¹ Truman, David, The Governmental Process (New York, 1951), 210.Google Scholar

² Ibid., 43, 57. See also Eckstein, Harry, “Group Theory and the Comparative Study of Pressure Groups,” in Eckstein, Harry and Apter, David E., eds., Comparative Politics: A Reader (New York, 1963), 395.Google Scholar

³ Eckstein, “Group Theory,” 395–6.

⁴ March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A., Organizations (New York, 1958), 84.Google Scholar

⁵ Olson, Mancur Jr., The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).Google Scholar

⁶ Paton, J. M., The Role of Teachers’ Organizations in Canadian Education (Toronto, 1962), 25.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 34.

⁸ The ten associations were the Saskatchewan Union of Teachers (later the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Alliance) in 1914, the Alberta Teachers’ Alliance in 1916, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation in 1917, the New Brunswick Teachers’ Association in 1918, the Manitoba Teachers’ Society in 1919, the Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario in 1917, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation in 1918, the Ontario Public School Men Teachers’ Federation in 1920, and the Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union in 1920. The Prince Edward Island Teachers’ Federation (1880) and the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers (1864), which had been functioning as weak education associations, were reorganized during this period to assert more strongly the collective interests of their members. The four associations of English-speaking and French-speaking Catholic teachers in Ontario and Quebec were not organized until the late 1930s and early 1940s.

⁹ Truman, Governmental Process, 61.

¹⁰ Nason, Gerald, “The Canadian Teachers’ Federation: A Study of its Historical Development, Interests and Activities from 1919 to 1960,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1964, 10.Google Scholar

¹¹ Eckstein, “Group Theory,” 395–6.

¹² Logan, H. A., Trade Unions in Canada (Toronto, 1948), 429–31, 445–6.Google Scholar

¹³ Nason, “The Canadian Teachers’ Federation,” 10.

¹⁴ Chalmers, John W., Schools of the Foothills Province (Toronto, 1967), 380.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hardy, John H., “Teachers’ Organizations in Ontario,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto 1939, 65, 84.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Odynak, Steve N., “The Alberta Teachers’ Association as an Interest Group,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta (Edmonton), 1963, 125–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Hardy, “Teachers’ Organizations in Ontario,” 130.

¹⁸ Johnson, F. Henry, A History of Public Education in British Columbia (Vancouver, 1964), 250–1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ McDowell, Clarence S., “The Dynamics of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta (Edmonton), 1965, 225.Google Scholar

²⁰ Olson, Logic of Collective Action, 62.

²¹ Hardy, “Teachers’ Organizations in Ontario, 53.

²² Ibid., 63.

²³ Ibid., 45, 77.

²⁴ Ibid., 42.

²⁵ The original Ontario Teachers’ Association did sponsor local associations; but, after 1877, the county associations were placed under government direction as teachers’ institutes and local voluntary effort by teachers declined (Ibid. 18–9). When the Ontario Teachers’ Association became the Ontario Education Association, it was organized into departments—Elementary, College and Secondary, Supervisory and Training, Trustees and Ratepayers—with each department broken down into sections. With no territorial organization, there was no basis for the application of social incentives; and, when the Alliance was formed as an adjunct of OEA, it had no local base.

²⁶ Neil W. Chamberlain, review of The Logic of Collective Action, by Olson, Mancur Jr., in the American Economic Review, LVI (June 1966), 604.Google Scholar

²⁷ Chalmers, Schools of the Foothills Province, 440.

²⁸ Johnson, History of Public Education in BC, 249.

²⁹ Watson, R. E. L. “The Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Groups,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1960, 39, 171.Google Scholar

³⁰ Walter Roy, “The National Union of Teachers—A Study of the Political Process within an Association of Professional Workers,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, London University, 1963, 19ff. The NUT had 68 per cent of all teachers in England and Wales in its 1960 membership.

³¹ The Le Gorgeu Commission reported 234,000 primary teachers in France in 1961. Clark estimates SNI membership at 203,000 in 1962. See Clark, James M., Teachers and Politics in France (Syracuse, 1967), 50.Google Scholar

³² Zeigler, Harmon, The Political World of the High School Teacher (Eugene, 1966), 54.Google Scholar

³³ As membership in the Teachers’ Alliance fell sharply in the 1930s, conflict between urban and rural elements in the Alliance intensified. A Rural Teachers’ Association was formed in 1932 with one of its goals being compulsory membership. Negotiations throughout 1933 produced a merger into the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation in January 1934 with a combined membership of only 762. The Saskatchewan government promised the Federation it could have compulsory membership if it could show teachers wanted it by increasing STF membership to 70 per cent. (Paton, Role of Teachers’ Organizations, 46.) By December 1934 STF membership was 5216, over 70 per cent; 91 per cent of the STF members then voted for compulsory membership, and compulsory membership became law in February 1935.

³⁴ These arguments were first advanced by the General Secretary of the Alberta Teachers’ Association in 1936. See ATA Magazine, May 1936. They were repeated later in other provinces. See, for example, Manitoba Teacher, Sept. 1941; Hardy, “Teachers’ Organizations in Ontario,” 158; B.C. Teacher, April 1947; and OSSTF Bulletin, June 1943.

³⁵ Paton, Role of Teachers’ Organizations, 48.

³⁶ Roberts, William G., “The Alberta School Trustees’ Association—A Study of the Activity of a Social Organization in the Alberta Educational System,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta (Edmonton), 1966, 103–4.Google Scholar

³⁷ On the possibilities for such development see Mitchell, William C., “The Shape of Political Theory to Come,” American Behavioural Scientist, XI (Nov.–Dec., 1967), 19.Google Scholar

³⁸ Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C., “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting,” American Political Science Review, LXII (March 1968), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Riker and Ordeshook formulate the voter's calculus as R = PB − C + D, where D represents such positive satisfactions from voting as compliance with the ethic of voting, affirming allegiance to the political system, affirming a partisan preference, and affirming one's efficacy in the political system. Similar benefits probably influence the calculus of membership. Indeed, teachers’ associations pay considerable attention to promoting “loyalty.” To the extent such factors affect the membership calculus they are subsumed under B ₈, since they are selective benefits.

³⁹ It does not differ conceptually from the probability that voting will bring about benefits to the citizen as described by Riker and Ordeshook in their theory of the calculus of voting.

⁴⁰ When there are v voters, the winner must receive at least m votes where m = (v/2) + 1, v even, and m = (v + l)/2, v odd. The closer the anticipated outcome, the higher is the probability that the citizen by voting brings about the differential benefit that he receives from the success of his more preferred candidate over his less preferred one. See Riker and Ordeshook, “A Theory… of Voting,” 31–2.

⁴¹ Watson, “NS Teachers’ Union,” 171.

⁴² McDowell, “Dynamics of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation,” 48.

⁴³ For other contributions see, for example, Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Buchanan, James and Tullock, Gordon, The Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor, 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, 1962).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In his survey of Oregon teachers, Zeigler found that for 39 per cent of the members of the Oregon Education Association the primary motive for membership was to have access to professional literature and ideas, improve standards, and make themselves better teachers; 21 per cent were requested to join, or pressured to join by the administration; and only 10 per cent joined because they thought the OEA would protect them, provide security, or present a good case for favourable legislation. Zeigler concludes that the OEA is a vigorously political organization, but most members had other advantages in mind when they joined. See Zeigler, Political World of the High School Teacher, 54. See also Zeigler, Harman, The Political Life of American Teachers (Englewood Cliffs, 1967), 57–60.Google Scholar