¹ American Political Science Review, 56 (12, 1962), 947–952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² American Political Science Review, 57 (09, 1963), 632–642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See for example Crenson, Matthew A., The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Frey, Frederick, “Comment: Issues and Nonissues in the Study of Community Power,” American Political Science Review, 55 (12, 1971), 1081–1101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newton, K., “Democracy, Community Power and Non-decisionmaking,” Political Studies, 20 (12, 1972), 484–547 Google Scholar. For a dissenting view see Wolfinger, Raymond, “Non-decisions and the study of Local Politics,” American Political Science Review, 55 (12, 1971), 1063–1080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also Wolfinger's, “Rejoinder” in the same volume, pp. 1102–1104 Google Scholar.

⁴ Dahl, Robert Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁵ See, for example, the article by Polsby, Nelson W. on the “Study of Community Power,” International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1968) III, 157–163 Google Scholar, which he opens with the statement that “contemporary research on community power is distinguished by: (1) a concern with characterizing as a whole the political order of an entire community (generally an American local community)” [p. 157, emphasis added].

⁶ Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953)Google Scholar.

⁷ Critics of Hunter are legion—see for example Polsby, Nelson, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; and Rose, Arnold, The Power Structure: Political Process in American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁸ Rose, pp. 296–297 notes evidence that the size of a community, and its interrelationships with the national economy, may significantly influence the nature of its power structure. This is considered in more detail by Walton, John, “The Vertical Axis of Community Organization and the Structure of Power,” (Southwestern) Social Science Quarterly, 48 (1967), 353–368 Google Scholar, which has been most recently reprinted in Community Politics: A Behavioral Approach, ed. Bonjean, Charles M., Clark, Terry and Lineberry, Robert (New York: The Free Press, 1971), pp. 188–97Google Scholar.

⁹ Dahl, , Who Governs? p. 325 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 90–91.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 225.

¹² Ibid., p. 225.

¹³ Ibid., p. 93.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 233.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 325.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 317.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 311–325.

¹⁸ Parenti, Michael, “Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom,” Journal of Politics, 32 (08, 1970), 501–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Anton, Thomas, “Power, Pluralism, and Local Politics,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 7 (03, 1963), 425–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Rejoinder” Admin. Science Quarterly, 8 (09, 1963), 257–268 Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁰ Both the Bachrach and Baratz articles (see notes 1 and 2 above) have been reprinted, together with a sketchy report of an associated empirical study, in their Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar. All further Bachrach and Baratz references will be to this book.

²¹ See Crenson, especially pp. 181–182 for a brief, but very penetrating analysis of the logical difficulties posed by the concept of indirect influence.

²² Bachrach, and Baratz, , Power and Poverty, p. 44 Google Scholar. Note that this definition of nondecisions is more restrictive than what is implied by mobilization of bias since it denies the possibility of such bias operating against “the values or interests of the decision makers.” Clearly the mobilization of bias may not itself discriminate how it operates, and against whom—as is of the essence of covert control. The failure to distinguish between these two forms of nondecision making creates the confusion which lies at the heart of their approach, and is the justification for Merelman describing them as “neo-elitists.” Merelman, Richard, “On the Neo-Elitist Critique of Community Power,” American Political Science Review, 62 (06, 1968), 451–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Bachrach and Baratz, p. 9.

²⁴ They would appear to mean the same class of events as Polsby when he refers to “specific outcomes,” and cites examples such as party nomination, urban development programme, and public education. See Polsby, , Community Power and Political Theory, pp. 113–114 Google Scholar.

²⁵ Bachrach and Baratz, p. 44.

²⁶ Merelman, p. 459.

²⁷ See Forward, Roy, “Issue Analysis in Community Power Studies,” Australian Journal of Politics and History, 15 (12, 1969), 26–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an exhaustive analysis of the varieties of issue that may occur in a community. But drawing attention to variety is not in itself enough, since the profusion of alternatives simply defeats the objective of focused analysis.

²⁸ Polsby, , Community Power and Political Theory, p. 114 Google Scholar. This question makes sense only if one is concerned with power comparability. A typical reason for such a preoccupation with that seems to follow from the belief that the sharing of power is a crucial index of democracy. (On this point, see Sharpe, L. J., “American Democracy Reconsidered: Part II and Conclusions,” British Journal of Political Science, 3 (04, 1973), 129–167, at p. 135)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Such an approach tends to ignore the style and content of politics. One should not only consider who governs, but how, and in relation to what.

²⁹ Bachrach and Baratz, p. 6.

³⁰ Polsby, p. 113. “More than a single issue area is always chosen … because of the presumption among pluralist researchers that the same pattern of decision-making is highly unlikely to reproduce itself in more than one issue area.”

³¹ Dahl, , Who Governs, p. 93 Google Scholar.

³² Bachrach and Baratz, p. 9.

³³ Dahl, p. 7.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 102.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 333.

³⁶ See Anton, , “Rejoinder,” p. 265 Google Scholar; and also Morriss, Peter, “Power in New Haven: A Reassessment of ‘Who Governs?’,” British Journal of Political Science, 2 (10, 1972), 457–465, at pp. 459–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Dahl, Robert, “Reply to Anton's Power, Pluralism and Local Politics,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 7 (09, 1963), 250–256, at p. 254Google Scholar.

³⁸ Dahl, , “Reply to Anton,” p. 254 Google Scholar.

³⁹ Anton, , “Power, Pluralism and Local Politics,” p. 453 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Bachrach and Baratz, p. 53.

⁴¹ Schattsschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960), p. 71 Google Scholar; cited in Bachrach and Baratz, p. 8.

⁴² Bachrach and Baratz, p. 43.

⁴³ Ibid., p. 8.

⁴⁴ See Dahl, Robert, “Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,” American Political Science Review, 52 (06, 1958), 463–469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Polsby, , Community Power and Political Theory, p. 34 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Crenson, p. 21.

⁴⁶ Polsby, p. 97.

⁴⁷ Bachrach and Baratz, pp. 47–51.

⁴⁸ Crenson, p. 26.

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 29.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 30.

⁵¹ Ibid., p. 17.

⁵² The notion of “boundary” is descriptively useful so long as one need not be precise about where it actually is. It is useful, that is, as a means of drawing attention to gross distinctions between general classes of variables. Nondecision making, however, requires that the precise boundary between political and nonpolitical be determined for it is only at this point, in Crenson's terms, that it can operate. For the difficulties of boundary definition see Finer, Samuel E., “Almond's Concept of ‘The Political System’: A Textual Critique,” Government and Opposition, 5 (Winter, 1969–1970), 3–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate undertaking to inquire why a community did not do this or that. If it can be shown that inaction was intentional, then it concerns community power. But the result would be a community study only in the most limited sense. Crenson's critique of the pluralist position, particularly of the muddy notion of indirect influence, is extremely well argued. And he displays considerable ingenuity in his study of factors influencing the pollution issue in fifty-one cities. But since these cities are reduced to little more than statistical artifacts, he entirely disposes of the community baby with the pluralist bath water. Of course, in one sense, his is not a community study. But it is so clearly advanced as part of a continuing debate on community power, seeking to validate the current focal concept of that debate, that it must be judged in terms of its contribution in that direction, and not simply on the more limited terms of its subtitle, i.e., “Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities.”

⁵⁴ “Insofar as … goals are in some way explicitly pursued by people in the community, the method of study used in New Haven has a reasonable chance of capturing them.” Polsby, , Community Power and Political Theory, p. 97 Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ For sociologists, community has been a key concept, although Bell, Colin and Newby, Howard, Community Studies (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971)Google Scholar, point to a current disenchantment with the term (pp. 48–53). Political scientists have not, however, tended to regard this as a problem requiring much attention. Polsby, , “Study of Community Power,” p. 157 Google Scholar, notes that community power researchers have adopted a conventionl perspective by defining community “as a population living within legally established city limits.” This view was also taken by Hobhouse, L. T., Social Development (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924)Google Scholar who regarded “all populations living under a common rule as political communities, though they have only the bare bones of a common life” (pp. 41–42). Since “community implies having something in common” ( Frankenberg, Ronald, Communities in Britain: Social Life in Town and Country [London: Penguin, 1966], p. 238)Google Scholar, it seems reasonable to take the common element as the defining characteristic.

⁵⁶ Hunter, , Community Power Structure, pp. 2–3 Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Polsby, p. 7.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 113.

⁵⁹ Dahl, Robert, “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science, 2 (07, 1957), 201–215, at pp. 202–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ Anton, , “Power, Pluralism and Local Politics,” p. 445 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Crenson, p. 34.

⁶² Bachrach and Baratz, p. 42.

⁶³ Ibid., pp. 19–21.

⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 50.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 50.

⁶⁶ These references are all to Bachrach and Baratz, p. 37, Table 1.

⁶⁷ Ibid., pp. 30–31.

⁶⁸ Ibid., pp. 32–36.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 37.

⁷⁰ Dahl, Robert, Modern Political Analysis, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970), pp. 32–33 Google Scholar.

⁷¹ We continue to associate power with the ability to inflict severe sanctions, but it is not a necessary association. As de Crespigny, Anthony, “Power and its Forms,” Political Studies, 16 (06, 1968), 192–205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, points out, “If it is wished to make ‘power’ a technical term in the social sciences, it must be stripped of its dyslogistic associations. It must be used without any limitations concerning the ways in which power may be said to be exercised” (p. 193). This analysis has bene-fited considerably from de Crespigny's preliminary discussion of power, although his major concern, to distinguish between various types of power, is not felt to advance the cause of empirical political analysis.

⁷² Bachrach and Baratz, pp. 22 and 34.

⁷³ Ibid., p. 30.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 31.

⁷⁵ Frohock, Frederick, The Nature of Political Inquiry (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1967), p. 137 Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Bachrach and Baratz, p. 37.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 19.

⁷⁸ Russell, Bertrand, Power: A New Social Analysis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1938), p. 35 Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ See Rose, , The Power Structure, pp. 45–53 Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ See de Crespigny, pp. 192–196.

⁸¹ I am grateful to Alan Alexander of Reading University for his forceful probing on this point.

⁸² Dahl, , “Concept of Power,” pp. 202–203 Google Scholar.

⁸³ A definition of “intentions” and “effects” poses no more problems than does a definition of “issue” or “decision.” In both cases the problem of establishing a requisite level of significance arises, but can be dealt with only by the observer using stated criteria within the context of a specific study.