Community Power and Decision-Making: A Comparative Evaluation of Measurement Techniques

Five comparable maijor decisions in two small New York communities were selected for detailed study resulting in a list of comimunity decision-makers. This is compared with lists of reputed leaders in each community based on nominationis by these decision participants and leaders of voluntary associations. The communities were similar in terms of size, range of community facilities, and major problems faced, and differed most in political and socioeconomic complexion. In both cases political-governmental officials were key leaders, but overlap between the lists in one community was the result of hyper-activity of a few in all decisions studied, wlhile in the other community it was the result of limited decision participation by many. Voluntary organization leaders also were found to cliffer from decision-miakers in their perception of reputed leaders in one community. These differences are attributed primar ily to differences in the economic structure of the two communities. T wo distinct, but related, points of clisagreemiient may be discerned in the continuing debate over the study of community power and decision-making. One set of arguments is basically a methodological dispute witlh the self-styled "pluralists" challenging the validity and reliability of the 'reputational teclnique'-used by Floyd Hunter in his study of Regional City1 and refined by those whio hiave followed in his footsteps2-as a means for getting at the power structure of a conllllunity.3 According to these critics, this approach at best measures only tlhe reputation wlhich different individuals lhave for power. Whlat is needed is an objective indlicator wlicih measures actuzal power4 and their recommendation for such lhonors is wliat has been clharacterized as "decision sociometry"5: the intensive study , Collection of the data upon which this study is based was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation Committee on Public affairs; the Cornell University Social Science Research Center, and the National Institutes of Health, grant M5108(A). An additional grant from tbe Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of Califorinia, Berkeley, made possible some of the analysis presented here. The helpful commaients and criticisms of George Strauss and Robert Holloway on an earlier draft of tbis manuscript are gratefully acknowledged. 1 Counntnitv Power Structure (Chapel Hill: The University of Nor'thl Carolinia Press, 1953). 2 William H. Form and Delbert C. Miller, Inidustry, Labor antd Coniin-ntiity (New York: Harper & Bros., 1960), esp. Part 3; Delbert C. Miller, "Industry and Communiity Power Stricture," Amneicacm Sociological Review, 23 (February 1958), pp. 9-15; Delibert C. Miller, "Decision-Making Cliques in Communitv Power Structure," The Aiverican Joutrntal of Sociology, 64 (November 1958), pp. 299-310; W7Tilliam H. Form and William V. D'Antonio, "Integration and Cleavage Amonig CoI1mmunity Influelntials in Two Border Cities," A`miierican Sociological Revieze, 24 (Decem)ber 1959), pp. 804814; Robert C. Hansen, "Predictinag a Community Decision: A Test of the Miller-Form Theory," Amnerican Sociological Review, 24 (October 1959), pp. 662-671; and William V. D'Antonio and Eugene C. Erickson, "The Reputationial Techlnique as a Measure of Community Powver," Am-ierican Sociological Reviezwl, 27 (June 1962), pp. 363-376. For a good summiiiary of these developments see LawNrence J. Herson, "In the Footsteps of Community Power," Amierican1 Political Scienice Review-, 55 (Dece.mber 1961), pp. 817-830. 3 Robert A. Dahl, "A Critiquie of the Rtulilng Elite Model," Ainerican. Political Science Revice, 52 (june 1958), pp. 463-468, and Raymond E. Wolfinger, "Reputation and Reality in the Study of 'Communuity Power,' " Amner-ican Sociological Reviezw, 25 (October 1960), pp. 636-644. 4 Wolfinger, ibid., and Nelson W. Polsby, "How to Sttudy Power: The Pluralist Alterinative," Joitrnal of Politics, 22 (AuLigust 1960), pp. 474-484. 5 David B. Truman, "Theory and Researclh oln Metropolitan Political Leadership: Report oln a Conference," Social Science Researcbh Coitnicii Items, 15 (March 1961), p. 2. For a general reThis content downloaded from 207.46.13.159 on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 04:27:04 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms