Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2009
One of the complaints most frequently raised against modern empirical political science is that it overemphasizes political inputs (such as voting behavior) and pays insufficient attention to political outputs (such as allocation of resources). In response to this complaint, a number of political scientists in recent years have focused their attention on the question of whether variations in political inputs are much related to variations in outputs. A considerable literature has grown up around this question, particularly focusing on relationships between variations in electoral competitiveness and variations in public spending patterns across a range of different political systems. Because they are different yet comparable, American states have been the setting for much of this research. In addition to the state policy outputs literature, investigations have been undertaken of variations in outputs among differing jurisdictions within a metropolitan area and between variations in outputs and differing types of city organizational structure. The focus of the research reported on here is somewhat different. Rather than looking at variations between political systems, we focus here on variations within political systems. Without dealing with all of the literature alluded to above, and the myriad criticisms that each attempt has spawned, it seems fair to say that the general conclusion of most researchers has been that political characteristics account for little of the variation in output between political systems, and that variation in levels of wealth is usually a far more powerful predictor. Such a conclusion, however, does not relate to the possible impact of politics on allocational decisions within a single jurisdiction. While the City
1 See, for example, Dye, Thomas, Politics, Economics and the Public (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966)Google Scholar and Sharkansky, Ira, Spending in the American States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968).Google Scholar
2 Campbell, Alan K. and Sacks, Seymour, Metropolitan America: Fiscal Patterns and Governmental Systems (New York: Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar and Sacks, Seymour and Hellmuth, William, Financing Government in a Metropolitan Area (New York: Free Press, 1961).Google Scholar
3 Dahl, Robert, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
4 City of New York, Executive Capital Budget 1970–71 (New York: City Record, 1970), p. 51.Google Scholar
5 The controversy over a proposed low-income housing project in the middle-class neighborhood of Forest Hills, Queens, was headline news for months in 1972.
6 Interviews were conducted with committee chairmen, council leaders, and ranking officers of the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and the London Borough of Greenwich during June 1972.
7 City of New York, New York City Charter (New York: The City Record, 1969), p. 33.Google Scholar
8 Sayre, Wallace and Kaufman, Herbert, Governing New York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1960), p. 644.Google Scholar
9 City of New York, Executive Capital Budget (1970).
10 City of New York, Geographic Information System (New York: Office of the Mayor, Office of Administration, 1971).Google Scholar
11 City of New York, New York City Charter (1969), p. 33.Google Scholar
12 City of New York, New York Charter (1969), p. 32.
13 Haig, Robert and Shoup, Carl, The Financial Problem of the City of New York (New York: Mayor's Committee on Management Survey, 1952), p. 274.Google Scholar
14 City of New York, Executive Capital Budget (1970), p. 72.
15 Glassberg, Andrew, ‘Precinct Campaigning in an Urban Ghetto: the 1965 Mayoral Election in New York City’, in Rogowsky, Edward and Abbott, David, eds., Political Parties (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971), pp. 139–59.Google Scholar
16 New York Times, 29 December 1969, 1:5.
17 New York Times, 25 January 1970, 54:3.
18 New York Times, 30 January 1970, 27:7.
19 Martin, and Tolchin, Susan, To the Victor (New York: Random House, 1971).Google Scholar
20 For a description of the formation of the Greater London Council, see Smallwood, Frank, Greater London: The Politics of Metropolitan Reform (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965).Google Scholar
21 Gerald Rhodes, and Ruck, S. K., The Government of Greater London (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970).Google Scholar
22 Greater London Research, Research Report No. 9. Characteristics of the London Boroughs (London: Greater London Council Intelligence Unit, 1971).Google Scholar
23 London Borough of Greenwich, Community Plan and Programme Budget (London: London Borough of Greenwich, 1972).Google Scholar
24 Sharpe, L. J., A Metropolis Votes; The London County Council Election of 1961 (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1962), p. 3.Google Scholar
25 For efforts in this direction see Davies, Bleddyn, Social Needs and Resources in Local Services (London: Joseph, 1968)Google Scholar and Boaden, Noel, Urban Policy-Making: Influences on County Boroughs in England and Wales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
26 Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957), pp. 72–82.Google Scholar
27 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semisovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 109.Google Scholar
28 Hindess, Barry, The Decline of Working-Class Politics (London: Paladin, 1971).Google Scholar
29 Campbell, Angus et al. , The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar remains a good statement of the relationship between social class and political conceptualization.