1. “Rethinking Local Democracy”
Oliver, Ch. 6
“Rethinking Local Democracy”

2. Oliver, Ch. 6
We can predict who’s going to win a national election, but apparently not who’s going to win most small cities’ elections for mayor and council
Presidential elections are large in size, scope, and bias, so they are predictable because they’re defined by long-standing political cleavages
Most smaller communities are homogeneous and have few permanent political divisions

3. Oliver, Ch. 6
Most of what we think about local democracy is informed by studies of big cities, which don’t apply to smaller communities
In managerial democracies, most incumbents are unopposed or re-elected
No organized, motivated opposition except in response to specific issues
But it’s difficult to predict when an issue will show up and motivate people to vote against the incumbent
Rapid demographic change may provoke political change

4. Oliver, Ch. 6
Local democracy is “about large portions of the electorate attaining relatively easy consensus over the general management of a limited number of government services and a greater stratification of different groups across municipal boundaries. Local democracy in suburban America is less about intramunicipal political struggle than it is about intermunicipal exclusion.” (P. 186)

5. On Local Political Power
Urban politics study is usually defined by coalitions or by local civic participation
Elite theory (small number of business interests dominate local politics)
Pluralist theory (power is exercised by different groups on different issues)
Peterson (1981): Cities tend to focus on developmental policies to promote future economic growth

6. On Local Political Power
Logan and Molotch (1987), Mollenkopf (1983): Local politics is defined by relationships to land
Property owners, renters, small landowners are each trying to maximize their use of their assets
Urban politics is dominated by commercial real estate interests (bankers, real estate developers, insurance brokers)
Zoning, infrastructure improvements, tax policies improve the value of commercial property

7. On Local Political Power
Elkin and Stone (1989): Successful policymaking requires certain groups to coalesce into a governing regime – requires social networks (linkages among groups)
Local politics tends to be centered on the narrow and specific concerns of a small group with very concentrated interests
Oliver asks whether these theories can be generalized to all American localities

8. On Local Political Power
In many cities, it’s impossible to identify a dominant economic elite
Many municipalities have few commercial properties and opportunities for development
Larger size, relatively greater scope, higher bias differentiate larger cities from smaller (most local politics theory centers on larger cities, while Oliver looks at relatively smaller communities)

9. On Local Political Power
Large cities require mass political participation and mobilization of interest groups and their supporters
In most cities, politics revolves around managerial concerns and service delivery
Most citizens accept an equilibrium point with a certain level of taxes and a certain level of service delivery
Only when this equilibrium is disrupted will there be political controversy

10. Managerial and Participatory Democracies
Is local politics the best venue for citizens to empower themselves in a democratic way?
Transformative capacities of civic involvement
Local politics as protection against large, impersonal politics of mass democracy at state or national level, and national economics
Does civic participation foster people’s stronger identification with their communities, or does stronger identification with communities foster civic participation?

11. Managerial and Participatory Democracies
Fragmented and decentralized democratic system in the US imposes very high civic demands
People are asked to participate in governments on many different levels
Civic participation is often higher in smaller democracies because of higher degree of interpersonal contact among members and candidates
Democracies that are limited in scope provide fewer opportunities for active participation

12. Managerial and Participatory Democracies
Political machines have been effective at empowering marginalized groups because they sustain their participation through material compensation (jobs, etc.), while social service organizations are disadvantaged because they can’t provide these incentives
Cities generally have little redistributive power; most urban social programs are federally financed

13. Rethinking Local Democracy
How should we think about issues of “community power” in contemporary America?
Political implications of population size
20% of Americans live in rural areas
25% live in cities over 100,000 people
The majority live in small or medium-size towns, villages, and suburbs
What has been the power effect of people leaving the cities for smaller areas?

14. Rethinking Local Democracy
Citizens in smaller areas are more likely to vote
They are more likely to be familiar with local officials
Political nature of suburbanization
Limited scope of managerial democracy means that it can’t be an effective mechanism for redressing social inequities
If you believe that government is inherently corrupt and inefficient, you may favor smaller-scope government

15. Rethinking Local Democracy
Most small democracies have little potential for bias (as Oliver defines it)
Most municipal services are not differentially distributed (no inequities in service provision)
Argument that suburbanization was produced by a desire of wealthier groups to preserve their homogeneity and prerogatives
Suburbs in the same metro area may vary in their resources and therefore in their service provision