¹ Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

² Hirschman, p. 30. Notice that the economic perspective adopted by Hirschman is paralleled by a social psychological perspective. “Avoidance” is essentially exiting behavior; “confrontation/attack” is essentially voice; and “tolerance” is equivalent to our term “resignation”—the situation when people experience problems but do nothing about them.

³ Hirschman, p. 16.

⁴ Hirschman, p. 51.

⁵ We are not talking here about symbolic actions that are often a substitute for real change. This propensity of governments to respond symbolically to demands for change has been discussed with considerable insight by Lipsky, Michael, “Protest as a Political Resource,” American Political Science Review, 62 (12, 1968). 1144–1158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁶ Parenti, Michael, “Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom,” Journal of Politics, 32 (August, 1970), 582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Crain, Robert L. and Rosenthal, Donald B., “Community Status as a Dimension of Local Decisionmaking,” American Sociological Review, 32 (12, 1967), 970–984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ See Williams, Alan, “The Optimal Provision of Public Goods in a System of Local Government,” Journal of Political Economy, 14 (10, 1956), 18–33 Google Scholar for a discussion of “spillover effects” among local governments.

⁹ For a discussion of the concept “public-regarding elite” see Wilson, James Q. and Banfield, Edward, “Public-Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior,” American Political Science Review, 58, 12, 1964), 876–887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An important critique of the concept and analysis based on it is contained in Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Field, John Osgood, “Political Ethos and the Structure of City Government,” American Political Science Review, 60 (June, 1966), 306–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We should remember that some kinds of neighborhood voice—using the term in the broad sense adopted by Hirschman—do not require action of any kind by city elites. Neighborhood beautification groups, for example, can make the required improvements quite independently of community power structures. But, in general, problems that can be solved in this way will be relatively minor.

¹⁰ Hirschman points out that both economists and political scientists have a “trained incapacity” to recognize the importance of one of the two mechanisms. Economists, he says, have a bias in favor of exit and against voice: “The economist tends naturally to think that his mechanism is far more efficient and is in fact the only one to be taken seriously” (p. 16). On the other hand,

¹¹ See, for example, Marston, Wilfred G., “Socioeconomic Differentiation Within Negro Areas of American Cities,” Social Forces, 48 (12, 1969), 165–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Classic statements of the pluralist position are found in: Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Rose, Arnold, The Power Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Polsby, Nelson W., Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Banfield, Edward, Political Influence (New York: Free Press, 1961)Google Scholar. In addition to the earlier work of C. W. Mills and Floyd Hunter, antipluralist arguments are found in: Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, 56 (12, 1962); 950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore, “The Public Philosophy: Interest-Group Liberalism,” American Political Science Review, 61 (March, 1967), 5–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Lipsky, , “Protest as a Political Resource,” pp. 144–158 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Parenti, “Power and Pluralism.” Italics in the original.

¹⁵ Cf. Banfield's, Edward C. assertion in The Unheavenly City (Boston: Little Brown, 1970)Google Scholar: “… the ‘revenue crisis’ mainly reflects the fact that people hate to pay taxes and that they think that by crying poverty they can shift some of the bill to someone else” (p. 9). Crying poverty is, at least, more reasonable for most city governments than for most suburban governments.

¹⁶ Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 43 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Bell, Wendell, “Familism and Suburbanization; One Test of the Social Choice Hypothesis,” Rural Sociology, 21 (09–12, 1956), 276–283 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For other literature dealing with movement toward the suburbs and familism, see: Rodgers, Roy H., “Some Factors Associated with Homogeneous Role Patterns in Family Life Cycle Careers,” Pacific Sociological Review, 7 (Spring, 1964), 38–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fava, Sylvia Fleis, “Suburbanism as a Way of Life,” American Sociological Review, 21 (February, 1956), 34–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ See Lansing, John B. and Barth, Nancy, Residential Location and Urban Mobility: A Multivariate Analysis (Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, by the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1964)Google Scholar. Richard Sennett also points out this greater “exit-proneness” of urban residents in The Uses of Disorder, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1970), pp. 152–153 Google Scholar, in his discussion of loose social controls in such areas.

²⁰ For a useful summary of the findings in these terms, see Sabagh, George, Van Arsdol, Maurice D. Jr., and Butler, Edgar W., “Some Determinants of Intrametropolitan Residential Mobility: Conceptual Considerations,” Social Forces, 48 (09, 1969), 88–98 Google Scholar. Tiebout's, Charles M. “The Pure Theory of Local Expenditure,” Journal of Political Economy, 64 (10, 1956), 416–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is useful from an economic perspective.

²¹ Lansing and Barth, p. 14.

²² Sabagh et al., p. 95.

²³ The literature suggests that “problems” that push people into mobility are, by comparison, seldom unique to a particular family in a neighborhood. For example, having to commute a long way to work is infrequently given as a reason for movement and the same goes for having friends in another part of the city. See: Rossi, Peter, Why Families Move, (New York: Free Press, 1955), 90–92 Google Scholar; Sabagh et al., “Some Determinants of Intrametropolitan Residential Mobility.”

²⁴ See especially, Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar for a discussion of civic duty and similar variables related to voter participation.

²⁵ See: Robinson, John P., “Public Reaction to Political Protest: Chicago, 1968,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (Spring, 1970), 1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Converse, Philip E. et al., “Continuity and Change in American Politics; Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election.” American Political Science Review, 63 (12, 1969), 1083–1105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olsen, Marvin, “Perceived Legitimacy of Social Protest Action,” Social Problems (Winter, 1968), 297–310 Google Scholar; Turner, Ralph, “The Public Perception of Protest,” American Sociological Review (12, 1969), 815–830 Google Scholar.

²⁶ For a summary of findings regarding political participation, see Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963)Google Scholar. See also Angus Campbell et al., The American Voter; Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civil Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ For an excellent summary of the alienated voter hypothesis and a critique, see Crain, Robert L., Katz, Elihu, and Rosenthal, Donald B., The Politics of Community Conflict (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1969)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Campbell et al., p. 518.

²⁹ Campbell et al., p. 316. Janowitz, Morris and Marvick, Dwaine, Competitive Pressures and Democratic Consent, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Michigan Governmental Studies, No. 32), p. 26 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Olsen, Marvin E., “Social and Political Participation of Blacks,” American Sociological Review, 35 (August, 1970), 682–697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; See also Babchuck, Nicholas and Thompson, Ralph V., “Voluntary Associations of Negroes,” American Sociological Review, 27 (10, 1962), 647–655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ The phrase belongs to Coleman, James S., “Relational Analysis: The Study of Social Organization with Survey Methods,” Human Organization, 17 (Winter, 1958–1959), 28–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Coleman suggests that this shortcoming might reflect the heavy reliance these studies usually place on survey methodology. He points out the tendency of studies based on survey research to theorize about things that can be readily measured by this technique (that is to say, characteristics of individuals rather than of their environments); Coleman also systematizes the various modifications of survey technology that take account of the individual's social context.

³² Thus, if we think about alienation as a variable “inside the individual's head,” at least two alternative models are possible: (1) a developmental sequence from assessments of the situation (the calculus) through attitude (alienation) to behavior (participation); (2) a spurious relationship in which the calculus influences alienation and participation, but alienation in itself does not influence participation. See Hyman, Herbert, Survey Design and Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1955) pp. 254–263 Google Scholar for distinctions between these two types of process. See also Alker, Hayward, Mathematics and Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 122–125 Google Scholar.

³³ One important study suggests that decisions made by various metropolitan governments tend to maintain the social homogeneity of metropolitan areas. The argument implies that mobility and governmental action tend to work in the same direction of system maintenance. See Williams, Oliver P. et al., Suburban Differences and Metropolitan Policies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

³⁴ See, for example: Blalock, Hubert M., Theory Construction (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1969)Google Scholar. Blalock points out that one might have to use weighted averages rather than arithmetic means in order to allow for the fact that, in collective decision making, some individuals count more than others (p. 6). Coleman, James S. in Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar writes:

One author who does make a formal attempt to spell out such linkages is Barton, Allen, Communities in Disaster (New York: Doubleday, 1969)Google Scholar, especially Chapter 5, “The Altruistic Community.” See also: Eulau, Heinz, Micro-Macro Political Analysis, (Chicago: Aldine, 1969)Google Scholar; and Donald E. Stokes, “Analytic Reduction in the Study of Institutions,” a paper delivered to the 1966 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in New York.

³⁵ The best available sample frame was the Columbus City Directory, which proved to be a reasonably reliable listing of households in the metropolitan area; our survey is representative of the entire metropolitan area. Households were sampled from this frame using a table of random numbers, and individuals were sampled from households using the respondent selection key detailed in Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursh, Gerald D., Survey Research (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1963), pp. 50–59 Google Scholar. Interviews were conducted by graduate students and advanced undergraduates in political science. Extensive telephone checking revealed complete reliability of the interviewers. Eighty-three per cent of the interviews attempted were completed.

³⁶ Almond and Verba, The Civil Culture.

³⁷ Peter Rossi, Why Families Move. We used the stronger question “intention to move” in preference to the weaker one “desire to move.”

³⁸ A standard factor analysis was performed. The loadings on the unrotated urbanism factor were as follows:

As will be noted, there is a strong correlation (r = .92) between the loadings based on the 1960 census and the 1950 census. The 1950 census was used to define the urbanism value of the area a respondent had last lived in “for any length of time” when he moved before Jan. 1st, 1956; the 1960 census was always used to define the urbanism value of the present place of residence.

This variable should not be confused with the Shevky and Bell urbanization or family status variable, although it is undoubtedly correlated with it. That measure is loaded on familism and life-style variables while ours, in addition, has status and ethnicity components. See: Shevky, Eshref and Bell, Wendell, Social Area Analysis (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

³⁹ Notice that this combination of survey and census data permits “contextual analysis” relating environmental variables to the individual's own responses. See James S. Coleman, “Relational Analysis.” For other examples of contextual analysis, see: Blau, Peter M., “Structural Effects,” American Sociological Review, 25 (1960), 178–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, James A., Spaeth, Joe L., and Husen, Carolyn. “A Technique for Analyzing the Effects of Group Composition,” American Sociological Review, 26 (1961), 220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell, Ernest Q. and Alexander, C. Norman, “Structural Effects and Interpersonal Relationships,” American Journal of Sociology, 71 (1965), 284–289 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Tannenbaum, Arnold S. and Bachman, Jerald G., “Structural Versus Individual Effects,” American Journal of Sociology, 69 (May, 1964), 585–595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Warren E., “One-Party Politics and the Voter,” American Political Science Review, 50 (09, 1956), 707–725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Putnam, Robert D., “Political Attitudes and the Local Community,” American Political Science Review, 60 (09, 1966), 640–654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Hirschman, , Exit, Voice and Loyalty, p. 40 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁴¹ Hirschman, p. 37. Italics in the original.

⁴² Parenti, “Power and Pluralism.” See also Milgram, Stanley, “The Experience of Living in Cities,” Science, 167 (13 March, 1970)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

⁴³ Hirschman, p. 93.

⁴⁴ The categories were defined as follows

⁴⁵ A similar point has been made by Stanley Milgram in his discussion of adaptations to overload in metropolitan areas. See his “The Experience of living in Cities.”

⁴⁶ Hirschman, p. 34.

⁴⁷ Parenti, “Power and Pluralism.”

⁴⁸ Blacks are about 13.3 per cent of the population in the Columbus SMSA. Our sample of the area included 13.9 per cent blacks. Because we did not over-represent blacks, we have only 85 cases to deal with. Care was taken to ensure that black students did the interviewing in black neighborhoods, and white students in white neighborhoods.

⁴⁹ Wright, Nathan, Ready to Riot (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), pp. 60–62 Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ As expected, our data show that virtually all black residential mobility does take place between areas at the extreme “urban” end of the urbanism continuum.

⁵¹ Lipsky, “Protest as a Political Resource.”

⁵² Maruyama, Magoroh, “The Second Cybernetics: Deviation-Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes,” The American Scientist, 51 (1963), 164–179 Google Scholar.

⁵³ Maruyama, 177.

⁵⁴ Hirschman makes a similar point (p. 122) by classifying “inner cities” as “organizations” that are primarily sensitive to voice but in which decline in performance arouses mainly exit.

⁵⁵ Because urban residents now tend to be less educated than suburban residents, we should expect that a greater proportion of suburbanites would mention more problems; education is usually associated with articulate and full responses to questions such as these. But in the suburbs the two education groups are just about the same in this respect: 54.0 per cent of the more highly educated mention problems and 50.0 per cent of the (minority) less educated population do so. The predominance of more educated people in the suburbs does not inflate the aggregate number of problem mentions.

On the other hand, educated people are more articulate when they have something to talk about: 69.2 per cent of the more educated white respondents living in urban areas mention one or more problems,—i.e., more than their status counterparts in the suburbs—while only 54.3 per cent of the less educated respondents do.

⁵⁶ Thus, in the urban areas, but not in the suburbs, there does appear to be a sound base for “law and order” as an issue. The Columbus City Police keep unusually good records of the incidence of crime by census tract. See 1965 Statistical Supplement to the Annual Report of the Columbus City Police Department.

⁵⁷ Banfield, , The Unheavenly City, pp. 11–12 Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Orbell, John M. with Sherrill, Kenneth S., “Racial Attitudes and the Metropolitan Context; A Structural Analysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 33 (Spring, 1969), 46–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ For differing views on the propriety of blacks working through the parties, see: Gelb, Joyce, “Blacks, Blocs & Ballots,” Polity, 3 (Fall, 1970) 46–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, James Q., “The Negro in Politics,” in American Ethnic Politics, ed. Fuchs, Lawrence (New York: Harper and Row, 1968) pp. 217–246 Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Sennett, , The Uses of Disorder, pp. 79–80 Google Scholar. A similar conclusion is supported by quantitative analysis of beliefs about the distribution of power in the United States: the poor and Negroes give most credence to elitist and economic models of power, while the pluralist interpretation is supported most by high-status people. See Form, William H. and Rytina, Joan, “Ideological Beliefs on the Distribution of Power in the United States,” American Sociological Review, 34 (February, 1969), 19–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ To the contrary, Sennett has argued that individuals whose environment exposes them to conflict and obliges them to deal with it in a realistic way are unlikely to resort to violence in time of major crisis.