Images of the City in Political Science

Communities, Administrative Entities, Competitive Markets, and Seats of Chaos
  • Martin Shefter
Part of the Environment, Development, and Public Policy book series (EDPC)


Political science is a relatively young discipline.1 It was not until 1880 that an American university first appointed a professor of political science, and it was only in 1903—almost 20 years after the founding of the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association—that there were a large enough number of political scientists, and they were sufficiently conscious of themselves as a distinct discipline, to establish a professional association.2


Political Scientist Urban Renewal Municipal Government American City Political Conflict 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    This paper analyzes some of the major ways in which political scientists have viewed the city over the past century. It does not attempt to discuss all the important works in the field during this period.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Somit and J. Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967), Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    My understanding of the politics of the American city during the colonial and antebellum eras draws heavily upon Amy Bridges’s superb study of New York City. See A City in the Republic: New York and the Origins of Machine Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poverty and Progress (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 41.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Hays, “The Changing Structure of the City in Industrializing America,” Journal of Urban History 1 (Nov. 1974): 6–38.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. McCormick, “Political Development and the Second Party System,” in The American Party Systems: Stages of Development, ed. William Chambers and Walter D. Burnham (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 90–116.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900 (New York: A. Appleton-Century Co., 1939), p. 260.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    This and the following two paragraphs draw on Kenneth Fox’s analysis of Bryce. See Fox, Better City Government (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977), 34–39. Cf. W. Sayre and N. Polsby, “American Political Science and the Study of Urbanization,” in The Study of Urbanization, ed. P. Hauser and L. Schnore (New York: Wiley, 1965), 115–156.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 141.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    M. Shefter, “The Emergence of the Political Machine: An Alternative View,” in Theoretical Perspective in Urban Politics, ed. Willis Hawley and Michael Lipsky (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), 14–44.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    D. Hammack, Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1982), Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    F. Goodnow, “The Place of the Council and the Mayor in the Organization of Municipal Government—The Necessity of Distinguishing Legislation from Administration,” in National Municipal League, A Municipal Program (New York: Macmillan, 1900), p. 76.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    Myerson and Banfield, Politics, Planning,and the Public Interest (New York: Free Press, 1955); Banfield, Political Influence (New York: Free Press, 1961); Banfield and Wilson, City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard Universty Press, 1963); Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Long, “The Local Community as an Ecology of Games,” American Journal of Sociology 54 (Nov. 1958): 251–261; Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963); Sayre and Kaufman, Governing New York City (New York: Russell Sage, 1960); Wolfinger, “Reputation and Reality in the Study of Community Power,” American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 636–644.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    R. Salisbury, “Urban Politics: The New Convergence of Power,” Journal of Politics 26 (Nov. 1964): 775–797.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    J. Mollenkopf, “The Postwar Politics of Urban Development,” Politics and Society 5 (1975): 247–295.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Meyerson and Banfield, pp. 303–329.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    American Political Science Review, 51 (June 1957): 330–345.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Banfield, Political Influence; Dahl, Who Governs?; Sayre and Kaufman, Governing New York City. Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    J. Kurth, “The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle: Industrial History and Political Outcomes,” International Organization 33 (Winter 1979): 1–34; S. Krasner, Defending the National Interest (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Public subsidies to encourage investment benefit other taxpayers only if the firms offered the subsidies would not otherwise have located in the city, and if the cost of these subsidies, and of the additional public services consumed by the firms receiving them, do not exceed the tax revenues generated by these firms. As a matter of fact, urban renewal programs, despite the claims of their proponents, generally failed to meet these standards. See J. Rothenberg, Economic Evaluation of Urban Renewal (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967).Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    For an overview of this literature, see B. Hawkins, Politics and Urban Policies (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971).Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    American Political Science Review 56 (Dec. 1962): 947–952.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    Regulating the Poor (New York: Pantheon, 1971); Poor People’s Movements (New York: Pantheon, 1977); F. Piven, “The Urban Crisis: Who Got What and Why,” in 1984 Revisited, ed. R. P. Wolff (New York: Random House, 1972).Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    The Crisis of the Capitalist City: Urban Politics and Social Control,“ in Hawley and Lipsky, 214–229; City Trenches (New York: Pantheon, 1980).Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    Needless to say, not all black political scientists share the views described in this section. The most influential statement of this point of view is Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America (New York: Random House, 1967). Significantly, this book was the product of collaboration between a political activist (Carmichael) and a political scientist (Hamilton).Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    N. Long, “The Local Community as an Ecology of Games, American Journal of Sociology 54 (1958): 251–261.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    E. Banfield, The Unheavenly City (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970). It should be emphasized that The Unheavenly City is not a work of policy analysis in the narrow sense of containing recommendations for the enactment of specific public policies in cities. Its chief concern is to analyze the political forces that have shaped the response of policymakers to urban problems, and, as Banfield notes in the preface to the book’s second edition, “the `recommendations’ in the nextto-the-last chapter were intended… merely as a takeoff point for a discussion of the political circumstances that make such recommendations pointless” (The Unheavenly City Revisited, p. viii). Nonetheless, the book does end with an expression of hope “that facts, rational analysis, and deliberation about the nature of the public interest will play a somewhat larger part than hitherto in the formation of both opinion and policy” (Ibid., p. 286).Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    S. Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Shefter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations