Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T00:24:03.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Size and Local Democracy: Scale Effects in City Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

Paul G. Lewis
Affiliation:
Arizona State University

Extract

As James Madison would not hesitate to tell us, the scale of a polity or jurisdiction is one of the most basic factors organizing political life. By scale, I refer to the number of inhabitants (or, alternately, constituents or voters) in a political unit, although geographic size may also shape political behavior. Large jurisdictional scale implies that candidates for office must campaign in larger constituencies, necessitating more use of paid media, more fundraising effort, and professional campaign advice. To residents of large-scale polities, government often seems distant, remote, and bureaucratic, and the intercession of interest groups, lobbyists, or organized protest activity may be more necessary to access or influence public officials. In these and other ways, the incentives, constraints, and opportunities facing politicians and citizens alike tend to differ systematically depending on a jurisdiction's scale.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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.)

References

Burns, Nancy E. 1994. The Formation of American Local Governments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Terry, and Hogen-Esch, Tom. 2006. Local Politics. 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, and Tufte, Edward. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Danielson, Michael N., and Lewis, Paul G.. 1996. “City Bound: Political Science and the American Metropolis.” Political Research Quarterly 49: 203–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Paul G., and Neiman, Max. 2009. Custodians of Place: Governing the Growth and Development of Cities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 361–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2001. Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 1970. “Political Ambitions, Volunteerism, and Electoral Accountability.” American Political Science Review 64: 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolow, Alvin D. 1989. “Legislators without Ambition: Why Small-Town Citizens Seek Public Office.” State and Local Government Review 21: 2330.Google Scholar
Weiher, Gregory R. 1991. The Fractured Metropolis: Political Fragmentation and Metropolitan Segregation. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar