Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T18:40:11.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Patronage in a Rural County*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Frank J. Sorauf
Frank J. Sorauf
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of public employment for political patronage is an ancient phenomenon seldom studied by political scientists in systematic and objective detail. Texts and treatises on political parties reckon with the subject, but usually support their generalizations and conclusions with illustrations rather than comprehensive evidence. Detailed studies date back to the muck-raking period, and deal chiefly with large metropolitan centers. The role of patronage in maintaining the thousands of rural and small city party units across the country, in the face of marked changes in the methods of national party operation over the past generation, is largely guesswork. Yet the vitality of these organizations is a matter of general concern for the future of the party system.

This study is an attempt to apply some of the more familiar assumptions about the value and role of patronage to actual experience in a rural county in central Pennsylvania where it can have little to do with policy control. Exactly what are the political uses of state patronage at this low level? Has it been used to reward the party faithful, or to encourage party activity and contributions, or to woo new partisans? In short, what does a small group of political jobholders contribute to the party that placed them in office—money? service? votes?

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 1046 - 1056
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am especially indebted to Mr. Nelson P. Guild whose interviewing, observations, and criticisms were immensely valuable, and to the Council on Research of the Graduate School of the Pennsylvania State University for a grant with which to undertake this study.

References

1 There have been very few full-length patronage studies, Kurtzman's, David Methods of Controlling Votes in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1935)Google Scholar being about the only one directly concerning the politics of patronage. Waldby's, H. O. The Patronage System in Oklahoma (Norman, 1950)Google Scholar approaches patronage largely in terms of its implications for public administration and personnel policy. Patronage also is featured prominently in some of the broader works on parties as, for instance, Gosnell, Harold F., Machine Politics: Chicago Model (Chicago, 1937)Google Scholar; Forthall, Sonya, Cogwheels of Democracy, A Study of the Precinct Captain (New York, 1946)Google Scholar; Kent, Frank R., The Great Game of Politics (New York, 1923)Google Scholar; and Key, V. O. Jr., Southern Politics (New York, 1950)Google Scholar and American State Politics: An Introduction (New York, 1956)Google Scholar. The subject is also considered in works on public administration and the civil service; Harvey C. Mansfield's paper on patronage at the national level in The Federal Government Service, a report of the American Assembly (New York, 1954)Google Scholar is a good illustration. The learned journals are generally barren of articles on the politics of patronage.

2 The census figure of 17,227 residents in State College includes students living in town who account for a large part of the total. While the Pennsylvania State University is located at State College, it maintains the separate postal address of University Park.

3 In the 1954 elections, however, the county did reflect the widespread swing to the Democrats that resulted in the victory of Governor George M. Leader. In Centre county the Republicans polled 9,442 votes to 9,164 for the Democrats. An occasional “county seat” Democrat also captures a county or local office.

4 The county organizations are also able to place some patronage appointments in Harrisburg and within the county in positions with the forest and waters service, various state institutions within the county, and the state fish hatchery.

5 The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of the highway forces in the county were intentionally omitted from this study, since as supervisory employees they are in no way comparable to the large group of highway workers. They are frankly political appointments, and in addition to directing highway work they serve as “political supervisors” of the highway crews, collecting party contributions and screening many appointments.

6 The figures add to a total greater than 100 % because some workers campaigned both before and during their employment on the highway. The same reason applies to the data on party office holding and on candidacies.

7 These jobs, as one might expect, were the least desirable ones; 26 of the 38 were laborers.

8 Some of the respondents gave more than one reason for their retention.

9 Some had been removed only a week or so before we interviewed them; others had been out of work for five or six months.

10 Reservations were of these types: they would return if the jobs were covered by social security, if the pay were better, if the work were steadier, if they could return soon, or if they wouldn't have to force another man out of his job.

11 Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (New York, 1942), p. 103 Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.