The study of mass public opinion has been an important area of social science research, and it has been of particular concern for political scientists, because the relationship between public opinion and government policy is central to theories about democracy and political power (e.g., see Dahl, 1956; Downs, 1957; Devine, 1970; Weissberg, 1976). Our main argument in this essay is that political scientists and others should be open to a variety of approaches in studying trends in public opinion and the relationship between public preferences and government policies, and that they should begin to pay attention to the findings and methods of recent historiography and, especially, the “new social history.”

Any communicable disease that strikes urban populations poses difficult problems for public health officials. First, treatment in the early stages of these diseases may be based primarily on guesswork; before the etiology of the disease is fully known, public health officials are often prompted by public fear to take action to curb and treat the disease (Terris, 1985). Second, even when effective treatments have been identified, these may be politically costly. When dealing with communicable diseases, responsible public health professionals have at times concluded that measures such as quarantine, mass screening, or mandatory reporting of the disease are necessary. Mandatory reporting of previous sexual partners by carriers of any sexually transmitted diseases may prove embarrassing or destructive to an individual’s business or social life. In the face of such threats, individuals who face such measures may mount political campaigns against them, making them risky for public health officials. Third, even when effective treatments are known, they may be very expensive to administer and may tax existing public facilities (hospitals, clinics) and funding for public health.

By the 1920s, social reformers believed that the requirements of modern industry created an increasing disadvantage for older people “in competition with those who have the greater quickness and adaptability of youth” (Nassau, 1915: 15). Old-age poverty resulting from unemployment was considered to be an urban problem because in rural communities “there is always work . . . and rent is negligible” (Nassau, 1915: 15).

There have been several important contributions to the recent literature concerned with profits in antebellum southern manufacturing (Bateman et al., 1975; Bateman and Weiss, 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1981; and Vedder and Gallaway, 1980). Much of what we know about industrial profits during this era stems from the pioneering work of Fred Bateman and Thomas Weiss. In their work, these authors estimate rates of return to manufacturing investment for the South and the nation as a whole. They find that the rates of return in manufacturing were unusually high compared to returns in alternative investments in the decade preceding the Civil War. In fact, their estimates suggest that the financial returns in manufacturing were roughly twice as great as the financial returns to investment in agriculture. With these large sectoral differences in rates of return, Bateman and Weiss question why the South was so slow to industrialize and why the antebellum southern economy continued to be dominated by plantation agriculture.