live We in a plutocratic society. Those in power, elected or otherwise, share wealth as a common thread; the notion of true ,,political outsiders is slowly going the way of the buffalo. Those who are able to harness a relevant degree of power in society must have already accrued enough wealth to gain the respect necessary for support. This support comes from the public, but, more importantly, it also comes from the wealthy interest groups. In examing the work of Dahl, Domhoff, Hunter, Wilson, et al., a trend emerges: at every level of politics, be it local, state, or federal, the strongest force is the almighty dollar. In Who Governs? Robert Dahl poses several interesting questions, and sets out to explain them by examining New Haven, CT- not exactly an objective observation considering that Mr. Dahl is still a professor at Yale University. Dahl, already being a pluralist, conveniently observes a pluralist form of government; one where people from many different groups hold varying degrees of power. Those nominated and then elected to hold office may come from one of any one of these groups. Dahls method begin with establishing the criteria of exactly constitutes a ,,wealthy notbale, and what exactly constitutes a ,,social notable. Once these definitions are established, he then uses three specific areas of public interest, to determine the level of political involvement each person in these groups have. What he ,,finds seems contrary to common belief: he finds that the wealthy elite are as socially connected as previously thought. He also finds that those who are part of a business elite- entrepreneurs, major owners, corporate representatives- are sually only directly involved with issue that pertain to commerce in New Haven. They generally tend to be hands off when dealing with other issues, such as public education.
Dahl finds that the most powerful entity in New Haven is the mayor and his administration. Mayor Richard C. Lee is responsible for the boom in New Havens urban redevelopment program; he appoints those who form education policy. His election was the people of New Haven "registering a preference for the general direction in which government policy should move." In the end, public policy is created by the hand of the mayor and his administration. But Dahls pluralistic view is entirely too idealistic. He ignores the assurances of his predecessors, Trocqueville and Bryce, that there are "great inequalities in the capacities of different citizens to influence the decisions of their various governments." (p3). Furthermore, there are obvious flaws throughout his study, which are singled out and virtually corrected by G. William Domhoff in his essay "Who Rules America Now? First and foremost, his perspective is biased. Dahl is a renown pluralist, a Yale pluralist nonetheless. Should it not be suspected that his findings would be unintentionally favorable of pluralism, and not incriminate Yale in any covert political behavior the way Domhoff is able to do? Secondly, as Domhoff points out, his criteria for establishing the economic elite is too concrete, and highly flawed. Most people with great wealth do not live in urban areas. By the 1950s the wealthy were fleeing to the suburbs. Therefore the fifty largest landowners in New Haven may not actually be those who have attained the most wealth from the New Haven economy. Furthermore, their involvement with New Haven public education would also be greatly limited, if not nonexistent, considering that they most likely live in different school districts than children living in urban New Haven. The wealthy also tend to enroll
their children in private schools, therefore eliminating any interest they might have in the public education of New Haven. His use of political nominations as an indicator of political power is also fundamentally flawed. Each mayor that Dahl examines was influenced by interest groups. It is not who is nominated, or who is elected, but more so what actions those elected take once in office. What is almost inexplicable is how Dahl is unable to establish the obvious connections between the wealthy elite that Domhoff is able to show. He makes almost no mention of Prescott Bush or Morris Tyler. In fact, he discusses at length the Morris Tyler who served as mayor of New Haven in 1863 (p. 12-14), and does not see the true significance of the Morris Tyler that is at the heart of the questions he has posed (p. 133). The latter is one of New Havens most prominent legal figures, and a common thread throughout all of New Havens economic elite. Domhoff is able to establish the homogeny of the wealthy elite in New Haven. They share what he terms as ,,interlocking directorships- which encompass 54 of 60 million dollar firms, and all five law firms with four or more partners. He is also able to establish a social connection, with over half of the 319 executives and law partners he identified being a member in one of only three social clubs. He also fails to see the influence of Yale University throughout the community and its local politics. The vast majority of those in power are either Yale graduates or former employees, with Mayor Lee and Dahl himself being both. He makes no mention of the influence of someone like Prescott Bush, who is no doubt one of, if not the most, powerful man in New Haven.
In reality, as Domhoff is able to show, is that Mayor Lee was not responsible for the progression and success of urban renewal in New Haven. On the contrary: Mayor Lee had an enthusiasm for urban renewal that, most likely, was at least partially rooted in his desire to please the powerful wealthy Yale graduates like Bush, Tyler, and those in the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, a Chamber of Commerce meeting in November 1953 is more than enough reason to believe that Lee approved of urban renewal only after the wealthy elite ,,sold the idea to him. Dahl sees proof of Lees power in the rapid success of urban renewal after he took office in 1954. In reality, it was the actions taken on the national level that enabled urban renewal to be successful in New Haven, not the coincidence of Lees election. Prior to 1954, urban renewal had been a function of liberals looking to improve urban housing. The initial proposals would not allow outside influences to make much of a profit, so it garnered little support from the real estate lobby- a national version of the "growth machine" that Molotch describes in Domhoffs essay. It was not until the real estate lobby was able to manipulate the federal government into essentially abandoning their original vision of public service, and set new parameters that were palatable to the wealthy elite. It was only then that the plan gained steam. So what Dahl views as the wealthy elites inability to unify support for urban renewal is actually part of a national trend. He is not able to see the big picture. This limited view is what causes his to credit Mayor Lee with urban renewals success in New Haven. Further evidence for Lees ineffective leadership comes while analyzing the influence of Yale and Prescott Bush. It was Yale that undertook the first major urban
renewal program, the Oak Street properties. Furthermore, it was Sen. Bush, a wealthy Yale graduate acting on behalf of the wealthy elite, who was able to secure such a high level of urban renewal funds for New Haven. When compared to other areas of comparable size, New Haven boasted over double the amount per person received for urban renewal. Domhoff ultimately credits the partnership of Bush and Lee as the architects of urban renewal in New Haven. This would fit with what Dahl allows in the first chapter of his book: neither people nor parties but interest groups, it is said, that are the true units of the political system. Another interesting note that does not appear in Dahl or Domhoffs work can be seen plainly in retrospect. Who governs? Consder: Mayor Lee, as well as every New Haven mayor listed, emerged from the wealthy elite, possessing "wealth, social position, education, and a monopoly of public office."(p.15) Lee is also a Yale alum and former employee. Prescott Bushs influence is obvious. After being elected to the Senate, his son became president. His grandsons Jeb and George W. became Governor of Florida and President of the United States, respectively. The picture of New Haven presented by Domhoff seems to suggest that Floyd Hunter was in fact closer to the truth than Dahl was. Even though his study of Atlantas power structure was flawed in its methodology, the reputational method still lead him to his conclusion that "there were only a small number of power wielders in Atlanta." That seems to be parallel with Domhoffs conclusion, as well as common belief. Hunter also showed that these people were homogenous, serving on each other Board of Directors and frequently the same social clubs. And he, like Domhoff, also showed that it was only
after the wealthy elite had unified their support was a particular policy funneled through a "fluid committee structure" to the bureaucrats who instituted and executed those policies. Hunters findings are supported by the work of Calrence Stone. Stone, unlike Hunter, puts focus of how city "city officials functioned to aid cohesion business in groups and fragment neighborhood groups" in regards to urban renewal. When public outcry arose in Atlanta from those in the lower class who were being displaced, the local government did not make good on their promises made to the poor. Of the 17,000 low-income housing units promised by the mayors office, only a few thousand were built. Soon enough urban renewal rolled on, profiting the growth machine, as it had in the past. Stone believed it was the lack of support from the wealthy growth machine that doomed the grass-roots movements: "Blacks in Atlanta were not able to induce politicians and government officials to forwards their interests. Instead, the link between the business community and city hall, based upon common values, organizational ties, and campaign finance, proved more durable." (p. 183). The poor in Atlanta were not able to mount any real opposition simply for the lack of funds. ,,Lack of funds, in reality, being more like the poverty plaguing Black America that William J. Wilson describes in "The Truly Disadvantaged." The inequality and discrimination that blacks faced nationwide were not only the result of historical oppression, segregation, and discrimination. No, Wilson seemed to think that poor public policy was at fault. Policy that was created by the wealthy, that favored the wealthy. This is illustrated somewhat by Hunters study in Atlanta. When asked "What are the two major issues or projects before the community today?" White people gave answer
that pertained to economic growth- a new stadium, a new airport, a convention center. But when presented with the same questions, Blak people tended to give answers that dealt with improving the reality of their surroundings- better housing, better education, more job opportunities. Ultimately, the largest amounts of funds went to fostering economic growth.
1. intro 2. 2 dahls study 3. dahls findingd 4. dahls errors 5. hunter 6. molotch 7. domhoff 8. stone 9. Wilson DOMHOFF dahl- pluralist view of politics, New haven wasnt controlled by a concewntrated group of business elite; rather, the business elite were often not engaged in local politics . similarly people at yale are much more interested in yale politics than city politics. as a result, the power is held by the local government, which consists of members from a variety of different groups. dahl believed that urban renewal in New haven was due to problems in the local govt, which were absolved by the election of dick lee.
hunter- repuataional method in atlanta. findings supported the belief that only a small number of people held real power in atlanta: major owners, top executives, big banks, and corporate lawyers. they were homogenous: served on each other's boards, belonged
to the same clubs, and lived in the same neighborhoods. they formulated policy, which was then funneled through a "fluid committee structure" to the beauracacies that instituted them. studies were flawed b/c he spent no time studying the workings of govt on specific issue of general significance.
molotch uses the term growth machine to describe what he also terms the 'real estate lobby'. it is essentially a group of wealthy landowners in a particular area that share a common desire to improve the adjacent land, thus increasing the value of their property. they do so by influencing the local govt to create a "good business climate"- low taxes, funnctional municipality, effective law enforcement, eager labor force, minumu of business regulations. example of ball state, which establishes the difference between industrialists and those who form the foundation of a growth machine. the balls made a fortune on the fuel industry until their resources had run out. however, they had invested in the location, and formed a strong enough base and enough alternative venues to continue to prosper financially.
while both hunter and dahl's studies are false, dahl's study seems in many cases to be flat out wrong. first, his criteria for establishing "economic elite" is too concrete and very flawed. most wealthy families do not live in the city, they live in surrounding suburbs. they are also not eligible for public office. they are not engaged in many local political issues, such as public education, because they are influenced little by it.
for whatever reason, dahl completely overlooks what domhoff establishes as a very
distinct homogeny among the elite in new haven. stats. those in the economic elite have concrete ties to both yale and local govt. yale graduates and employees comprise the majprity of this elite. local government consists of mostly either yale graudates or people with distinct ties to yale, like tyler. what these three homogenous groups share in common is molotch's definiton of a growth machine.
dahl is also completely wrong about the effectiveness of local governemnt. the boom in urbvan renewal was caused by legislative changes at the national level, before lee took office. the lack of support for urban renewal prior in 1954 was not unique in new have, it was a nationwide trend. Much of lee enthusiasm for urban renewal came from his eagerness to please the powerful elitist growth machine.
as for the national legislative struggle for urban renewal support, what we see is that one particular economic class - the real estate lobby- slowly but surely overpowered the federal government. any restrictions that were placed on them disspated over the course of fiteen years. and it wasn't until then that the real estate lobby on the local level were able to make progress in local urban renewal. thus, a particular social class has the ability to not only control the local government, but great;y influence the federal government. this is further illustrated by the involvement and immense success of prescott bush in securing federal grants for new haven and yale . stats.
as for dahls view that the local business elite are not involved greaty in local politics, domhoff easily rationalizes that. corporate entities rarely involve themselves with local government because they view that location as merely a location- something that could be abandoned relatively easily. furthermore, large corporate entities which have their headquarters sometime thousands of miles away from a particular location, have very little interest in local political issues such as public education. but that is not to say that they were not the architects of urban renewal. in fact, at yale the business elite, in this case the Chamber of Commerce, were the ones who convinced mayor lee of the absolute necessity of urban renewal.
supporting domhoff's conclusion is the work of clarence stone. he sought to solve the flaws in hunter's study, and show without wuestion that city officials functioned to aid cohesion in business groups and to discourage and fragment neighborhood groups. stone believes that it was the business elite, the growth machine supporting urban renewal, that stamped out the grassroots opposition in atlanta. despite promises from local governemnt to build low-income housing, promises went unfulfilled and eventually local government was once again swayed by economic interests.
blacks in atlanta were unable to affect local politics due to their lack of financial resources. This economic disparity was caused by the historical oppression, contemporary discrimination, and ineffective legislative aid discussed in William Julius Wilson's essay.
also, in hunter's atlanta study a discrepancy was reported in the politic priorities of whites and blacks. whites were concerned with development- creating a new ballpark, or transit system, or airport- things that would benfit them financially. blacks were more interested in social issues like education, better housing, and more empoyment- things taht would improve the problems that cause thepoverty in the society they live in.
flow of immigration- every1 hated them, weak family structure, violent crime, urbanization of black america, overpopulation, social disorganization,
also, blacks were unable to capitalize on the economic benefits of urban renewal. in fact, urban renewal was successful from a business standpoint because they were able to displace low income and predominantly black families. The displacement of these lowincome families has also contributed to the concentration of poverty that wilson describes. This is one example of how Wilson feels that the government has failed to provide ideal conditions for this gap to be closed. While it is clear that federal aid has not been able to curtail this poverty, Wilson believes that welfare is not part of the cause, as stated by Charles Murphy and Robert Gordon There are numerous social scientists who would refute that opinion. Wilson states that Cutright found no association between illegitimacy rates and elfare benfits. Windegarden supported this through studying the state-level. At least part of the reason why Domhoffs ,,elite was able to gain so much power, is that they faced almost no opposition. Wilson believes that the problem of poverty and joblessness among blacks should be a top priority on the political agenda. But in reality,
the business elite do not consider the plight of the poor black single mother living in poverty.