of concentrated exercise of power, particularly in a democracy like the United States. After concluding that the average citizen in Regional City is largely excluded from policy discussions and decision making, Hunter cautioned that this type of community power structure could pose a significant threat to the very foundation of a democratic system. Acknowledging that it was unlikely that average citizens would ever be able to exercise community power in the manner of economic elites, Hunter
advised that communities who wished to maintain some semblance of democratic participation should take steps to ensure that individual needs and desires have an outlet in community associations and institutions.
Writing three years after Hunter, C. Wright Mills extended the research into the exercise of community power with his book, The Power Elite (Mills, 1956). Although his focus was on decision making at the national level, Mills’ provocative work reinforced the concept that power in society rests largely in the hands of an elite class that wielded tremendous influence. For Mills, national economic, military, and political structures within America were dominated by an elite class that ruled with relative autonomy and he christened them “The Power Elite.” Elected officials, according to Mills’ argument, were often beholden to the wealthy economic and social elites who helped fund their elections, rendering them relatively powerless in terms of their ability to act with absolute authority.
Mills’ argument has been challenged by numerous sociologists and political scientists, with arguments ranging from those who challenged everything from Mills’ methodology (Merelman, 1968; Dahl, 1958) to those who took issue with his definition of control and conception of power (Parsons, 1968). Even those researchers who supported Mills’ underlying theory often lobbed criticisms about Mills’ failure to examine fully the contradictions inherent in the development of an elitist power structure in a democracy (Lynd, 1956).
Pluralist Theory
In stark contrast to Mills’ argument, pluralist theories are rooted in America’s unique version of democracy and center on the idea that there are multiple centers of power that jockey for political influence. Another important theory in urban policymaking is epitomized by Robert
Dahl’s theory that local policymaking is primarily the result of political considerations. Pluralist theory focuses on the role that political actors and considerations play in local policy outcomes.
Under this theory, policymaking is the result of bargaining among participants throughout the community, with outcomes being seen as the result of preferences of the majority of residents.
In sharp response to the work of Hunter and Mills, in 1961 sociologist Robert Dahl published his classic Who Governs? – an influential study of power and influence in New Haven, CT that would help define power structure research for the next several decades (Dahl, 1961).
In Dahl’s New Haven, the politician is not marginalized or co-opted by outside interests, as Hunter and Mills would have us believe. Instead, he (and in Dahl’s New England, the politicians were all male) is a vibrant actor who influences and executes policy with the support of an ever-expanding coalition of actors drawn from different segments of the community. Dahl dismisses what he calls the “Social Notables” and “Economic Notables” of New Haven, arguing that their influence has waned significantly during the town’s three centuries, as other groups have risen to positions of prominence in the region.
Dahl’s notion of dispersed power and influence formed the backbone of pluralist theories of community governance and his methodology introduced a new way of studying power that came to be known as decisional mapping. Dahl used cases studies of individuals and organizations that try to influence the outcome of the policymaking process as a means of determining who exercised power in the decision-making process. However, Dahl’s critics contend that his focus on implemented decisions as a proxy for influence does not take into account the use of behind-the-scenes power to keep items off the agenda. Dahl himself acknowledged that it can be difficult to measure indirect influence, stating:
Unfortunately, one cannot measure influence so precisely; although the diagrams are convenient illustrations, they leave us with ambiguities in the
relations of leaders and constituents which are extremely difficult and probably impossible to resolve satisfactorily at present by appeal to direct evidence. (Dahl, 1961, 164)
At the time, Dahl’s work was widely hailed as a revolutionary study, but its critics also challenged both his conclusions and his methodology. Domhoff issued a strong challenge to Dahl in his re-examination of New Haven and Dahl’s original study (Domhoff, 1978).
Criticizing Dahl’s methodology as characterized by an overreliance on interviews with individuals who may have had a vested interest in slanting their involvement in a certain way, Domhoff also argues that Dahl did not access the important documents that would have demonstrated a deeper understanding of the decision-making process in New Haven. Ultimately, Domhoff concludes that “contrary to Who Governs?, there is a power structure in New Haven, with Yale, the First New Haven National Bank and the Chamber of Commerce at its heart”
(Domhoff, 1978, 113).
Domhoff’s work also helped shift the focus of power structure research from one focused on individuals to one focused on institutions. Domhoff saw institutions as the main mechanism for control and power assertion in society and implored political scientists to focus more on the networks and interlocks that exist between major organizations in society. As explained in a volume that he co-authored with Thomas Dye:
Organizational theory is concerned with the interorganizational environmental within which organizations must seek out the resources they need in order to
reach their goals. Power Structure research conceptualizes this interorganizational environment as the power structure itself and suggests that the necessary resources – whether money, expertise or raw materials – are properties of the power structure
as a whole as well as assets and needs of individual organizations within it.
(Domhoff and Dye, 1987, 15)
Since the late 1980s, numerous other researchers have examined the ways in which private institutions and public organizations influence the power structure and, in particular, provide
mechanisms by which elites in society can wield power and influence policy decisions. Soloway (1987) and Baltzell (1958) explored the ways in which private schools can act as feeders for the power structure, while Useem (1979) and Miliband (1969) focused on the ways in which corporations and government agencies become tools of the elites in society.
The “City Limits” Approach
In sharp contrast to the pluralistic viewpoint that political actors are the key contributors to policymaking outcomes, Paul Peterson’s revolutionary book, City Limits, views local power and policymaking through an economic lens (Peterson, 1981). Built largely upon Charles Tiebout’s (1956) public choice theory, Peterson extended the idea that local communities are constantly trying to satisfy the needs of their residents in an effort to ensure that those residents do not make a choice to locate in a different community that better meets those needs. In Peterson’s world, America’s federal structure and division of powers through multiple layers of government have rendered localities particularly sensitive to economic concerns. Cities are in constant competition to attract desirable residents and businesses, and this need to provide the right mix of policies and services that will ensure a city’s competitiveness becomes the main
In sharp contrast to the pluralistic viewpoint that political actors are the key contributors to policymaking outcomes, Paul Peterson’s revolutionary book, City Limits, views local power and policymaking through an economic lens (Peterson, 1981). Built largely upon Charles Tiebout’s (1956) public choice theory, Peterson extended the idea that local communities are constantly trying to satisfy the needs of their residents in an effort to ensure that those residents do not make a choice to locate in a different community that better meets those needs. In Peterson’s world, America’s federal structure and division of powers through multiple layers of government have rendered localities particularly sensitive to economic concerns. Cities are in constant competition to attract desirable residents and businesses, and this need to provide the right mix of policies and services that will ensure a city’s competitiveness becomes the main