Social theory provides useful tools for analysis of local political relations. Development of theoretical tools has often been stimulated by empirical application. Discussion has emanated from ‘community power’ research, a field which has been virtually synonymous with a persistent, unresolved and ‘rather silly’ (Bell and Newby, 1971:218) empirical debate carried on within the United States. One side (pluralists) sought to show that United States cities were governed by many; the other side (elitists) has sought to show that they were governed by few. The protagonists shared an important characteristic: neither has been as concerned to explain how the observed power structures came about, as it has been to justify its assumptions. Fortunately the debate is now largely irrelevant. The lack of explanatory force on both sides indicates that there is nothing to gain from attempting to rejuvenate it in Australia. There is, however, value in the theoretical debate which grew around the conceptual deficiencies of the two sides.

A theoretical analysis

The notion of power implies relationships among individuals and groups in which the behaviour of some has an impact on others over space and time. Explanation of those relationships seeks to answer the why and how questions. That is, why do some individuals or groups affect others, and how does it come about that they are able to, and choose to, act in a way that has such effect? Power, however, implies more than behavioural cause and effect in social relations.