How to Study Community Power

8/3/2019 How to Study Community Power

1/12

Southern Political Science Association

How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist AlternativeAuthor(s): Nelson W. PolsbyReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2126892 .

Accessed: 24/01/2012 08:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2126892?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2126892?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/12

HOWTO STUDYCOMMUNITYPOWER:THE PLURALISTALTERNATIVE*NELSON W. POLSBYYale University and The Brookings Institution

POLITICALCIENTISTS ARE BEGINNING TO VIEW certain major con-tributions to the study of community politics less favorablythan one would have expected after hearing the fanfare surround-

ing the original acceptance of these works.1 Often billed as studiesof "community power structure," these works have been producedmostly by sociologists, whose orientation has been to study thepolitics of American communities as a subsidiary aspect of socialstructure. "The political organization of Jonesville," writes one

*This article is a paper of the New Haven Community Leadership Study,and owes a great deal to Robert A. Dahl and Raymond E. Wolfinger. Iam also grateful to George M. Belknap, Norton E. Long and Robert 0.Schulze, but none of these gentlemen should be held responsible for the notionspresented here.'For indications that disenchantment is setting in among political scientists,see the following: Robert A. Dahl, "A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,"American Political Science Review, 52 (June, 1958), 463-469; Herbert Kauf-man and Victor Jones, "The Mystery of Power," Public Administration Re-view, 14 (Summer, 1954), 205-212; Norton E. Long, "The Local Communityas an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (November, 1958),251-261; Nelson W. Polsby, "The Sociology of Community Power: A Reassess-ment," Social Forces, 37 (March, 1959), 232-236 and "Three Problems in theAnalysis of Community Power," American Sociological Review, 24 (Decem-ber, 1959), 796-803; Raymond E. Wolfinger, "Reputation and Reality in theStudy of 'Community Power'," American Sociological Review, 25 (December,1960), in press. Sociologists also seem to be re-examining studies of com-munity power: Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, "Political Sociology,"Current Sociology, 6 (1957), 79-99; Peter H. Rossi, "Community Decision-Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 (March, 1957), 415-443. Writingspraising community power studies are quite extensive, and include the follow-ing: Gordon Blackwell, "Community Analysis," in Roland Young (ed.), Ap-proaches to the Study of Politics (Evanston, 1958), 305-317; William J. Goreand Fred S. Silander, "A Bibliographical Essay on Decision-Making," Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 4 (June, 1959), 106-121; Lawrence J. R. Her-son, "The Lost World of Municipal Government," American Political ScienceReview, 51 (June, 1957), 330-345.2For example, Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown (NewYork, 1929) and Middletown in Transition (New York, 1937); Floyd Hunter,Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill, 1953); August B. Hollingsheaa,Elmtowm's Youth (New York, 1949); W. Lloyd Warner et. al., Democracy inJonesville (New York. 1949): C. Wrnht Mills. the Middle Classes in the

E474 1


3/12

1960] HOW TO STUDY COMMUNITY POWER 475such scholar, "fits the rest of the social structure . . . curving orbulging with the class outlines of the body politic."3The faults which critics have found with studies following thisgeneral conception of politics as an epiphenomenonof social stra-tification are many, varied and serious. They include the chargesthat this conception encourages researchdesignswhich generateself-fulfilling prophecies,4 and that it leads to the systematic mis-reporting of facts5 and to the formulation of ambiguous and un-provable assertions about community power.6 It would be gratui-tous for me to re-explore these criticisms here. It would be moreprofitable, instead, to describe some of the ways in which studentshave evaded-apparently with success-the various disabilities ofthe stratificationapproachto the study of community power. Withjudicious unoriginality, I shall call the alternative research strategyto be outlined here the "pluralist"approach. Old, familiar plural-istic presumptions7 about the nature of American politics seemto have given researchers strategies for the study of communitypower which are both feasible to execute and comparativelyfaithfulto conditions in the real world.8 What follows is an attempt toMiddle-Sized Cities," American Sociological Review, 11 (October, 1946), 520-529; Robert 0. Schulze, "Economic Dominants and Community Power Struc-ture," American Sociological Review, 23 (February, 1958), 3-9; Roland Pelle-grin and Charles H. Coates, "Absentee-Owned Corporations and CommunityPower Structure," American Journal of Sociology, 61 (March, 1956), 413-419;Delbert C. Miller, "Industry and Community Power Structure," AmericanSociological Review, 23 (February, 1958), 9-15 and "Decision-Making Cliquesin Community Power Structure," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (Novem-ber, 1958), 299-310.'Warner et. al., op. cit., p. xviii.'See, e.g., Kaufman and Jones, op. cit.5See Polsby, op. cit.'See ibid., Dahl, op. cit., and Kaufman and Jones, op. cit.'I am well aware that for other purposes the "pluralist" approach can bedivided into several schools of thought. However, all variations of pluralisttheory contrast effectively with stratification theory. Pluralist presumptionscan be found, for example, in the writings of de Tocqueville and Madison,and in Arthur Bentley, The Process of Government (Chicago, 1908); E.Pendleton Herring, The Politics of Democracy (New York, 1940); David B.Truman, The Governmental Process (New York, 1953); V. 0. Key, Jr.,Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (New York, 4th ed., 1959).8Among the researchers who have found pluralist presumptions about thenature of the political system useful are Robert A. Dahl ("The New HavenCommunity Leadership Study," Working Paper Number 1, December, 1957,mimeo); Harry Scoble ("Yankeetown: Leadership in Three Decision-MakingProcesses," presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Asso-


4/12

476 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS [Vol. 22explain why this seems to be the case for pluralist studies, but notfor stratificationstudies.The first, and perhaps most basic presuppositionof the pluralistapproach, is that nothing categorical can be assumed about powerin any community. It rejects the stratification thesis that somegroup necessarily dominates a community.9 If anything, thereseems to be an unspoken notion among pluralist researchers thatat bottom nobody dominates in a town, so that their first questionto a local informant is not likely to be, "Who runs this commu-nity?," but rather, "Does anyone at all run this community?" Itis instructive to examine the range of possible answers to each ofthese questions. The first query is somewhat like, "Have you stop-ped beating your wife?," in that virtually any response short oftotal unwillingness to answer will supply the researchers with a"power elite" along the lines presupposed by the stratificationtheory.10 On the other hand, the second question is capable ofeliciting a response which could lead to the discovery of a powerelite (i.e., "Yes"), or any of an infinite number of stable, but non-

6litist patterns of decision-making (i.e., "No, but . . ."; "Yes, but."), or total fragmentation,or disorganization (i.e., "No").What sort of question is likely to follow "Who runs the commu-nity?" in a questionnaire? Obviously, something like "How do thepeople named in the above response run the community?" Thisentirely probable pattern of investigation begs the question ofwhether or not those said to rule actually do rule. In the pluralistapproach, on the other hand, an attempt is made to study specificoutcomes, in order to determinewho actually prevails in communitydecision-making. Consonant with the desire to study actual out-ciation, 1956) ; and George Belknap and Norton E. Long. See Long, op. cit.;Long and Belknap, "A Research Program on Leadership and Decision-Makingin Metropolitan Areas" (New York, Governmental Affairs Institute, 1956),mimeo; Belknap and John H. Bunzel, "The Trade Union in the PoliticalCommunity," PROD, 2 (September, 1958), 3-6; Belknap, "A Plan for Researchon the Socio-Political Dynamics of Metropolitan Areas" (presented before aseminar on urban leadership of the Social Science Research Council, NewYork, August, 1957). See also a paper presented to this same seminar byPeter H. Rossi, "The Study of Decision-Making in the Local Community."'I present some of the characteristics of a stratification theory of communitypower in other papers, e.g., "Power in Middletown: Fact and Value in Com-munity Research" (March, 1960), mimeo.; "Power as a Variable of SocialStratification" (November, 1959), mimeo."0SeeKaufman and Jones, op. cit.


5/12

1960] HOW TO STUDY COMMUNITY POWER 477comes, which requires arduous and expensive field work, outcomesin a few (but, for reasons of expense, usually only a few) issue-areas are studied closely. More than a single issue-area is alwayschosen, however, because of the presumption among pluralist re-searchers that the same pattern of decision-making is highly un-likely to reproduce itself in more than one issue-area. In thisexpectation, pluralist researchers have seldom been disappointed."They recognize, however, the possibility that the same patterncould reproduce tself in more than one issue-area. Since actual be-havior is observed, or reconstructedfrom documents,witnesses, andso on, it is possible to determine empirically whether or not thesame group rules two or more issue-areas. The presumption thatthe existence of a power elite is unlikely does not, in other words,prevent the finding of such an elite if the data so indicate.A superficially persuasive objection to this approach might bephrased as follows: "Suppose research in a community disclosesdifferent patterns of decision-making in each of three issue-areas.This does not rule out the possibility that all other issue-areas inthe community are dominated by a single power elite." How canpluralists meet this objection? First, it is necessary to acknowledgethe possibility that this is the case. However, pluralists can (anddo) protect themselves in part by studying significant issues. Inthe New Haven study, for example, of which this paper is an out-growth, we studied (1) nominations by the two political parties,which determine which persons hold public offices; (2) the NewHaven Redevelopment program, which is the largest in the coun-try (measured by past and present outlay per capita); (3) publiceducation, which is the most costly item in the city's budget; and(4) a campaign to revise the city charter.l In Bennington, Scoblestudied political nominations and elections, the issue of consolida-tion of various municipal governments, the formation of a unionhigh-schooldistrict and the constructionof a new high-schoolbuild-ing.'3 A pilot study, by Long and Belknap, of a large eastern cityembraced the problems of transportation, race relations, traffic,

"Wolfinger, op. cit., has summarized findings on this point, pp. 7ff."See Dahl, "The New Haven .. .," op. cit. Polsby, op. cit., and Wolfinger,op. cit., and forthcoming publications of the New Haven Community Leader-ship Study.18Scoble, op. cit.


6/12


7/12

1960] HOW TO STUDY COMMUNITY POWER 479that coalitions do vary in their permanency. To presume that theset of coalitions which exists in the community at any given timeis a timelessly stable aspect of social structure is to introduce sys-tematic inaccuracies into one's descriptionof social reality.

Why do pluralists reject the idea that some group necessarilydominates every community? The presumption that communitiesare likely to be less rather than more permanent in their patternsof decision-makingis no doubt part of the answer, but another partis an even more fundamental conception of human behavior asgoverned in large part by inertia. This view leads pluralists to puta high value on overt activity as indicative of involvement in issuesand to look upon the collection of "reputations"for leadership as amuch less desirable research procedure.19

Pluralists consider as arbitrary the inclusion of certain groupsas being "implicated" in decisions when these groups themselvesreject such involvement.20 For pluralists, "false class conscious-ness" does not exist, because it implies that the values of analystsare imposed on groups in the community. They reject the idea thatfifty year period ending in 1940. Myers claims to have discovered "discrimina-tion" against Italians, because they did not participate in city government jobsto an extent proportional with their representation in the total population ofthe city. His conclusion was that "the early or quick assimilation of New HavenItalians in the political system does not seem very probable. . . All indicationsare that political assimilation is inevitable, although it is at least several genera-tions away."By taking account of shorter-term cyclical movements within the allegedly"basic" structure, we may be able to explain the delay in the political assimila-tion of Italians.First, New Haven Italo-Americans were and are predominantly Republicanin local politics, because in New Haven the Republican organization early andenergetically courted the Italo-American vote. From 1920 to 1940, years inwhich that ethnic group would "normally" have been expected to come intotheir own as a politically significant minority group, the city government wasin Democratic hands two-thirds of the time. It might be expected, therefore,that Italo-Americans would be less well represented among officeholders thanif these circumstances were reversed. Second, in 1945, a Republican of Italiandescent was elected Mayor, whereupon Italian-Americans invaded the topechelons of city government to such an extent that the Mayor pleaded in vainwith one who was a candidate for President of the City Council to withdrawin favor of a Yankee Republican, on the grounds that there were "too manyItalians" in City Hall, and that the Yankee members of the Republican coali-tion should have some recognition."9See, especially, Wolfinger, op. cit.20See C. Wright Mills, "The Middle Classes . . . ," op. cit., and my "TheSociology of Community Power," op. cit., on this point.


8/12

480 THE JOURNALOF POLITICS [Vol. 22there is any particular issue or any particularpoint in the determi-nation of an issue where a group must assert itself in order to followits expressed values. Rather, the pluralist assumes that there aremany issues and many points at which group values can be realized.Further, pluralists presume that there are certain costs in takingany action at all. This refers not simply to the possibility of losing,of making political enemies, and so on, but also to the costs in per-sonal time and effort involved in political mobilization, in becom-ing informed, in lobbying or campaigning and in taking the troubleto vote.2'It is a demonstrated fact that public activity of all sorts is ahabit more characteristic of the middle and upper classes than ofthe lower classes.22Vidich and Bensman, for the first time in acommunity study, depicted the life of the lowest-class groups inthe community sufficiently well so that the personally functionalaspects of wtihdrawal from the community were revealed.23 Thepresumption of inertia permits the researcher to regard the publicsector of activity as but one facet of behavior capable of givingpeople satisfaction, and discouragesthe inappropriateand arbitraryassignment of upper and middle-class values to all actors in thecommunity.The presumption of inertia also helps put economic and socialnotables into perspective. If a man's major life work is banking,the pluralist presumes he will spend his time at the bank, and notin manipulating community decisions. This presumptionholds untilthe banker's activities and participations indicate otherwise. Onceagain, it is very important to make the point that this assumptionis not scientifically equivalent to its opposite. If we presume thatthe banker is "really" engaged in running the community, there ispractically no way of disconfirmingthis notion, even if it is totallyerroneous. On the other hand, it is easy to spot the banker who

2"See Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York,1957); Robert E. Lane, Political Life: How People Get Involved in Politics(Glencoe, 1959); Samuel Stouffer, Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties(New York, 1955), pp. 58ff.22Lane, op. cit., pp. 220-234.23Arthur J. Vidich and Joseph Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society(Princeton, 1958), pp. 69-70, 290-291. Studies of social status have been hamp-ered by a similar problem of upper-class-centeredness. See the criticism ofWarner on this point by Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, "Social Sta-tus and Social Structure," British Journal of Sociology, 2 (June, 1951), esp. pp.163ff.


9/12

1960] HOW TO STUDY COMMUNITY POWER 481really does run community affairs when we presume he does not,because his activities will make this fact apparent. In the absenceof the requisite activities, we have no grounds for asserting thatthe banker, in fact, does run the community.24The pluralist emphasis on the time-bounded nature of coalitionsand on the voluntary aspect of political participation leads to afurther contrast with stratification theory, since pluralists holdthat the "interest group" and the "public" are the social collectivesmost relevant to the analysis of political processes. In the socio-logist's patois, politically important groups would be called phe-nomena of "collective behavior" rather than of "social structure."25Social classes in stratification theory are populations differentiallyranked according to economic or status criteria, which embrace theentire community. Everyone in a community is a member of atleast one but no more than one class at any given moment, and noone in the community falls outside the system. This is a legitimateheuristic construction; however, it is a mistake to impute to theapparently inescapable fact of class membership any sort of classconsciousness. This sociologists have long recognized.26 But theyseem less willing to grant that it is equally incorrect to presumethatthose sharing similar market or status positions are also equidistantto all the bases of political power, or in fact share class interests.American society has never been noted for its inter-class warfare,a fact often reported with a great show of surprise in stratificationstudies of Americancommunities.27Pluralists,who see Americansociety as fracturedinto a congeries

"4SeeBentley, op. cit., pp. 175-222. Note, at p. 202: "If we can get oursocial life stated in terms of activity, and of nothing else, we have not indeedsucceeded in measuring it, but we have at least reached a foundation uponwhich a coherent system of measurements can be built up. . . We shallcease to be blocked by the intervention of unmeasurable elements, which claimto be themselves the real causes of all that is happening, and which by theirspook-like arbitrariness make impossible any progress toward dependableknowledge.""5Only one sociologist seems to have realized what this implies for themethods and conclusions of political analysis. See Rudolf Heberle, SocialMovements (New York, 1951). The relevant theory is compactly expoundedby Herbert Blumer in "Collective Behavior," in Alfred M. Lee (ed.), Prin-ciples of Sociology (New York, 1953), pp. 167-220."6Indeed, Max Weber, the most important "founding father" of modernstratification analysis, makes just this point. See Weber's "Class, Status,Party," in H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays inSociology (New York, 1946), pp. 180-195, esp. p. 184.27See, for example, Lynd and Lynd, Middletown in Transition, op. cit.,


10/12

482 THE JOURNALOF POLITICS [Vol. 22of hundreds of small "special interest" groups, with incompletelyoverlappingmemberships,widely differing power bases, and a multi-tude of techniques for exercising influence on decisions salient tothem,28 are not surprisedat the low priority which Americans giveto their class membership as bases of social action. In the decision-making of fragmented government-and American national, stateand local governments are nothing if not fragmented-the claims ofsmall, intense minorities are usually attended to.29 Hence it is notonly inefficient but usually unnecessaryfor entire classes to mobilizewhen the preferences of class-membersare pressed and often satis-fied in a piecemeal fashion. The empirical evidence supporting thispluralist doctrine is overwhelming,30 however much stratificationtheorists may have missed its significance for them, namely, thatthe fragmentation of American governmental decision-making andof American society makes class consciousness inefficient, and, inmost cases, makes the political interests of members of the sameclass different.

Pluralist research is not interested in ascertaining an actor'sranking in a system presumed to operate hierarchically. Rather,pluralists want to find out about leadership roles, which are pre-sumed to be diverse and fluid, both within a single issue-area overtime, and as between issue-areas. Long and Belknap, for example,identify the following leadership roles in community decision-mak-ing: Initiation, Staffing and Planning, Communication and Pub-licity, Intra-elite Organizing, Financing and Public Sanctioning.31

By describing and specifying leadership roles in concrete situa-tions, pluralists are in a position to determine the extent to whichpower structure exists. If there exist high degrees of overlap amongissue-areas in decision-making personnel, or of institutionalizationpp. 454-455, 509; Alfred W. Jones, Life, Liberty and Property (Philadelphia,1941), pp. 336-354; Warner et. al., op. cit., p. 27; C. Wright Mills, "TheMiddle Classes," op. cit. Compare also Richard Centers, The Psychology ofSocial Classes (Princeton, 1948), and note the extent to which his conclu-sions outrun his data.28See, for example, Truman, op. cit., passim. Alexis de Tocqueville, Demo-cracy In America (New York, 1954), esp. Vol. I, pp. 181-205, 281-342, Vol. II,pp. 114-135.29See Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, 1956)."0Truman, op. cit., summarizes a tremendous amount of this material."Long and Belknap, op. cit., pp. 9-11. See Polsby, "The Sociology ofCommunity Power," op. cit., and Edward C. Banfield, "The Concept 'Leader-ship' in Community Research" (delivered at the meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, 1958), for similar lists.


11/12

1960] HOW TO STUDY COMMUNITY POWER 483in the bases of power in specified issue-areas, or of regularity in theprocedures of decision-making, then the empirical conclusion isjustified that some sort of a "powerstructure" exists. By specifyingleadership roles and activities, the pluralist research strategy makesit possible for an empirical determination of the bounds and dura-bility of a community "power structure"-if one exists-to be de-scribed, and the stratification theory presumption that communitypower is necessarily general and relatively immutable can be dis-carded as arbitrary.The final contrast I want to make between the pluralist andstratification methods has to do with their differing conceptions ofwhat is meant by "power."I have already noted that stratificationtheorists emphasize the cataloguing of power bases, meaning the re-sources available to actors for the exercise of power.32 Pluralists,on the other hand, concentrate on power exercise itself. This leadsto two subsidiary discoveries. First, there are a great many differentkinds of resources which can be turned to use in the process ofcommunity decision-making-many more resources, in fact, thanstratification theorists customarily take account of. One list, forexample, includes: money and credit; control over jobs; controlover the information of others; social standing; knowledge andexpertness; popularity, esteem and charisma; legality, constitution-ality and officiality; ethnic solidarity; and the right to vote.33The second product of the pluralist emphasis on power exerciseis the discovery that resources are employed only with variationsin degree of skill. The elaboration of the ways in which resourcesare employed enables the pluralist researcher to pay attention towhat practical politicians customarily see as the heart of their owncraft: the processes of bargaining, negotiation, salesmanship andbrokerage, and of leadership in mobilizing resources of all kinds.This approachalso makes possible a more realistic evaluation of theactual disposable resources of actors. A corporation may be worthmillions of dollars, but its policies and liquidity position may be suchthat it cannot possibly bring those monetary resources into play inorder to influence the outcome of a community decision-even onein which the corporationis vitally interested. And interest itself, asnoted above, is differentially distributedin a pattern which pluralistsassume is rational for most actors, most of the time. For example,Long and Belknap observe:

"2Inpaperscited in note 9 above.88RobertA. Dahl, "The Analysis of Influence in Local Communities"(May, 1959), mimeo.,p. 10.


12/12

484 THE JOURNALOF POLITICS [Vol. 22Just as business organizations may be disinterested in communityaffairs because of the national scope of its (sic) operations, individualbusinessmen who move or are shifted from city to city may havelittle opportunity or incentive to participate in community affairs.Some businesses have strong pressures on them to give attention tocommunity and metropolitan problems. Large department stores areparticularly tied up with the destiny of the city and must decidewhether to keep to the central city or decentralize in suburban shop-ping centers. Businessmen with a "metropolitan view" would thusbe expected to be found here rather than in the branch office of anational corporation.3 4What practical recommendationsemerge from this comparisonof stratificationand pluralist approachesto the study of communitypower?35 First, the researchershould pick issue-areas as the focusof his study of community power. Second, he should be able todefend these issue-areas as being very important in the life of the

community. Third, he should study actual behavior, either at firsthand, or by reconstructing behavior from documents, informants,newspapers and other appropriate sources. There is no harm instarting with a list of people whose behavior the researcherwishesto study vis-a-vis any issue-area. The harm comes, rather, in at-tributing some mystical significance to such a list, so that the ex-amination of activity and of actual participation in decision-makingbecomes superfluous. This recommendation s not meant to discour-age the researcherfrom collecting information about the reputationof actors, or their intentions with respect to community issues, ortheir evaluations about the "meanings"of community incidents. Allof these kinds of data are of immeasurablevalue in tracing patternsof decision-making.However, these cultural data must be accom-panied by information about behavior so that the researcher hassome way of distinguishing between myths and facts.The final recommendation is of the same order: researchersshould study the outcomesof actual decisionswithin the community.It is important, but insufficient, to know what leaders want to do,what they intend to do, and what they think they can do. Theresearcher still has to decide on the basis of his own examinationof the facts what actually emerges from these various intentions,and not conclude prematurely that the combination of intentionsand resources inflexibly predetermines outcomes.

34Long and Belknap, op. cit., pp. 13-14. This corresponds to the findings-but not the interpretations-of Schulze, op. cit., and of Pellegrin and Coates,op. cit.3"This presumes that the researcher wants to make some generalizationsabout the "normal" distributions of power in community decision-making.

How to Study Community Power

Documents

Transcript of How to Study Community Power