Citation
Participation in neighborhood governance and its influence on sense of community, capacity, and legitimacy

Material Information

Title:
Participation in neighborhood governance and its influence on sense of community, capacity, and legitimacy
Creator:
Boyle, Phillip
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 316 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Citizens' associations ( lcsh )
Neighborhood government ( lcsh )
Citizens' associations ( fast )
Neighborhood government ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 252-316).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Public Administration.
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Phillip Boyle.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
38277574 ( OCLC )
ocm38277574
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1997d .B69 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNANCE
AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SENSE OF
COMMUNITY, CAPACITY, AND LEGITIMACY
by
Phillip Boyle
B.A., Monmouth College, 1976
M.S., Columbia University, 1980
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration
1997


!
I
This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
in Public Administration
degree by
Phillip Boyle
has been approved
by
Peter deLeon
John Holcomb
a?, /)&
Date


Boyle, Phillip (Ph.D., Public Administration)
Participation in Neighborhood Governance and Its Influence on Sense of
Community, Capacity, and Legitimacy
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Kathy Boyd
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effect of participation in neighborhood
associations on citizens' sense of community, capacity, and legitimacy.
Despite their existence in nearly every American city, neighborhood
associations are frequently ignored in research on political participation.
Within the framework of liberal democratic theory, "political" participation
is often restricted to electoral participation within the sphere of
government. Since neighborhood participation takes place in the social
sphere of community rather than the political sphere of government, it is
considered "social" participation and is generally excluded from most
studies of "political" participation.
Using a conceptual framework based on participatory democracy
and democratic governance theory, this study conceptualizes political
participation as any activity that involves direct participation in decision
making, such as participation in neighborhood associations. This study
iii


hypothesizes that neighborhood participation increases citizens' sense of
legitimacy as measured by representation, responsiveness, and trust in
government; enhances citizens' sense of political capacity as measured
by political efficacy and participation spillover; and contributes to citizens'
overall sense of community. Based on a secondary analysis of data from
the National Citizen Participation Development Project, this study finds
strong support for neighborhood participation's effect on political
capacity, moderate support for neighborhood participation's effect on
sense of community, and weak support for neighborhood participation's
effect on legitimacy.
These findings are interpreted to suggest that public administration
should be as concerned with the process of governance in non-
government settings as it is with the process of government within public
institutions. This argument bears directly upon the crisis of legitimacy
that confronts the discipline. Much of public administration theory and
practice seeks to legitimize the administrative state through rational and
efficient government. Using a normative approach, democratic
governance theory argues that the proper scope of public administration
is the process of governance rather than merely the institution of
government, and that the legitimacy of government rests upon the active
participation of citizens. Neighborhood associations represent active
IV


participation by citizens in the process of governance. The
developmental and legitimizing effects of such participation should be of
interest to those seeking to improve the relationship between citizens and
the state.
This abstract accurately reflects the content of the candidate's
v


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my wife Scottie, for her patience, support,
understanding, and sense of humor, and who gave birth to our two
daughters in the time it took me to write this.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are numerous people deserving of my thanks. Several
deserve particular mention. To the members of my committee, who
shared their time, knowledge, and advice. To Kent Portney, Department
of Political Science, Tufts University, who provided me access to data
from the National Citizen Participation Development Project. To Fran
Groff, of the Norwest Public Policy Research Center, who provided me
access to work space and computer facilities. To Franklin James and
Peter deLeon, past and present Directors of Doctoral Studies at the
Graduate School of Public Affairs, who provided me financial support for
this study. To Michael Cummings, Department of Political Science,
University of Colorado at Denver, for sharing his time and interest in
democratic theory. To George Brager and Shelly Akabas of Columbia
University, professors and mentors, who remain inspirations to me to this
day. To Linda deLeon, Dail Neugarten, and Julie Carnahan of the
University of Colorado at Denver, Arlene Rhodes of the Community
College of Denver, Norman Provizer of Metropolitan State College of
Denver, and Earline Hill of the Denver Department of Social Services, who
allowed me the opportunity to experiment with participatory democracy in
the classroom. Finally, to all the participatory democratic theorists and
practitioners upon whose shoulders I have climbed in order to glimpse the
possible, my gratitude.
The people mentioned above are in some way responsible for my
interest and persistence in this topic. The time, energy, and emotional
and normative commitment they have inspired in me have helped shape
this research and made it possible to occur. They are in no way
responsible for any of my errors, fact or faith, that inhabit this document.
As a researcher, I must ultimately be responsible for my own rat (Frost
and Stablein, 1992).
ti


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1
Participation and the Crisis of Legitimacy.............2
Participation and Democratic Governance..............5
Purpose and Scope of This Study...................... 10
2. PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY .................... 15
Participation and the Poles of Democracy............. 18
The Liberal Democratic Perspective .............22
The Participatory Democratic Perspective....... 30
Participation and Voluntary Association...............36
The Democratic Potential of Neighborhoods......43
Neighborhood Participation .....................47
Neighborhood Associations and
Participatory Democracy........................ 50
Summarizing the Participation Perspective............ 55
3. PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE................. 64
Participation and Legitimacy..........................65
Participation and Administrative Legitimacy....67
Participation and Political Legitimacy......... 73
viii


Participation and Capacity............................76
Political Efficacy.............................82
Participation Spillover........................ 85
Participation and Community........................... 92
Community and Governance....................... 95
Participatory Community........................ 99
Participation and Sense of Community........... 103
Community and Discourse........................ 106
Costs and Benefits of Participation............. 110
4. METHODS AND RESULTS ..................................... 124
Methods............................................... 125
Research Design................................ 126
Sampling ...................................... 127
Data Collection ............................... 132
Measurement.................................... 134
Hypotheses..................................... 139
Data Analysis.................................. 140
Results............................................... 150
Interpretation of the General Logit Model ..... 151
Participation and Legitimacy................... 157
Participation and Capacity..................... 169
ix


Participation and Community
182
Summary of Findings.......................... 196
5. DISCUSSION............................................206
The Effects of Neighborhood Participation
on Community...................................... 206
The Effects of Neighborhood Participation
on Capacity.......................................211
The Effects of Neighborhood Participation
on Legitimacy......................................216
Limitations and Delimitations of This Study....... 221
Limitations of Positive Social Science for
the Study of Participation .................. 223
Limitations of Survey Research .............. 226
Alternatives to Positivist Methodology....... 228
Toward a Public Philosophy of Social Science ... 231
Issues for Future Research ....................... 233
Recommendations .................................. 235
Summary........................................... 241
APPENDIX
A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT.................................... 247
B. QUESTIONS AND THEIR SOURCES ......................... 251
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 252
x


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Writer and satirist Kurt Vonnegut favors a "canary in the coal
mine" theory of the arts. Artists, he writes, often perceive dangers to
our culture that science and the mass media fail to notice. He urges us
to take seriously the often disturbing themes developed by artists, if for
no other reason than that such themes portend significant disturbances in
the cultural fabric of mainstream society. A number of "political artists"
have developed one such disturbing theme. Political theorists ranging
from participatory democrats affiliated with the New Left to conservative
social critics affiliated with the New Right have converged on the growing
civic crisis in America.
During the 1960s and 1970s, it was primarily political theorists
associated with the New Left who criticized the state of America's
democracy, its civic culture, and the legitimacy of its government. The
1 980s saw much of the this type of criticism shift from the New Left to
the New Right, as conservatives picked up the pieces of the New Left's
war on the liberal state and began to voice their criticism of America's
state of democracy and its civic culture (Dionne, 1991).
1


A central element of this civic crisis is the deteriorating relationship
between citizens and the state, reflected in rising levels of distrust and a
declining sense of the legitimacy of government. It is almost as if there
are two democracies in America: one defined by national parties,
presidential politics, bureaucracies, and a politics of media; and the other
defined by neighborhoods, block associations, and a politics of
participation and deliberation (Barber, 1984). Theorists on both the
political left and right agree that much of the blame for this crisis can be
laid at the feet of liberalism (Dionne, 1991; Gutmann, 1985; Huntington,
1981; Lowi, 1979; Mason, 1982; Sandel, 1984; Sleeper, 1990; Walzer,
1990), but they are much less likely to agree on the cure.1
Participation and the Crisis of Legitimacy
Within public administration, the crisis of civic culture takes the
form of a crisis of administrative legitimacy, meaning that the declining
sense of trust in government corresponds to a declining sense of the
legitimacy of the administrative state.2 Some theorists suggest that
participatory democracy, an American political theory that evolved in
response to the social and political crises of the 1960s, can help repair
this rift in the nation's civic fabric and resolve the crisis of legitimacy
(Bachrach and Botwinick, 1992; Barber, 1984; Cisneros, 1991; Kramer,
2


1972; MacKinnon, 1973; Marston, 1995; Warren, 1993; Zimmerman,
1986). While citizen participation has held an enduring appeal for
democratic theorists throughout American political history, it has always
been conceptualized as existing in a state of tension (Morone, 1990).
The participation literature reflects this state of tension in its conceptual
schism between "political" and "social" participation.
Political theorists seek to explain political participation in terms of
the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of participants.3
They describe "political" participation in terms of electoral activities,
particularly voting, that occur within the political sphere of government.
Participation that occurs outside of the governmental sphere and in other
than electoral activities is considered nonpolitical or "social" participation
(Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).4 As a result of this distinction,
participation in the social sphere of community, such as in neighborhood
associations, has been relatively ignored in research on political
participation.
Participatory theorists5 challenge the legitimacy of this "political"
conceptualization of participation, arguing that it is artificial and
restrictive.6 They propose a much broader view of political participation,
and seek to expand its definition to include face-to-face gatherings that
involve direct participation in decision-making (Bachrach and Botwinick,
3


1992; Barber, 1984; Crosby, Kelley, and Schaefer, 1986; Dryzek, 1990;
Fishkin, 1991; Gastil, 1993a, 1992a; Ichilov, 1990; Majone, 1989;
Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982; White, 1994). While most research
continues to focus on liberal, macropolitical forms of citizen
participation7, there is a growing body of literature that focuses on
participation in relation to strong democracy, small group democracy,
social trust and capital, and civic culture.8
Participatory democracy predicts that participation contributes to a
sense of community, enhances political capacity, and increases trust and
confidence in political institutions by educating citizens about political
issues, and transforming individuals' self-interest into civic behavior and
concern for community (Bellah et a!., 1985; Pateman, 1970; Warren,
1993). Participatory democracy also predicts that participation in one
sphere of activity leads to increased participation in other spheres.
Participation in the economic sphere of the workplace or the social sphere
of voluntary associations, for example, is predicted to lead to greater
participation in the political sphere (Arrighi and Maume, 1994; Elden,
1981; Greenberg, 1986; Mason, 1982).
The transformative and educative effects of participation are most
likely to occur through participation in "strong" democracy, i.e.,
experiences that involve face-to-face participation in decision making
4


(Barber, 1984; Berry, 1989; Dryzek, 1990; Gastil, 1993a; Glendon,
1991; Kemmis, 1990; Lasker, 1949; Leo, 1995; Rucinski, 1991;
Schonfeld, 1975; Schwartzman, 1989; Seabrook, 1984; Sembor, 1992;
Weissberg, 1974; White, 1994). For example, democratic participation in
the New England town meeting is alleged to expand the intellectual,
social, and moral dimensions of the individual, and develops "civic virtue"
by tempering the values of individualism with communitarian values
(Mansbridge, 1980; Tocqueville, 1848).
Some scholars find limited but encouraging support for these
premises (Greenberg, 1986), while others find little or no support
(Schweizer, 1995). Even proponents of participatory democracy agree
that the results of empirical research are ambiguous, if not disappointing
(Grady, 1990). Despite a rich body of theory and the normative claims
made by participatory democratic theorists on behalf of participation,
there is little empirical evidence to substantiate claims that such
participation influences the political attitudes and behavior of citizens.
Participation and Democratic Governance
The concept of participation is simply a way of raising one of the
timeless questions of political theory, namely who governs? This
question has always maintained direct relevance for public administration
5


(Waldo, 1984). Participation reveals the unity of the field of public
administration, which is demonstrated explicitly in the continual, recurring
tension between the seeming necessity of an administrative state and the
desirability of a democratic one (O'Toole, 1975; Waldo, 1980).9
Some public administration theorists tackle this problem by
recommending that public administration incorporate elements of
participatory democracy and democratic governance. Thompson (1970)
argues that the most pressing problem of public administration in a
democracy is the formulation of an administrative doctrine, a normative
theory, that squares more closely with the administrative reality of an
open, pluralistic society. Frederickson (1991) suggests that a theory of
the public must incorporate several dimensions of democratic
governance, including a notion of the public interest, the "virtuous"
citizen, and responsiveness.
The New Public Administration is often portrayed as public
administration's response to the participatory democracy of the New Left
(Frederickson, 1980). While the New Public Administration is not a direct
result of the New Left, it is a logical vehicle for translating the New Left's
critique into an action agenda for public administration (O'Toole, 1975).
As a blend of radicalism, conservatism, and liberal reform, the New Public
Administration is unquestionably participatory in spirit (Frederickson,
6


1980; Marini, 1971). But the New Public Administration is less coherent
on the subject of participation than is the older public administration
literature, and there emerges from the New Public Administration no new
position on the reconciliation of democracy and administration by way of
participation (O'Toole, 1975). While related to the New Left of the
1960s, the New Public Administration, as a response to a time of
revolution, is not in itself revolutionary (Waldo, 1980).
The New Public Administration has been relegated to little more
than a historical footnote in public administration theory, and it has had
little impact on the practice of public administration. The issue of
participation is often reduced to a question of how many people should
be let in on public decision making (White, 1990). Participants often
perceive participation as a symbolic ritual, as a sham, and its outcome as
a fait accompli (Petersen, 1984; Checkoway, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1978).
Instituting specific citizen participation requirements for democratic
policymaking has not proven effective (Berry et a!., 1984).
Not until the Blacksburg Manifesto of the 1980s did issues of
democratic governance regain center stage in public administration. The
Blacksburg Manifesto, also known as refounding theory, is descended
from a tradition of democratic governance first espoused in the New
Public Administration. Although the New Public Administration rejected
7


the dominant positive science and scientific management paradigm of
administrative theory and espoused such values as participation and
social equity, it was never able to transcend the discipline's self-imposed
restrictions that limited the scope of public administration to government
organizations and institutions. Refounding theory seeks to overcome this
restrictive conceptualization by expanding the boundaries of
administrative theory to include the process of governance, and to
expand the boundaries of administrative practice to include concepts
such as citizenship and community.
The argument on behalf of citizen participation can be expressed in
terms of several key normative assumptions derived from refounding
theory (Goodsell, 1990; Stivers, 1990; Wamsley eta/., 1990; White,
1990). First, public administration theory is by its very nature a
normative theory, which makes governance, rather than merely
government, the proper theoretical and practical scope of the discipline.
Second, trust in government is created through a reciprocal relationship
between accountability and the exercise of administrative discretion.
Third, accountability to citizens is reflected in how well government
represents and responds to citizens, and is mediated through discourse
and participation. Fourth, citizens are capable of learning from
participation, and public administrators are obligated from an agency
8


perspective to develop the political capacity of citizens. Fifth, democratic
governance requires the practice of active citizenship, which means that
citizens exercise their political capacity through civic participation in a
community characterized by shared knowledge and informed judgment.
Democratic governance theory addresses the issue of
administrative legitimacy by attempting to specify the normative
foundations of the administrative state, with particular attention to the
active participation of citizens (Appleby, 1952; Barzelay, 1992; Follett,
1918; Korten, 1981; Lee, 1986; Levitan, 1943; Redford, 1969; Stivers,
1990; Waldo, 1952, 1990; White, 1990).10 Democratic governance
links participation directly to the legitimacy of the administrative state by
reconceptualizing the relationship between authority and participation
(White, 1990), by resurrecting the concept of the public interest
(Goodsell, 1990), and by replacing the more rational concept of citizen
participation with the more normative one of active citizenship (Stivers,
1990). Participation and citizenship are key themes in a number of recent
works dealing with the legitimacy of the administrative state (Mead,
1986; Rohr, 1986; Stivers, 1993; Wamsley eta!., 1990). With the
public administration literature replete with references to a crisis of
legitimacy, a strong case can be made for examining its connection to
participation.
9


Purpose and Scope of This Study
The efforts of participatory theorists to legitimize the normative
elements of participation parallel the efforts of refounding theorists to
legitimize the normative elements of administration. Within public
administration, refounding theory (Wamsley et al., 1990) comes closest
to incorporating the theoretical and normative expectations of
participatory democracy. Like participatory democracy, refounding theory
is based on norms of democratic governance. The applicability of
refounding theory to the crisis of administrative legitimacy rests upon the
argument that citizen participation in the process of governance is an
essential ingredient in establishing the legitimacy of the administrative
state.
Participatory theorists suggest that unitary, face-to-face
participation in strong democracy differs from political participation in
electoral activities as described by the socioeconomic model of
participation. They also suggest that individuals' political attitudes are
more likely to explain their participation in strong democracy than are
their social or economic characteristics. These distinctions have
important implications for participation research. Researchers can use the
work of participatory theorists to conceptualize all participation as
10


political and thereby target participation in settings other than just
electoral. They can also expand the concept of participation to include
participants' attitudes and behavior in addition to their social, economic,
and demographic characteristics. This conceptualization of "political"
participation encompasses much of what participation researchers
traditionally relegate to the arena of "social" participation.
This study uses a conceptual framework drawn from participatory
democracy and democratic governance theory to examine the relationship
between participation and community, capacity, and legitimacy. It
incorporates participatory democracy's emphasis on settings that are (a)
characterized by strong democracy (Barber, 1984) and face-to-face
participation in decision making (Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982), (b)
less likely to be dominated by individuals with higher socioeconomic
status (Berry et a!., 1993), and (c) offer opportunities to participate in
activities that are more likely to contribute to citizenship than are acts of
electoral participation, such as voting (Mill, in Himmelfarb, 1962). This
framework also extends refounding theory's conceptualization of
democratic governance to include citizen participation in (a) the process
of governance within non-government settings, (b) activities that develop
political capacity, and (c) secondary associations and intermediate
institutions that foster a sense of community. Neighborhood associations


satisfy all of these criteria and offer an opportunity to conduct an
empirical investigation of the hypothesis that participation in the process
of neighborhood governance contributes to citizens' sense of community,
political capacity, and trust and confidence in government.
This study reports the results of a secondary analysis of cross-
sectional survey data from the National Citizen Participation Development
Project (1987-1988), sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Chapters 2 and
3 review the participation literature pertaining to democratic theory and
democratic governance. Chapter 4 describes the methods used and
presents the results of this study pertaining to community, capacity, and
legitimacy. Chapter 5 discusses the significance of the findings, the
limitations of this study, implications for participatory democracy and
future research, and recommendations for theorists and practitioners
concerned for the vitality of civil society. Chapter 5 also discusses the
paradox of studying the phenomenon of participation using a positivist
social science approach. Many scholars disagree on the significance and
interpretation of empirical research on participation. No small part of this
disagreement is due to the fact that interpretations that support
participatory democratic theory have implications for the prevailing
paradigm of liberalism in public administration and political science (Kuhn,
1970).
12


Notes
1. So many prescriptions have been proffered for dealing with the
crisis of civic culture that critiques of these prescriptions have become a
cottage industry (Bookchin, 1995; Burnheim, 1985; Cronin, 1989;
Derber, 1995; Drucker, 1989; Elshtain, 1994; King, 1997; Lasch, 1995;
Nelson, 1996).
2. Prescriptions for the crisis of administrative legitimacy abound. A
sample of the political and administrative literature includes reinventing
government (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), breaking through bureaucracy
(Barzelay, 1992), democratizing public policy and administration (deLeon,
1992; Ingram and Rathgeb, 1993; Ostrom, 1989), engendering
democracy and administration (Phillips, 1991; Stivers, 1993), refounding
public administration (Wamsley et at., 1990), returning to
constitutionalism (Rohr, 1986; Spicer, 1995); paying for performance
(National Research Council, 1991), governing with tools (Salamon,
1989), building accountability (Light, 1993); and empowering,
deregulating, and leading the public service (Dilulio, 1994; Ingraham and
Kettl, 1992; National Academy of Public Administration, 1993; National
Commission on the Public Service, 1989).
3. This relationship between higher socioeconomic status and higher
rates of electoral participation is so well established in the social sciences
that it is often referred to as the "standard socioeconomic model" of
participation (Berry et a!., 1993).
4. This conceptual distinction originated with Almond and Verba's
(1963) The Civic Culture and has been generally accepted by most
participation theorists, largely because it parallels the separation between
the public and private spheres that is central to liberal democratic theory.
Mason (1982) argues that social and political participation are merely
different manifestations of the same phenomenon, i.e., political
participation. Almond and Verba acknowledge that the boundaries
between the two forms of participation are difficult to distinguish clearly.
5. I use the term "participatory theorists" to refer to all theorists who
advocate greater democratization and citizen participation. Participatory
theorists are most likely to represent the perspectives of participatory
democracy, democratic governance, and communitarianism.
13


6. This limitation can be seen in the theoretical separation of
participation in the political and economic spheres, and in the
conceptualization of participation in most secondary associations and
intermediate institutions as "social" rather than "political" participation.
7. Recent examples include Arrighi and Maume (1994); Breinlinger
and Kelly (1995); Crotty (1991); Dahl (1994); Eksterowicz and Cline
(1990); Morone (1990); Osbun (1985); Rosenstone and Hansen (1993);
and Schlozman, Burns, Verba, and Donahue (1995).
8. For an example of strong democracy, see Barber (1984). For
examples of small group democracy, see Gastil (1992a, 1993a, 1993b;
Littlepage and Silbiger (1992); and Yammarino and Naughton (1992). For
examples of social trust and social capital, see Fukuyama (1995); Ostrom
(1994); and Putnam (1993a, 1995a, 1995c). For examples of civic
culture, see Bridges (1994); Dahl (1995); Leo (1995); Muller and Seligson
(1994); National Civic League (1993); Oldfield (1990); Putnam, Leonardi,
and Nanetti (1993); and Walzer (1980).
9. The period of public administration orthodoxy saw no wholesale
rejection of the "good life" of democracy. From scientific management
through the progressive era and continuing into today, the discipline has
maintained some commitment to the ideal of democracy. O'Toole (1975)
notes that even the Taylor society found time at meetings and space in
journals to discuss the possible attributes of industrial democracy.
10. Mary Parker Follett (1918) reminds us of the true vintage of this
issue when she writes, "There have been three stages in our thinking: (1)
our early American democracy thought that public offices could be filled
by the average citizen; (2) our reform associations thought that the
salvation of our cities depended on expert officials; (3) present thinking
sees the necessity of combining expert service and an active electorate"
(p. 175).
14


CHAPTER 2
PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY
Democracy is an old word but centuries of use have not helped
clarify its many meanings. It came into English in the sixteenth century
from a translation of the Greek demokratia, from the root words demos -
people, and kratos rule. But it is only since the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century that democracy has become a popular political ideology
(Williams, 1976).1 The struggle for democracy, having largely been won
on the battlefield, is now being fought even more vigorously in the voting
booth (Green, 1993). Both democracy and democratic policy analysis
seem victorious today (Dryzek and Torgerson, 1993).
Democracy is usually viewed as either a social or a political
system, with the political view most common (Kaltsounis, 1990). A
political theory is considered a democratic theory if it specifies some way
in which each member of "the people" can influence political decision
making, and in which all legitimate interests in a society may be
considered in the decision making process (Walker, 1992). Democracy
"focuses on what might be called 'conscious social reproduction' the
ways in which citizens are or should be empowered to influence the
15


education that in turn shapes the political values, attitudes, and modes of
behavior of future citizens (Gutmann, 1987, p. 14).
Theorists generally agree that the social/political sphere operates
by democratic values and principles while the economic/organizational
sphere operates by business values and principles, and that both spheres
struggle with accommodating the values of the other. Critical theorists
tend to view this struggle as the subordination of democratic values to
capitalist values (Poggi, 1978). Macphersor.'s (1977) development of the
notion of "possessive individualism" in liberalism emerged from his
conception of democracy as subservient to the economic power of
capitalism (Mansbridge, 1983). The economic, utilitarian view of liberal
democracy implies that the aggregation of citizens' individual decisions
will produce a market-like, Madisonian balancing of factions leading to an
equitable public policy (Anderson, 1993). Some theorists doubt the
extent to which democratization can proceed under capitalism, but they
acknowledge that small moves toward democracy are feasible, and if
successful, they would perhaps signify a small gain for democratic
governance (Levine, 1992).
One of the paradoxes of democratic theory is that although the
virtues of democratic citizenship are described by a long line of political
theorists from Aristotle to Mill to Rousseau to Tocqueville, sufficient
16


contradictions exist in their writings to satisfy any contemporary
conception of democracy. These theorists have influenced not only our
fascination with democracy but also our confusion. Democracy has come
to function both as a normative but impossible ideal, and as the
description of a concrete but quite different reality (Burnheim, 1985). On
one hand democracy refers to a political theory and state of affairs that
does not exist, best represented by the theoretical and normative writings
of participatory democrats. On the other hand democracy refers to a
political theory and state of affairs that exists but is not well understood,
best represented by liberal democratic theory and behavioral research.2
One reason for this situation is that historically, few political philosophers
have been strong supporters of democracy, and democratic philosophers
such as Mill, Rousseau, and Dewey are the exceptions, and even Mill had
substantial reservations (Wolin, 1990).
Contemporary theorists express a wide range of hopes and beliefs
about democracy. Some argue that democracy does not exist in practice;
that at best we have what the ancients would have called elective
oligarchies with strong monarchial elements (Burnheim (1985). Some are
concerned about the vitality of the democratic process and suggest
making stronger democratic institutions below the level of the state (Dahl,
1994). Some theorists hope that democracy can be improved,
17


suggesting that the key to revitalizing democracy in the 1990s is
Tocqueville's vision of democracy rather than Schumpeter's (Putnam,
1993b). Some advocate direct democracy (Gordon, 1993), while others
promote representative democracy (Wildavsky, 1992).3 Some argue for
electronic democracy (Grossman, 1995) as a means to increasing
democracy's efficiency.4 Still other theorists reach into the past in an
attempt to discover democracy's future, rediscovering and reinventing
such democratic theorists as Tocqueville (Ankersmit, 1991; Elster, 1991),
Rousseau (Bader, 1995; Berry, 1989), and Dewey (Galston, 1993; Ryan,
1996).
Participation and the Poles of Democracy
No other issue is simultaneously as taken for granted and yet
controversial within democratic theory as the issue of participation. This
paradox is reflected in the two principal and competing views of the role
of participation. Referred to as liberal democracy and participatory
democracy, they conceptualize participation in a polar fashion. Liberal
democracy distinguishes "political" participation, e.g., electoral
participation, from other forms of participation.5 Participatory democracy
views all forms of participation as "political," from national electoral
voting to decision making activities in small groups.
18


To democratic theorists, citizen participation embodies the best and
the worst of what democracy represents. Because of this paradoxical
view, political participation is the most studied element of democracy in
the social sciences. Participation has been primarily the province of
political scientists, who pioneered the investigation of electoral
participation, particularly in the form of voting.6 The vast majority of the
participation literature is paradigmatically restricted to "political"
participation as it relates to the "public" sphere and to the institution of
government. This body of literature conceptualizes participation in terms
of behavior related to political campaigns, electoral contests, and
government activities.
In order to build a theory of participation, researchers seek to
answer questions such as who participates and why, in what do they
participate and how, and what are the means and ends of participation.
Despite major theoretical and practical implications for the field of public
administration, empirical investigations into the nature and dynamics of
citizen participation have mostly been left to other social science
disciplines. The significance of "democratic" questions posed by early
theorists has been relatively ignored by most contemporary public
administration scholars.7
In recent years, other social scientists, particularly sociologists and
19


f
social psychologists, have begun to explore more vigorously some of the
characteristics and dynamics of participation, focusing their research on
small groups, organizations, communities, and collective action.8 A
number of recent studies point to the significance of research in
participation for the public policy and public management areas of public
administration.9
Democratic theorists have traditionally recognized two ways in
which citizens can put their interests on the political agenda -
representation and participation. The relation between representation and
participation, a relation of some tension, is a problem shared by all
theories of democracy. Some theorists argue it is not necessary that we
choose between participatory and representative democracy, suggesting
that a mix is both feasible and necessary if modern society is to harness
the capacities of its members (Parry, 1989). Most theorists express
some concern about participation, such that both sides of this
relationship should be regarded as equally problematic (Walker, 1992).
Some theorists argue in favor of expanding participation, based on
criteria such as rights, social justice, equality, responsiveness,
effectiveness, and citizen capacity (Bamberger, 1991; Langton, 1987;
Vasoo, 1991). Some theorists argue for limiting participation based on
concerns about increasing polarization and distrust and decreasing
20


political efficacy and efficiency (Crozier, Huntington, and Watanuki,
1975; Etzioni, 1969); limitations of size and scale (Dahl, 1967); or the
unrealistic goals and undesirability of participatory democracy
(Schumaker, 1991). Other theorists find concerns about excessive
participation (Canan and Pring, 1988) and the demise of participation
(Boyte, 1980) unwarranted.
Critics of participation argue that participatory democracy
represents a romantic and antiquated view of the world, and that modern
American democracy is characterized by group-based politics in the form
of pluralism (Dahl, 1982; Mouffe, 1992; Olsen, 1982), polyarchy (Dahl,
1961, 1956), and interest group liberalism (Lowi, 1979; Sandel, 1982).
In an effort to merge these views, one policy scholar has recently
proposed a participatory policy analysis based upon pluralism, polyarchy,
and interest group liberalism (Laird, 1993).
Thus the debate over participation can be framed in terms of two
polar views. Theorists who argue that equality, efficiency, liberty, and
community can be enhanced through participation favor expanding the
scope of participation as a means to increasing democratization.
Theorists who argue that these poles of democracy require trade-offs
favor restricting participation as a means to promoting democratic
stability. Restrictive theorists limit political participation to the political
21


sphere of government. Expansive theorists seek to extend the concept of
political participation to the social sphere of community.
The Liberal Democratic Perspective
Liberalism is America's public philosophy (Daly, 1994;
Huntington, 1981; Sandel, 1996a, 1996b), is sometimes referred to as
corporatism (Lowi, 1979; Saul, 1995), and is often referenced in terms of
interest-group liberalism (Lowi, 1979). Liberalism is compatible with the
Enlightenment's legacy of egalitarian and democratic values (Huntington,
1981; Drukman, 1971) and with political science's pluralist view of
society (Lowi, 1979). Contemporary liberalism is thought to be in its
decline (Lasch, 1995; Lowi, 1979; Sandel, 1996a).
Liberal democracy represents the integration of our dominant
political philosophy of liberalism and our political system of democracy.
In its simplest form, liberal democracy is a type of regime where the
distinction between public and private is central, and where popular
political control and the state's promotion of business interests operate
simultaneously (Elkin, 1985). In spite of numerous permutations and
transformations, two central features of liberalism have persisted: its
commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense
with civic virtue (Lasch, 1995).
22


Liberal democracy is a political system which supplies regular
constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials, and a
social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the
population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders
for political office (Lipset, 1963). It combines electoral representation,
majority rule, one citizen/one vote (Mansbridge, 1980) and the
aggregation of individual preferences (Miller, 1992). Citizens are seen as
controllers more than participants, so that, to some degree, the question
of citizen competence becomes less important (Parry, 1989). It is a
system of power by which people can be governed, and a system by
which different people, in different capacities, are given power over
others (Macpherson, 1977).
The study of political participation has long been dominated by a
liberal democratic perspective. The characteristics of liberal democracy
can be seen in the theoretical framework underlying participation
research. These include (1) a basic division between the economic,
social and political spheres; (2) limitation of the political sphere to
government; (3) a focus on national institutions; (4) achievement of the
democratic ideal through representative government; (5) voting is the
only major political activity available to the mass public; (6) political
stability is the prime objective; and (7) a restricted conceptualization of
23


f
participation that views limited participation as a necessary and positive
condition of democracy (Bachrach, 1967; Berelson, 1954; Pateman,
1970; Schumpeter, 1950).
Liberalism is marked by its belief that a liberal state could dispense
with civic virtue. Citizens could and should devote themselves to their
private business, thus reducing the need for government. Liberalism
takes the position that it is liberal institutions, not the character of
citizens, that make democracy work. Economic progress would allow
materially abundant societies to dispense with the active participation of
ordinary citizens in government. It is citizens rather than the state who
must take responsibility for creating civic culture (Bridges, 1984). In a
perverse self-fulfilling prophecy, most institutions, public and private, take
a dim view of the people's ability to intelligently exercise their democratic
rights; having been effectively excluded from public debate on grounds of
their incompetence, most Americans have little incentive to master the
knowledge that would make them capable citizens (Lasch, 1995).
One indicator of liberalism's success in discouraging civic virtue is
the increase in nonparticipation, particularly in the form of declining levels
of voter turnout. Because voting is a unique political act, and it is the
most common political act, and because voting determines who governs,
political scientists devote a great deal of attention to the vote. Voters are
24


the most representative of any of the participatory publics. While many
classical democratic theorists equate the notion of one person, one vote
with political equality, the effect of non-voting on the nature and equality
of the expression of citizen preferences has stimulated recent interest by
researchers (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Bennett and Resnick,
1990; Gant and Lyons, 1993).
Liberal theorists argue that nonvoting does not really matter, while
critical theorists argue that it does. Liberal theorists argue that nonvoting
does not matter. Even though voters represent a skewed sample in terms
of education, class, race, ethnicity, age, and geographic region, they do
not differ significantly from the entire electorate on the issues themselves
(Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980).10 Critical theorists argue that
knowledgeable nonvoters are significantly more liberal than ignorant
nonvoters, but knowledgeable voters tend to be more conservative
(Entman, 1 989).
Liberal democracy holds that the political system, once formed on
the basis of the consent of all citizens, requires only implied consent
thereafter for the perpetuation of society (Dahl, 1961; Schumpeter,
1950). This perspective relegates political participation to the limited role
of choosing between competing elites. This is a role that liberals take as
the hallmark of democracy (Guarasci and Peck, 1987). Even for those
25


liberal theorists who have expanded the concept of political behavior
(Easton, 1965; Laswell, 1948), it is the activities within formal
government structures and the behavior of elites that capture their
attention.
Under liberalism, democracy is generally considered to include
representative government plus universal suffrage. Participation is
conventionally defined in terms of electoral and associated activities, and
widespread participation is viewed as leading to totalitarianism (Pateman,
1970). High levels of participation are viewed as necessary only from a
small minority, since in any form of social organization only a small
proportion of individuals will participate in decision-making activities
(Dahl, 1956). The nonparticipation of the majority is viewed as a
stabilizing influence on the system as a whole.11 The minority's
responsiveness to the majority is ensured by the fact that individuals are
free to switch their support if responsiveness proves unsatisfactory
(Schumpeter, 1950). This "elitist" model of democracy is one where the
majority gain maximum output (policy decisions) from political leaders
with minimum input (participation) on their part (Bachrach, 1967; Dye
and Zeigler, 1990; Upset, 1963; McCloskey, 1964).
Liberal democratic theory portrays an instrumental view of
participation. Participation is expected to be widespread but relatively
26


uninvolved, e.g., voting, or involved but relatively narrow, e.g., protest.
Participation is seen as providing the minimal means necessary for
satisfying democracy's requirement that the "people" govern.
Participation can be learned and possibly even manipulated (Milbrath and
Goel, 1977; Verba and Nie, 1972). The evolution of mass participation
totalitarian regimes during the early 1900s caused participation to be
linked to totalitarianism rather than democracy, and increased the
concern of some prominent theorists with the necessary conditions for
stability in a democratic state.12 These fears were not always
unfounded, as the ideas and techniques of "democratic social engineers"
such as Kurt Lewin were used for undemocratic purposes in the first half
of this century (Graebner, 1986).
Liberalism emphasizes conflict among competing interests, while
cooperative and collaborative participation are generally ignored.
Liberalism emphasizes that individuals have their interests represented,
but that they need not participate directly other than in terms of electoral
participation. This emphasis on interests allows liberalism to shift from
individual interests to group interests, the basis of our contemporary form
of pluralism. Pluralism regards government either as an arbiter of group
conflict or as merely another interest group (Schonfeld, 1975).
The liberal view of participation as necessary but idealistic
27


is traceable to the founders. The Federalists feared the instability of
republican governments, and urged abandoning the language of civic
virtue. The two options facing the founders were to emphasize
conscious responsibility for political community, or to create mechanisms
to control the effects, not the causes, of tyranny. Jefferson favored the
former approach, while Madison favored the latter. Madison won, which
resulted in a lack of reliance upon and language of civic virtue (Sullivan,
1982). This outcome has led some theorists to portray the founders as
primarily concerned with and fearful of the darker side of human nature
(Nigro and Richardson, 1992).
Empirical research has not shown an untapped need among
citizens for greater participation. Pateman (1970) concludes that data
from empirical studies of political attitudes and behavior reveal that most
citizens, especially those in lower socioeconomic groups, have a general
lack of interest in politics and political activity, and that non-democratic
or authoritarian attitudes are widespread. Several studies show that in
contrast to the active, educated citizenry of traditional democratic theory,
the average citizen is unaware of the mechanics of the political system, is
uninformed, has a quite limited knowledge of government, and an even
more limited desire to participate in it (Berelson etal., 1952, Campbell,
I960).13
28


Several propositions have been substantiated by participation
research within the liberal paradigm (Checkoway and Til, 1978).
Participation is exercised in differential frequency by individuals and
groups in society. Relatively few people participate, and those in the
social and economic center participate more than those on the periphery.
Citizens with higher socioeconomic status (SES) participate more than
citizens with lower socioeconomic status. Participants are few in number
and generally unrepresentative of the population overall. As
Schattschneider (1960) writes, "the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that
the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent" (p. 33).
Liberalism restricts democracy and political participation to the
political sphere. Liberalism identifies the political with the government of
the state and sees it as a sphere separate from the rest of social life.
Liberal theorists argue that economic and social organizations are not
political, defining political participation as activity that is intended to or
has the consequence of affecting, either directly or indirectly, government
action (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). From the liberal
perspective, the workplace, churches, and neighborhood associations are
considered nonpolitical. Liberal theorists also reject democracy as a
model for organization and administrative theory.14 Pateman (1975)
explains this rejection in terms of liberalism's tendency to equate the
29


political with the governmental:
"At the heart of liberal democratic theory lies the assumption that
because 'democracy' is a political concept it properly refers only to
the government (national and local) of the state. To use the term
to refer to organizations that fall within the jurisdiction of the state
- as in 'industrial democracy' is seen as either illegitimate or
involving some special sense of the term; that is, a nonpolitical
sense" (p. 5).
Other than voting, the more frequent types of political participation
occur outside electoral activity, such as affiliation with a political
organization, informal community activity, and contacting a public official.
Although Americans vote less than citizens in other democracies, they
are more likely to engage in other forms of political participation.
Americans are more likely to be active members of voluntary associations
in general, and religious organizations, in particular, than are citizens of
other nations (Curtis, Grabb, and Baer, 1992). But other than voting,
there is no single form of participation within the liberal definition in
which a majority of the public engages, and one-third of citizens do not
participate beyond voting (Verba et a/., 1995).
The Participatory Democratic Perspective
Participatory democracy is a Rousseauian concept that reemerged
during the intellectual turmoil of the 1960s, and it has been developed by
social scientists into a full-blown theory of democracy.15 Although it
30


f
grew out of a focus on the democratization of the workplace, it is
portrayed by participatory theorists as a promising solution to the present
decline and decay of American democracy (Bachrach and Botwinick,
1992). While some theorists might argue that the term "participatory
democracy" is redundant, the concept of democracy has become so
obfuscated that it is necessary to retain the term to emphasize the
participatory nature of democracy (Mason, 1982).
Participatory theory sees democracy as a kind of society rather
than simply a system of government, a conceptualization of democracy
distinctively different from the classical liberal formulation.16
Participatory democracy supports participation as an unlimited ideal,
without boundaries. For participatory theorists, democracy is a means
but not an end.
Participatory democratic theory defines democracy as a type of
community rule, in which the process of decision making generally entails
widespread and effective participation of community members (Gastil,
1993a; Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982). Democracy as a process of
decision making emphasizes participation, and participation becomes the
measure of a democratic system more so than its values, institutions, or
other qualities.
Participatory theorists promote the ideals of community and a self-
31


governing citizenry, which have been called the two great "American
Commitments" (Stevens, 1994). In participatory democracy these ideals
have a reciprocal relationship with each other. Community is
strengthened by a self-governing citizenry, while a self-governing
citizenry creates a sense of community.
Participatory theorists argue that a democratic society requires its
institutions to be democratic also. They suggest that more democratic
institutions increase the overall democracy of society, and by doing so
help to create the good life (Mason, 1982). Increased democratization
enhances the legitimacy of the administrative state, because participation
mediates the relationships between individuals and the authority
structures of institutions (Rousseau, 1762). Citizen participation makes it
more likely that the harmful effects of administrative decisions on citizens
will be considered in the administrative process, and it provides a means
of informing citizens about particular administrative actions and their
possible effects (Spicer, 1995).
Participatory theorists argue that political participation should be
redefined to include both social and economic participation (Bachrach and
Botwinick; 1992; Dahl, 1985; Fleurbaey, 1993; Gould, 1988; Greenberg,
1986; Mason, 1982; Mouffe, 1992; Pateman, 1970; Walzer, 1980).
Tocqueville's (1848) study of temperance associations clearly reveals the
32


conceptual difficulty of distinguishing the "political" from the "social."
He argues that political agitation spills over into civil society, and as the
extent of political society expands, the sphere of private life must
contract. Even liberal researchers acknowledge the tenuousness of the
distinction between these spheres (Verba and Nie, 1972).
Participation is defined as "political" activity related to decision
making (Mason, 1982), while political activity unrelated to actual decision
making is termed "pseudoparticipation" (Verba, 1961). Participatory
democracy seeks to maximize the development of individuals through
participation. Individuals have the capacity to develop not only their
internal selves but also a potential for expanding their self-interest to
encompass an identification with and a commitment to the well-being of
others (Warren, 1993).
For participatory theorists, the principal function of participation in
democratic theory is an educative one, which occurs through the
processes of deliberation and discourse (Dahl, 1989a; Miller, 1992).
Tocqueville (1848) suggests that it is by governing that citizens become
educated about government, and that social democracy begets political
democracy. Mill (1861), despite being a proponent of representative
rather than participatory democracy, emphasized that only by practicing
government on a limited scale can citizens learn how to exercise it on a
33


larger scale. Pateman (1970) argues "that we do learn to participate by
participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be
developed in a participatory environment" (p. 105). Almond and Verba
(1963) first established an empirical connection between political efficacy
and participation, a relationship confirmed by subsequent studies (Balch,
1974; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982; Elden, 1981; Finkel, 1985; Kerr,
1989; Wollman and Stouder, 1991; Yeich and Levine, 1994). While
liberal theorists emphasize that educated citizens may be more likely to
participate in democracy (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980), participatory
theorists argue that participation in democracy builds an educated
citizenry.
For participatory theorists the prescription for what ails democracy
is more democracy in the form of more participation. As Dewey writes,
"The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy" (1927, p.
146). Other theorists express similar themes. Barber (1984) argues that
participation is directly related to the strength of democracy. Mansbridge
(1980) suggests that greater face-to-face participation will facilitate a
shift from adversarial to unitary democracy. Jefferson argues for dividing
the country into wards as a means of encouraging participation
(Dumbauld, 1955).
Participatory theorists argue that increasing opportunities for
34


participation will result in an increase in participation, and that increased
participation will produce a greater sense of community. How this is
supposed to occur is as follows: if groups of citizens get together and
discuss issues of common concern to them and which they have some
power to resolve, their discussion of "politics" will turn to a discussion of
other, more personal matters, and so their relationship will be
transformed from just a political relationship (e.g., voter, council member)
to a social relationship (e.g., neighbor, friend). In this way participatory
theorists view the relationship between politics and community as one in
which politics is a necessary although not sufficient means of finding
meaning in one's personal life.
But prescribing more participation and increasing participation are
two different things. Bellah et a/. (1985) conclude that Americans
participate when they perceive their participation to be relevant and
effective. They suggest that the key to making Americans more
participatory may be to make their political participation more meaningful
in the context of the communities in which they live. Along with a
number of other related proposals, several theorists and researchers
advocate national political focus groups conducted at the community
level (Bryan and McClaughry, 1989; Dahl, 1994; Fishkin, 1991; Gardner,
1994; Harwood, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c).
35


Participation and Voluntary Association
The importance of voluntary association and its relationship to
democracy traces its roots to Tocqueville (1848), who writes, "In
democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all
other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others"
(p. 517). Tocqueville theorized that churches, political parties, and
fraternal organizations have served historically as mediating institutions to
help sustain democratic values and beliefs and reduce the effects of
alienation. Tocqueville was particularly interested in those social forces
that fill the gulf between the individual and the state, which he believed
operated primarily in the form of voluntary associations.
More than in most democracies, voluntary activity in America
shapes the allocation of economic, social, and cultural benefits and
contributes to the achievement of collective purposes (Wuthnow, 1991).
"The vital center of democracy is the community of associations. Any
person without access to that forum is effectively denied citizenship"
(McKnight, 1987, p. 57).
Investigations of participation in voluntary associations illustrate
some of the uniquely American aspects of participation. Americans are
highest in active membership in community organizations but relatively
36


low in membership in political organizations (Verba, Nie, and Kim, 1978),
preferring voluntary community organizations to politics (Bellah et al.,
1985). Voluntary association membership in Canada and the United
States is higher than in Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico (Curtis,
1971), while voluntary association membership in Scandinavian
countries is as high or higher as in Canada and the United States (Smith,
1975). Europeans are more likely to turn to alternative political parties,
but Americans are more likely to turn to social movements (Flacks, 1971;
Hampton and Fayer, 1990; Hunter, 1991; Levinson, 1974; Piven and
Cloward, 1977; Roszak, 1969; Schlesinger, 1992; Skolnick, 1969).17
Voluntary association persists, but it is not always clear how or why this
is so.18 We have a political system laden with rules, but we also have a
system suffused with participation, in forms such as advisory boards,
citizen groups, and neighborhood councils (Wilson, 1989).
Scholars are showing renewed interest in the topic of voluntary
association (Gay, 1990; Markowitz, 1992; Nixon, 1989). As the
backbone of civil society, the role of voluntary associations in stimulating
political activity merits investigation, since wherever people are brought
together, they may chat about politics (Oldenburg, 1989). This is
especially true in light of how voluntary associations and members attract
each other. McPherson and Rotolo (1996) find that sociodemographic
37


variables define social niches in which voluntary groups compete for
members. Such voluntary commitments tend to be long-term and are not
easily changed for reasons associated with external political messages
(Huckfeldt, 1993).
Some scholars are concerned that the mediating processes of
secondary associations and intermediate institutions are in decline,
leading to an erosion of the traditional source of consensus making that
sustains a civic and democratic society (Cohen and Rogers, 1992; Lasch,
1995; Putnam, 1995a, 1995b).19 Evidence that American progress
toward the democratic ideal may be slipping is provided by Putnam
(1995a), who argues that America's social capital is dwindling
dangerously. He reports that membership in such mainstream
associations as Rotary clubs, PTAs, and the Boy Scouts is declining.20
Putnam acknowledges that the evidence of declining social and civic
participation is easier to uncover than the causes.
Aristotle held that all associations aim at some good, that the
end and purpose of the polis, or political community, is the good life, and
that institutions of social life are means to that end (Barker, 1962).
Social institutions are the principal mechanism by which society
generates "social capital," which is the sense of trust, mutual obligation,
and connectedness that a civic society requires (Putnam, 1993). The
38


ability to form groups depends on trust, and if citizens have the capacity
to trust people outside their families, it generates social capital
(Fukuyama, 1995).
Participatory theorists argue that citizen participation within
communities serves to compensate for this decline in social capital
(Barber, 1984; Berry et al., 1993; Langton, 1978). Thus the role of
voluntary associations in fostering democratic participation is important to
examine, for it is through the process of voluntary association and
through the mechanism of secondary institutions that citizens participate
in their neighborhoods and communities.
Participatory theorists ascribe a democratizing role to voluntary
associations.21 Cohen and Rogers (1992) develop a model of
"associative democracy," which they define as a deliberate politics of
associations, in which the state assumes some responsibility for altering
the political environment so as to both increase the number and scope of
associations and to expand their role in the political process.
Associations can increase democratic participation, but they cannot
alleviate all obstacles to democracy, such as ensuring effective
representation (Immergut, 1992).
Communitarian theorists suggest that we need to educate
ourselves as citizens so that we can make a difference in the institutions
39


that have such an impact on our lives. Douglas (1986) argues that "The
most profound decisions about justice are not made by individuals as
such, but by individuals thinking within and on behalf of institutions" (p.
124). Wolfe (1989) suggests that we need a third way to think about
moral obligation, one that locates it neither in the state nor in the market,
but in everyday life.22
Voluntary association and participatory democracy connect through
a mutual emphasis on face-to-face participation. Face-to-face democracy
is a much older form of democracy in which people come together to
reason, based on common interests and equal respect (Mansbridge,
1980). Face-to-face association requires that participants know each
other and that important decisions are made by people meeting and
talking together (Laslett, 1956). The small community of face-to-face
relationships is the foundation of democratic life (Morgan, 1942). "In the
small group...is where we shall find the inner meaning of democracy, its
heart and core" (Follett, 1924, pp. 225-226).
Face-to-face participation focuses upon the individual as the central
actor. Democracy requires that people recognize one another's
individuality. Democracy can be "fully effective only if...people generally
relate to each other as equals and with respect for each other's individual
differences and interests" (Gould, 1988, p. 257). Participatory
40


democratic decision making entails such reciprocal recognition in order for
any individual to identify themselves as a part of the demos (Rucinski,
1991).
This face-to-face dimension of participatory democracy is often
greeted with a degree of condescension. As Mansbridge (1980) writes:
"To people steeped in the adversary tradition, the very notion of
unitary democracy usually appears naive and impractical. They
assume that interests are always in conflict, that individuals never
respect one another equally, that consensus is always a sham in
which some are afraid to make their true feelings known, and that
face-to-face meetings are too cumbersome to play a significant role
in a modern national polity (p. 23).
Participatory theorists respond by suggesting that a model of democracy
that applies to the universal meaning of the word "political" rather than to
just a political system has implications for everyday life in terms of
conversation, love and relationships, raising children, education, families,
and work (Mansbridge, 1990b; Pateman, 1979, 1992; Phillips, 1992).
Participatory democracy's focus on small-scale levels of
organization, association, and collective action is often criticized by liberal
theorists who argue that this notion is out of time and place as we
approach the 21st century. But practicing self-government in small
spheres, as Tocqueville (1848) suggests, impels citizens to larger spheres
of political activity as well. The power and potential of attending to small
things as a means of promoting large-scale change is attested to by
41


several recent works. Epidemic theory's concept of a "tipping point" is
being applied to a variety of social phenomena (Crane, 1991; Gladwell,
1996).23 The increased emphasis of some sities on enforcing minor
civic codes appears to correspond to a reduction in more major crime
(Kelling and Coles, 1996).
Large-scale social movements have arisen from small voluntary
groups with powerful democratic elements within them, including the
abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the welfare rights
movement, working class protests, the suffragist and ERA movements,
and the populist movement of the 1880s (Evans and Boyte, 1986;
Ichilov, 1990; Piven and Cloward, 1972, 1977). Sandel (1996b)
suggests that the civic education and solidarity cultivated in the black
churches of the South were crucial prerequisites for a local political
movement that eventually unfolded on a national scale. Gastil (1993a)
concludes that "When connected with participation in larger movements
directed at fundamental social change, small group membership can
transform not only individuals, but also society" (p. 164).
Voluntary association may mitigate against authentic participation,
due to factors such as organizational size and scale, short-term interests,
"not-in-my-back-yard" attitudes," resistance to change and innovation,
and elitist leadership (Fogarty, 1990; Green, 1985; Jackson; 1989;
42


Stamato, 1988). Midgley et at. (1986) question whether voluntary
organizations are any more able to promote authentic participation than
the state, and argue that there is little evidence to show that a reliance
on nongovernmental organizations results magically in the emergence of
genuine forms of participation.
In contrast to the "possessive individualism" (Macpherson, 1977)
that voluntary association may reinforce, Wuthnow (1995) offers a more
hopeful view. He suggests that participation in voluntary associations
leads individuals to realize that there are larger problems, that it is
necessary to band together with others, and that it often results in their
becoming more interested in community affairs, more likely to vote, and
more involved in a wider range of public institutions. Wuthnow writes
that "It is perhaps paradoxical that participation in voluntary associations
often derives from a sense of alienation from public institutions and yet
results in greater involvement in these institutions" (p. 213). This is an
intriguing paradox of participation that has implications for the legitimacy
of public institutions.
The Democratic Potential of Neighborhoods
For many democratic theorists, the neighborhood is the urban
extension of the small town. Urban neighborhoods wear several faces,
43


including those of a personal arena, a social community, a physical place,
a political economy, and an entity within a city and metropolitan region
(Hallman, 1984). Progressive and contemporary writers refer to city
neighborhoods as crucibles of civic culture (Sleeper, 1990), as the
nursery of civic life (Follett, 1918), as creators of casual public trust
(Jacobs, 1961), as switchboards of the community (DeSena, 1994), and
as the home of "third places" (Oldenburg, 1989).24 The city is the true
home of citizenship, a responsibility to act with the interests of the
community in mind, but many cities discourage their residents from
practicing citizenship (Dagger, 1981).
Urban neighborhoods have experienced a decline along with cities.
Deprived neighborhoods with a lack of resources but an overabundance
of social problems have become a link removed from the chain that
connects all of society (Van Rees, 1991).25 Compared to urban
residents, suburban residents generally have higher incomes, less political
will to shift resources back to cities, and outnumber urban registered
voters (Hallman, 1984). Scholars argue for a combination of
neighborhood organizing, neighborhood-based community development,
government and private sector support, and citizen participation and
political involvement as the keys to revitalizing urban neighborhoods
(Baba and Austin, 1989; Keating eta/., 1996).26 Urban neighborhoods
44


retain an important place in civic life, as evidenced by the fact that
neighborhood residents report substantial community and private support
networks (Krumholz and Star, 1996) and by an extensive body of urban
revitalization literature.27
The relevance of neighborhoods to democracy hinges upon
whether neighborhoods qualify as political and public entities (Crenson,
1983). Neighborhoods are already informally associated for social
purposes (Austin and Lowe, 1994) and are quite ready to be formally
constituted for political purposes (Kotler, 1969).28 Neighborhoods
rather than cities are the natural political entities (Hunter, 1979; Kotler,
1969).29 In contrast to the publicness of cities, neighborhoods convey
a sense of private life. The institutions of city government are public
organizations, while the principal institutions of neighborhood
governance, i.e., neighborhood associations, are private organizations.
But the private nature of neighborhoods belies their true publicness:
"This inclusive and near-compulsory character differentiates the
neighborhood from virtually all other private groups in the society.
In fact, the central point is that the residents of a neighborhood do
not constitute a private group at all, but a miniature "public" more
like citizens than like members of a private association" (Crenson,
1983, p. 17).
The common denominator of both large cities and small towns is
that people live in neighborhoods. Urban neighborhoods recreated the
45


conditions of small-town life, and cities fostered new forms of
association, such as trade unions and neighborhood associations.
Neighborhood democracy assumes that democratic institutions can be
adapted to urban life (Long, 1980). The key to making America more
participatory lies in the progressive ideal of making political participation
more meaningful in the context of the communities that people live in
(Bellah et a!., 1985; Berry et a/., 1993). Contemporary descendants of
progressive theorists include the "new urbanists," who recognize the
importance of neighborhoods, community, and place (Garreau, 1991;
Gerloff, 1994; Katz, 1994; Kemmis, 1990, 1995), and "civic
entrepreneurs," who apply a grass-roots approach to community building
and economic renewal (Boyte, 1980; Henton, Melville, and Walesh,
1997).
But critical theorists fear that with urban flight to the suburbs the
middle-class neighborhoods and forms of civic association that sustain a
vigorous civic culture are rapidly disappearing. In many urban
neighborhoods, most traditional forms of civic activity have eroded,
leaving religious congregations as the only vital civic institution in many
communities (Boyte, 1989).30 Critical theory offers a normative basis
for interpreting SES bias in urban political participation that goes well
beyond the positivist interpretation of liberal democratic theory. Most of
46


the attractions of the modern city are beyond the reach of most of its
residents (Lasch, 1995).
Neighborhood Participation
The principal mechanism of neighborhood governance is the
neighborhood association. Sixty percent of large U.S. cities report having
an active system of neighborhood councils or associations to represent
neighborhood concerns, with nearly three out of four cities reporting an
increase in the number of neighborhood councils or associations
compared to ten years earlier (Scavo, 1993). Neighborhood participation,
in the form of working with others on a local problem, active membership
in a community problem-solving organization, and forming a group to help
solve a local problem, all showed slight increases from 1967 to 1987
(Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).
In relation to socioeconomic and demographic variables,
participation is moderately related to age and education (Hunter, 1975);
generally not related to SES, age, race, education, and employment
status (Bennett (1989); and strongly related to SES (Berry et al., 1993).
Participation is related to home ownership (Bennett, 1989; Berry et a!.,
1993; Hunter, 1975; Rohe and Stegman, 1994; Wandersman eta!.,
1987), although one study has found that public housing tenants are as
47


likely to become involved in community affairs as homeowners (Reingold,
1995). Income has no effect, education has a weak positive effect, and
getting together with neighbors has a strong positive effect (Doyle and
Luckenbill, 1993). Participation is inversely related to neighborhood
turnover and the proportion of children in the neighborhood, and directly
related to SES and age (Abowitz, 1990).31 Length of community
residence (Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) affects participation, while
length of residence affects association membership but not participation
(Oropesa, 1992). Women, married people, people who have lived on the
block longer, and older people are more likely to be members, while race,
occupation, education, the presence of children under age 17, and the
number of people in the household are not related (Wandersman et a/.,
1987).
Social context factors are influential in determining neighborhood
and community participation (Giles and Dantico, 1982; Huckfeldt, 1979),
and are significant predictors of self-reported participation in community
recycling efforts (Gamba and Oskamp, 1994).32 Employment and
children represent a source of role conflicts for neighborhood residents
(Abowitz, 1990). Members are more likely than nonmembers to report
involvement in other community activities, a sense of community about
their block, a sense of citizen duty, and political efficacy (Wandersman et
48


a/., 1987). Social ties in the community are more important than
psychological attachment for both membership and participation
(Oropesa, 1992). The tendency to think about moving from the
neighborhood declines with participation in neighborhood associations
(Oropesa, 1989a), participants are more fearful of crime than
nonparticipants (Bennett, 1989), communities with more serious crime
problems and with residents who think they receive inadequate police
services are more likely to be organized (Bennett, 1995), and a
combination of physical problems and social enablers may increase
neighborhood participation (Perkins et a/., 1990).33 Participation is
strongly correlated with neighborhood assimilation, socioeconomic status,
and political activities of residents (Olsen, Perlstadt, Fonseca, and Hogan,
1989).
There is relatively little data available on neighborhood associations
themselves. Studies report membership and participation levels of 8
percent (Taub et a/., 1977), 12 percent (Duncan eta/., 1973; Verba,
Schlozman, and Brady, 1995), 16.6 percent (Berry eta/., 1993), 18.9
percent (Davies, 1994), 20 percent (Oropesa, 1989a), and 30 percent,
although this figure includes block associations in addition to
neighborhood associations (Hunter, 1974).34 Even fewer residents are
active participants, with relatively little attendance at board meetings
49


outside of board members (Bolduc, 1980; McNamee and Swisher, 1985).
The average resident engages in two acts of neighborhood participation,
with the majority of residents engaging in between zero and four acts of
participation (Oropesa, 1989b). Neighborhood wealth, stability, resource
mobilization, organization structure, and conflict with city agencies are
associated with effectiveness (Oropesa, 1989b), although city officials
tend not to be appreciably more responsive to participants in
neighborhood associations than to neighborhood residents in general
(Berry et a!., 1993).
Neighborhood Associations and Participatory Democracy
Given that a complex society requires a mix of political units of
different sizes, participatory theorists cannot argue that neighborhoods
are the key to revitalizing democracy. Nor can neighborhood associations
and voluntary action address the problems of national economic
performance or of national social problems, although they can at least
mitigate their consequences for marginal groups and serve as a means of
advocating and addressing citizen concerns at the community level (Hirst,
1992; Stokley and Daysog, 1994). What neighborhood governance does
have to offer is the possibility of face-to-face interaction and collaborative
decision making, which lie at the heart of the theory of participatory
50


!
democracy (Berry et al., 1993; Chrislip, 1994). This form of democratic
J participation takes place in neighborhood organizations.
; Neighborhood organizations have been part of American political
i
| life since the turn of the century, and provide a form of voluntary
i association through which neighborhood residents can participate
| (Frederickson, 1973).35 Even though liberal theorists argue that these
institutions are nonpolitical, they suggest that nonpolitical organizations,
i including neighborhood associations, are windows on a wider world of
civic life, and function to enhance citizens' civic skills (Verba, Schlozman,
and Brady, 1995).36
Neighborhood associations must combine a capacity for both
i representative and participatory democracy if they are to be successful.
! Successful neighborhood organizations are those residents claim as their
own, i.e., ones they join, participate in, and value highly (Wynn, 1995).
i
j But success does not mean that neighborhood organizations are
!
| democratic. The rewards for participatory leadership are meager, most
j neighborhood leaders are of relatively higher SES, and since their rewards
[
j are intrinsic, they do not need other residents to be active (Rich, 1980).
Citizen participation organizations may initially promote social change and
adhere to participatory democratic processes, but they tend to be
j
| absorbed by the very institutional structures they had set out to change
I
51


(Gittell, 1980).
The capacity for neighborhood associations to promote external
democratic participation presumes a substantial degree of internal
democracy, and along this dimension neighborhood organizations are
more indicative of representative than participatory democracy (Cnaan,
1991). The more successful a neighborhood organization becomes, the
more it tends to de-emphasize resident participation (Cooper, 1980).
Neighborhood organizations then face the problem of double closure,
excluding those groups that are beyond one's organized groups (Farris,
1988).
This balance between representative and participatory democracy
can be seen in their complex relationship with local government, which
combines elements of reciprocity and mutual interest with elements of
competition and opposition. This relationship is interdependent, and
requires an intricate balance of neighborhood autonomy and political
responsiveness by city government (Adler and Blake, 1990).
Neighborhood associations are protective of their autonomy, which
makes them wary of their dependence on city government for the staff
resources that are so vital to their success (Gittell, 1980). They are more
likely to compete with each other than to mobilize their collective
strength because they compete for city-wide resources (Thomas, 1986).
52


Local government is perceived as a political ally as often as an opponent,
and sometimes as both on the same issue (Logan and Rabrenovic, 1990).
The acceptance of participatory democracy by local government
has been slow. Evaluation studies suggest that cities should maintain the
involvement of neighborhood groups in the municipal decision making
process, and that they should be willing to partner participation efforts
with neighborhoods, including providing necessary funding (Thomas,
1986). But the only participation mechanism used by all cities is public
hearings, and while 88 percent of cities report providing technical
assistance to neighborhood organizations, only 38 percent report
providing financial assistance (Scavo, 1993). Reliance upon
administrative mechanisms such as public hearings all too often fails to
increase actual citizen participation (Cole and Caputo, 1984).
But there are positive signs also. Neighborhood organizations have
been able to open up to citizen participation such areas of governance as
community development planning, budgeting, and the delivery of basic
services (Ahlbrandt and Sumka, 1983; Boyle and Jacobs, 1982). More
importantly, yet ironically, neighborhood organizations offer citizens an
additional mechanism for participation in the process of governance at a
time of increasing dissatisfaction with the institution of government.
Does participation through voluntary association at the
53


f
1
neighborhood level offer the potential for realizing the promise of
participatory democracy? Neighborhood associations cannot easily claim
to be representative, especially when the substantial demands on time
and energy mean that relatively few people participate. But they can
claim to be responsive to those who choose to participate. Thus while
the number of neighborhood association participants is fewer than the
number of voters, it is greater than the number of elected and appointed
officials who might worry about a particular concern. Within this
context, participatory democracy is not a substitute for representative
democracy, since each is better at accomplishing a particular democratic
ideal than the other. Representative democracy, to the degree that
people participate in elections, can better ensure representation than can
participatory democracy. But participatory democracy, to the degree that
people participate in democracy, can better ensure responsiveness than
can representative democracy.
Associations empower neighborhoods within the existing
representative structure of local government. Neighborhood-based
participation systems fulfill a model of democracy substantially different
from the representative democracy that exists in most American cities,
participation efforts clearly open up broad avenues for citizen involvement
beyond electoral politics, and distortions caused by wealth and social
54
l


status are not eliminated but neither are they exacerbated (Berry et al.t
1993). Participatory theorists, looking for the bright side, suggest that
even so small a concentration of participation may diffuse itself through
the community and have a greater impact on nonparticipants than the act
of voting by a neighbor has on other neighbors (Berry et a!., 1993), and
that even if most people are not active in neighborhood associations,
these organizations foster a strong sense of neighborhood identification
(Crenson, 1983). They also note that as a society we have not yet
tested the limits of participatory democracy. "We have only a brief
history of experimenting with the adaptations of democracy to the large-
scale nation-state. There is plenty of room for innovations" (Fishkin,
1991, p. 25).
Summarizing the Participation Perspective
There are two general and competing views of the role of citizen
participation in the political process, represented by two groups of
theories. The first group is referred to as "liberal democracy" (Mason,
1982), "standard liberal democracy" (Warren, 1992), or liberalism (Lowi,
1979). The second group is referred to as "participatory democracy"
(Mason, 1982; Bachrach and Botwinick, 1992), "expansive democracy"
(Warren, 1992), or "unitary democracy" (Mansbridge, 1980). Liberal
55


theorists seek to balance democratic participation against other political
features such as efficiency and pluralism by limiting the spheres of
society that are organized democratically. Expansive theorists see such
limits to democracy as a cause of many of the ills of liberal democracy
and its representative form of government. They presume that the "self"
can be transformed by participation in the public arena, while liberal
theorists assume that the self is preformed with regard to political
participation (Warren, 1992). Liberal theorists do not see expansive
democracy as a replacement for representative democracy (Lowi, 1979;
Schmitter, 1995).
Participatory democracy's radical and leftist roots often arouse
antipathy from more mainstream political theorists. While participatory
democratic theory is more compatible with feminist thought than liberal
democratic theory, it is not without its share of criticism from feminist
scholars. Women's involvement in organizations has been important both
as an incubator for forms of political participation and as a form of
community participation (Cott, 1990; Scott, 1991). Some feminist
theorists argue that, in concentrating on voting and other forms of
electoral participation, political scientists have neglected forms of
participation that are especially congenial to women (Acklesberg, 1984).
Feminist scholars have taken this point even further, arguing that the
56


definition of politics should be expanded to include all activities
undertaken to benefit the community, regardless of whether they involve
public authority (Baker, 1984).37
Regardless of one's particular theoretical perspective, the question
of what is the proper relationship between democracy and participation
lies at the core of both radical and mainstream political theory. It is a
timeless question, and one with revolutionary implications. Recognizing
that in democratic theory all roads lead to Rome, Pateman (1970)
suggests that liberal political scientists should at least consider, in the
absence of actual evidence about the effects of participation, that
participatory experiences would enable citizens to better evaluate the
performance of their national representatives and the impacts of national
policies on their lives. It is also a question that cannot be ignored. As
Almond and Verba write in The Civic Culture (1963), "If there is a
political revolution going on throughout the world, it is what might be
called the participation explosion" (p. 2).
Notes
1. As Williams (1976) notes, it was especially unpopular with elites.
2. One example from popular knowledge is Americans' belief in
democracy as a majority system, when in reality it operates under
plurality rules. An example from social science is that we know a great
deal about who participates and who does not, but very little about why
people do or do not participate.
57


3. James Morone (1990) observes that efforts to build more direct
democracy also build more government bureaucracy, a point also noted in
more generic form by James Wilson (1989), who observes that if we
want less bureaucracy, we must have less government.
4. Electronic democrats have coined the term "virtual polis" in recent
literature on political participation and the internet (Groper, 1996). Their
hope that technology can create a virtual polis reflects the pessimistic
view most theorists hold of the vitality of the polis in America.
5. The study of participation is divided conceptually among three
spheres of activity. Participation in the "political sphere" focuses on
electoral activities related to the institution of government. Participation
in the "economic sphere" focuses on activities related to workplace
decision-making within economic organizations. Participation in the
"social sphere" focuses on "non-political" activities within secondary
associations and intermediate social institutions that create "community"
between the institutions of the family and the state.
6. Landmark political science studies of electoral participation include
Berelson et at. (1954), Campbell et al. (1960), Almond and Verba (1963),
Verba and Nie (1972), and Verba eta/. (1978).
7. Critical theorists like Denhardt (1993), Levitan (1943), Stivers
(1993), and Waldo (1980) have assumed the burden of keeping alive
public administration's democratic heritage. With the exception of certain
policy scholars, many contemporary public administration scholars seem
to have forsaken the field's democratic roots and ignore the increased
interest other social science disciplines are showing in participation and
participatory democracy. Several recent mainstream compilations of
public administration thought (Bozeman, 1993; Ingraham and Kettl, 1992;
Lynn and Wildavsky, 1990; Perry, 1989) are conspicuously silent on the
topics of democracy and participation. For examples of the reemergence
of participation as a topic of interest among policy scholars, see Crosby
et at. (1986); deLeon (1992); Fischer (1993); Kathlene and Martin
(1991); and Kweit and Kweit (1981).
8. For examples of research in group theory and dynamics, see Braver
and Wilson (1986) Kerr (1989), Littlepage and Silbiger (1992), and
Wollman and Stouder (1991). For examples in organization theory, see
Castrogiovanni and Macy (1990), and Yammarino and Naughton (1992).
For examples in community theory, see Chavis and Wandersman (1990),
58


Perkins et a/. (1990), Yeich and Levine (1994), and Zimmerman and
Rappaport (1988). For examples in collective action theory, see Barnes
(1992), Breinlinger and Kelly (1995), Heckathorn (1993), and Marwell et
al. (1988).
9. These works are particularly relevant to public policy scholars:
Bachrach and Botwinick (1992), Berry et al. (1993), Dilger (1992), Florin
and Wandersman (1990), Marston (1995). These works are particularly
relevant to public management/organization scholars: Christenson et al.
(1988), Gastil (1993a), lannello (1992), Lee (1986), Maxwell (1981).
10. Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) acknowledge that those most
likely to be underrepresented are those who lack opinions.
11. The two dominant social sciences of economics and political
science have both been heavily influenced by equilibria models developed
by classical physics. Systems at or near equilibrium follow specific rules
of behavior and are amenable to causal analysis. Within political science,
social choice theory and group theory and pluralism attempt to establish
the existence of equilibria in political systems. Most political scientists
and political theorists have concluded that instances of equilibria are rare
in politics, if not nonexistent altogether. For a discussion of the evolution
and critique of equilibria models in political science, see Baumgartner and
Jones (1993), who argue that the American political system is
characterized by a much greater degree of punctuated equilibria,
instability, multiple policy venues, and parallel processing than the
classical mobilization-countermobilization model dating back to Madison.
12. This view is most famously represented by Joseph Schumpeter,
whose gloomy view of and apprehension about socialism colors his
theoretical perspective on democracy in Capitalism, Socialism, and
Democracy (1950). Schumpeter rejects the ideal of participation
embodied in classical democratic theory because of its potential for
creating political instability. Schumpeter limits democracy to a method
for selecting political leaders, a means with no discernible ends. He
argues that politicians' competition for political leadership makes it
possible for disenfranchised or just unhappy groups to express their
dissent and bring some pressure to bear on prospective or current
political leaders.
13. Campbell et at. (1960) note that the average citizen's concerns are
usually closer at hand, rooted in the daily life of job, home, and family. In
59


a similar vein, Morone (1990) argues that the current Madisonian form of
politics centers too much on the high politics of Washington and is of
little immediate interest to the average American.
14. Waldo (1980) faults political science for failing to develop a
political theory of organization.
15. Not all political theorists emphasize the participatory nature of
democracy. Participatory democratic theory attempts to develop a
conceptual link between the "political," "social," and "economic"
spheres. It emerged from attempts to integrate democracy and capitalism
through worker participation experiments. Principal participatory theorists
include Bachrach and Botwinick (1992), Barber (1984), Benello and
Roussopoulos (1971), Bottomore (1970), Gastil (1993), Kaufman (1969),
Mansbridge (1980), Mason (1982), Mill (1963, 1965), Morone (1990),
Olsen (1982), Pateman (1970), Rosenbaum (1978), Rousseau (1950),
and Weissberg (1974). Participatory theorists whose principal emphasis
is the workplace include Bernstein (1976, 1982), Garson (1974),
Greenberg (1986), Krimerman and Lindenfeld (1992), Lindenfeld and
Rothschild-Whitt (1982), Mason (1982), Maxwell (1981), Rothschild and
Whitt (1986), Weisbord (1987), and Zwerdling (1984).
16. Macpherson (1977) argues that the principle of seeing democracy
as a society rather than a system of government is the principle
introduced into predemocratic liberal theory in the nineteenth century to
make it liberal-democratic.
17. This thesis is illustrated by Piven and Cloward (1971), who argue
that the poor have fared better by engaging in mass civil movements
rather than by participating in electoral politics. Reversing this thesis, one
might argue that the surge of recent national interest in a third national
political party may result in part from the lack of impetus for some current
form of national social movement.
18. For example, Delgado (1989) notes that there is little scholarly
research available on the experiences of private foundations in funding
community organizations and public policy efforts. He suggests that
successful and effective approaches to community revitalization must be
evaluated and documented.
19. Secondary associations and intermediate institutions are those
social, political, and economic organizations situated between the family
60


and the state. Much of the current scholarly interest in intermediate
institutions is stimulated by Putnam et a/.'s (1993) Tocquevillian study of
Italian politics. Putnam and his colleagues argue that the rich civil society
of northern Italy has fostered better government than the association-
poor society of southern Italy. Fukuyama (1995) notes that the title of
Putnam's book is somewhat misleading in that northern Italy has not
always been democratic.
20. As a symbol of this problem, he notes that while more Americans
are bowling, fewer are bowling in leagues and groups.
21. Communitarian theorists also place a great deal of importance on
intermediate institutions. Bellah et al. (1991) report that many Americans
see individuals as pitted against institutions. They see this dilemma as
paradoxical in that faith and trust in institutions is declining in a society
that is becoming increasingly dependent upon and driven by institutions.
Institutions can be constraining, but they can also be enabling. Drawing
on twentieth-century political philosophy, particularly the work of John
Dewey, Bellah et al. (1991) envision the good society in terms of a
widening of democratic participation and accountability of institutions,
and an interdependence between democratic participation and institutions
themselves.
22. Wolfe's argument resonates with the ideas of Robert Bellah et al. in
The Good Society (1991). But as Christopher Lasch (1995) points out,
although both works seek a third way, like most communitarians they are
more critical of the market than of the welfare state.
23. In epidemic theory a tipping point refers to the point at which a
relatively controlled phenomenon becomes uncontrolled. Epidemic theory
is applied to social phenomena to help explain why a relatively large
intervention may have little or no impact if the tipping point is out of
reach, while a relatively small intervention may have a large impact if the
tipping point is within reach.
24. The social and political importance of neighborhoods to urban life
has been well documented (Antunes and Plumlee, 1977; Baba and
Austin, 1989; Cnaan, 1991b; Crenson, 1983; Davison, 1988; Follett,
1918; Frederickson, 1973; Gay, 1990; Hallman 1974, 1984; Jacobs,
1961; Keller, 1968; Kotler, 1969; Marston, 1995; National Commission
on Neighborhoods, 1979; National Federation of Settlements and
Neighborhood Centers, 1968; Schild, 1994; South, 1987; Suttles, 1972;
61


Taylor, 1986; Thomas, 1986; Yates, 1973).
25. Van Rees (1991) suggests that having now been rejected by
society, deprived urban neighborhoods are on a par with asylums and
prisons.
26. For a detailed analysis of the history, evolution, and development
of neighborhoods in America, see Keating et at. (1996) who trace the
emergence of neighborhoods in mid-nineteenth century cities, the impact
of European and southern migrations, theories of neighborhood change,
the history of neighborhood organizing, and the impact of federal policy
on the decline, redevelopment, and revitalization of urban neighborhoods.
27. There is an extensive literature on neighborhood revitalization. For
a sampling of contemporary explications of the issues and challenges
faced by urban neighborhoods, see Bennett (1990), Boyte (1989),
Cochrun (1994), Davis (1991), Fisher (1994), Halprin (1995), Pierce
(1993), Scavo (1993), and Williams and Laird (1992).
28. Kotler makes a interesting connection between the social sphere of
community participation and the political sphere of government
participation. He suggests that local formal organizations attract local
leadership because the political objectives of neighborhood organizations
do not threaten the existing social structure of community leadership.
29. Crenson (1983) argues that neighborhoods have three distinct
characteristics that qualify them as political entities: (1) neighborhoods
can be direct participants in the political process; (2) neighborhoods can
perform internal functions that imitate the political system itself; and (3)
neighborhood membership is based on geographic location, and the
necessary qualifications for being a neighbor are about as indiscriminate
and inclusive as the requirements for citizenship.
30. San Antonio, one of the cities used in this study, is an example of
a city where nonpolitical religious affiliation led to the creation of a
political organization. Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS)
is a citizens' group founded in 1974 in the impoverished Hispanic
neighborhoods of San Antonio. Its civic base is the network of Catholic
parishes. COPS provides the institutional resources for citizens to
develop their political capacity.
62


31. Abowitz (1990) developed her article from her doctoral
dissertation, which was based on a secondary analysis of data for Detroit
from 1975 (n = 664).
32. Social context reflects almost exclusively the influence of
neighborhood social class composition or status.
33. This is perhaps not such a surprising finding given that Bennett
specifically looked at neighborhood watch programs.
34. Block associations appear to have been generally excluded from
most studies of neighborhood and community participation. Perhaps their
form of organization is deemed too informal even by community
participation standards.
35. They gained recognition first through the settlement house
movement, civic clubs, and neighborhood improvement associations, and
later through community organizing programs of the 1 960s and
community populism of the 1970s.
36. While the vast literature on community organizing and community
organizations is beyond the scope of this study, several works connect
community organizations to neighborhood democracy. Katan and Cnaan
(1986) identify three main stages of neighborhood social development in
Israel: the neighborhood as a community, the decline of the neighborhood
as a community, and the renewal of the neighborhood as a community.
Checkoway (1991) finds that organizations that successfully encourage
participation have a strong executive director and leadership core, active
board or committee members, staff members who are developed and
transitioned from voluntary action to professional expertise, and evidence
a demonstrated commitment to their neighborhoods. McLaughlin, Irby,
and Langman (1994) argue for turning more policy attention to the role of
community organizations in strengthening neighborhoods, and for
designing ways to strengthen existing successful organizations and create
needed new ones.
37. Mainstream political science has developed a reputation for
slighting nonelectoral forms of citizen participation because the single
best source of continuing survey data is the biennial National Election
Study. Because it is anchored in national elections, the NES naturally
emphasizes voting and other forms of electoral participation (Schlozman
et a/., 1995).
63


CHAPTER 3
PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
Democratic governance refers to they way in which governing
institutions carry out the process of governance in accordance with
democratic norms, especially citizen participation. This chapter discusses
the relationship between participation and democratic governance in
terms of the concepts of legitimacy, capacity, and community.
Legitimacy refers to the attitudes that characterize the relationship
between citizens and government. Democratic governance theory
suggests that, to a large extent, legitimacy depends upon the active
participation of citizens. Capacity refers to the attitudes and beliefs of
citizens about their ability to engage in political participation, and the
degree to which participation in the process of governance leads to
further participation. Democratic governance theory suggests that
citizens have the capacity to become knowledgeable about politics, and
to use this knowledge to participate in self-governance. Community
refers to the degree to which participation in the process of governance
creates a sense of belonging among participants, and helps participants
to connect their self-interest to concern for the larger community.
64


Democratic governance theory suggests that participation helps to create
a sense of community among participants, and that participation leads to
the development of communitarian attitudes.
Participation and Legitimacy
The history of the modern state is characterized by an "extended
sense of crisis" (Freedman, 1978, p. 9). This sense of crisis persists
today, and is reflected in the growing numbers of citizens who "are
questioning the effectiveness of our public institutions" (Putnam, 1995b,
p. 33), and by the "repudiation of democracy in its most generous
incarnations from within" (Elshtain, 1995, p. xiii). The roots of this crisis
of legitimacy stem from a sense of political unease dating back prior to
the American Revolution (Lockridge, 1981). Part of this unease is due to
the tension between competing democratic ideals.1 Both liberal and
communitarian elements have been present throughout the political
history of the American republic, with the republican tradition
predominant in the first half of the nation and the liberal tradition
supplanting it by the mid-twentieth century (Sandel, 1996b). The
triumph of a liberal public philosophy over a republican one has resulted
in a "procedural republic," with adverse consequences for democratic
politics and the legitimacy of the regime (Sandel, 1988).
65


I
Critical theorists agree that this sense of crisis permeates the
nation as a whole, and that it questions the very legitimacy of
democracy.2 Observers attribute this crisis to a decline in civic culture
and democratic dispositions (Eberly, 1994; Elshtain, 1995; Lasch, 1995;
Saul, 1995), to liberalism's adoption of moral relativism and neutrality
(Berger, 1992; Moynihan, 1993; Rauch, 1994; Schlesinger, 1992), to the
"false choices" offered by both liberals and conservatives that produce
increasing polarization and alienation (Bok, 1997; Dionne, 1991; Eberly,
1995; Wolfe, 1989), and to the ideological contradictions between
capitalism and democracy (Adamson, 1990; Orren, 1988; Parenti, 1995).
While public administration theorists debate the meaning,
relevance, and even existence of the "public interest" (Barzelay, 1992;
Frederickson, 1991; Goodsell, 1990; Stillman, 1996), other scholars are
attempting to revitalize this idea (Orren, 1 988; Persons, 1 990; Saul,
1995). The notion of public interest necessarily lies at the heart of the
problem of legitimacy, since government is the only organized mechanism
that makes possible that level of shared disinterest known as the public
good (Saul, 1995).3 Sandel (1988) draws this connection when he asks,
"But what theory of the public interest is appropriate to an administrative
state that is also a democratic state" (p. 109).
The inability of theorists and politicians to identify and understand
66
!
i


the public interest is clearly understood by the public and is reflected in
their growing dissatisfaction with government.4 The public's increasing
dissatisfaction with how democracy is working has led to an increase in
proposals from every sphere of life to make democracy work better.5
While many citizens cite a lack of responsiveness on the part of
government and elected officials as to what is wrong with democracy,
the problem may be just the opposite (King, 1997).6
Participation and Administrative Legitimacy
Administrative legitimacy as a topic of inquiry for public
administration connects governmental legitimacy with administrative
processes (Freedman, 1978). Public administration theorists frame the
issue of legitimacy by asking, "Does a democratic society require
democratic institutions?"7 Some public administration theorists argue
that autocratic administration may be required in a democratic society
(Goodnow, 1900; Gulick and Urwick, 1937; Hamilton, 1961; McGregor,
1984; Perry, 1989; Simon, 1976; White, 1926; Wilson, 1887). Critical
theorists argue that the administration of democratic institutions cannot
be separated from a democratic society, and that a focus on
administrative efficiency which minimizes or excludes democratic values
in turn diminishes democracy (Appleby, 1945; Denhardt, 1981; Hart,
67


1974; Lee, 1986; Levitan, 1943; Waldo, 1984). The normative
implications of this argument bear directly upon the theoretical
relationship between participation and administrative legitimacy.8
Since its inception, public administration has repeatedly faced the
challenge of how to conceptualize and design a means of legitimizing the
administrative state.9 Despite repeated theoretical reformulations, little
progress has been made in resolving this public administration paradox
that scholars described nearly half a century ago.10 Ironically, at the
time Waldo and other scholars raised this fundamental normative issue,
the American administrative state was enjoying a period of unparalleled
support and faith in its legitimacy (Van Riper, 1983). But this "popular
legitimacy" was short-lived, as it came under attack in the mid-1960s.
Thus began the contemporary "crisis of legitimacy" that has led many
political leaders to undermine public trust by campaigning against
government bureaucracy, public intrusion in the "private" realm of affairs,
and against government itself.11 This crisis of legitimacy questions the
very essence of what it means to participate in and practice
democracy.12 It is a crisis of citizenship and civic culture.13
Theoretical connections between participation and legitimacy are
an integral part of the intellectual heritage of public administration. These
connections can be seen in administrative theory (Levitan, 1 943; Redford,
68


1969; Stivers, 1990; Wamsley et a/., 1990) and in public management
and organizational theory (Argyris, 1964; Barnard, 1938; Follett, 1940;
Denhardt, 1990, 1993; Romzek, 1992; White, 1990). Concerns about
legitimacy permeate, if not dominate, contemporary public administration
theory (Campbell and Naulls, 1992; Denhardt, 1990, 1993; Farazmand,
1989; Ostrom, 1989; Rohr, 1986; Spicer, 1995; Stivers, 1993; Waldo,
1980, 1990; Wamsley et al, 1990).
The emergence of democratic governance theory and policy
science theory represent the two most significant public administration
responses to the crisis of legitimacy. They are of particular interest and
relevance to this study because they share several theoretical and
normative premises with participatory democratic theory. The poiicy
sciences are of relatively recent origin, dating to the formulation of the
"policy sciences of democracy" (Lasswell, 1971). Democratic
governance, in numerous forms and incarnations, has surfaced repeatedly
as a critical issue in the discipline.14
Democratic governance theory addresses the issue of
administrative legitimacy by attempting to specify the normative
foundations of the administrative state. The most important theoretical
formulation of democratic governance theory can be seen in the
Blacksburg Manifesto of the late 1 980s, which calls for a refounding of
69


public administration based on a new paradigm of the relationship
between citizens and the state (Wamsley et al.r 1990).
Refounding theorists suggest that public administration theory is a
theory of governance, and is by nature a normative theory. They argue
that the quest for such a normative theory must include an examination
of the nature of the relationship between administrative practice and the
ultimate source of values in a democratic polity, that is, the people
(Stivers, 1990). This relationship suggests that to the degree that the
administrative state fails to maximize participation in democracy, it is
regarded by citizens as less legitimate. In this way the theory of
democratic governance advanced in the Blacksburg Manifesto links the
legitimacy of the administrative state with active citizen participation.15
The policy analysis paradigm exists in genuine tension with the
institutions and principles of democracy, meaning that policy analysis is
confronted with significant normative issues related to determining citizen
preferences, resolving conflict, and creating meaningful opportunities for
participation (Jenkins-Smith, 1990). This tension is a legacy of the
politics-administration dilemma, which provides us no way to
acknowledge publicly the interconnectedness of policymaking and
administration, despite the fact that we all acknowledge it privately
(McSwain, 1985). This results in democracy and the policy sciences
70


!
seeming an unlikely couple, in that they combine rational and efficient
policy analysis and nonrational and inefficient politics (deLeon, 1995).
Policy science should be subject to the democratic norm of citizen
participation (deLeon, 1995) and should be informed by the
epistemological and political aspects of a participatory methodology
(Fischer, 1 993) because politics and methodology converge on
participation (Torgerson, 1986). Participatory policy analysis can protect
the normative elements of democratic policy analysis (Dryzek, 1989;
Durning, 1993), and can improve policy making because democratizing
the process promotes rather than impedes rationality (Renn eta!., 1993).
Normative democratic criteria can be used to judge to what extent and in
what way a specific participatory mechanism makes a policy process
more democratic (Fiorino, 1990).
The legitimacy of policy making depends on normative criteria such
as the quality of representation and participation (Persons, 1990) and
reducing the inherent bias toward policymakers as the only legitimate
clients (deLeon, 1993). In light of the limitations of social science, it is
difficult for public administrators to seek legitimacy on the basis of
expertise (Lindblom, 1990). Normative considerations prohibit excluding
scientific and technological policy issues from the scope of citizen
participation (Laird, 1993). Since policy expertise flourishes as
71


abundantly in the outside world as it does within government (Rourke,
1992) and technical policy methodologies are inherently limited, the
reluctance to involve lay persons becomes untenable (Robinson, 1992).
While political knowledge is not a substitute for political judgment,
citizens can judge only on the basis of a great deal of knowledge, and
while political education can be a consequence of participation, it need
not be the reason (Parry, 1989).
This normative conceptualization of participation in public
administration has two important implications for the legitimacy of the
administrative state. Participation expands the technical, rational, and
instrumental boundaries of public administration theory to include politics,
values, and human behavior (Adams, 1992; Denhardt, 1990); and it
expands the boundaries of public administration practice from the
institution of government to include the process of governance (lannello,
1992; Sergiovanni, 1984; Waldo, 1952; Wamsley et a!., 1990).
Today, it is nearly a cliche to say that the American administrative
state faces a crisis of legitimacy.16 Yet there is ample evidence to
suggest that this crisis extends beyond the institution of government and
beyond the profession of public administration. An "uncivic" culture is
unlikely to create strong public faith in the legitimacy of the
administrative state, or in high levels of trust in government, or in
72


widespread citizen participation. From a participatory democratic
perspective, the administrative state must be able to equip citizens and
"citizen-administrators" (Cooper, 1984) with the civic skills necessary to
participate both "at work" and "after hours" (Waldo, 1984). The political
consequence of nonparticipation or "pseudoparticipation" is that it
diminishes the legal-rational legitimacy of the state, thereby diminishing
the state's capacity to command moral compliance, the foundation of
meaningful public policy (Ingram and Schneider, 1993; Spicer, 1995). In
this context, the crisis of civic culture is the crisis of administrative
legitimacy writ large.17
Participation and Political Legitimacy
Despite the recent flurry of attention paid to the crisis
of legitimacy, our political legitimacy may have suffered irreparable harm.
American political culture has always been characterized by citizens' trust
in government as a condition of government performance (Nelson, 1986).
Democracy requires a degree of trust that we often take for granted
(Bellah et a/., 1991). "Democracy relies on trust. There is no substitute
for it" (Fluno, 1971, p. 209). Trust in government peaked during the
period between World War II and the 1960s (O'Neill, 1986). Research in
the 1950s and early 1960s found Americans loyal and trusting of political
73


authorities (Almond and Verba, 1963). Since the mid-1960s, a large
number of studies have found substantial declines in political trust and
confidence.
The decline of political trust between constituents and their
representatives, documented through public opinion studies, is among the
most clearly documented trends in American public opinion (Abramson
and Finifter, 1982; Bianco, 1994; Feldman, 1983; Gallup, 1992, 1994;
Hart, 1978). In 1964, 72 percent of Americans surveyed scored medium
or high on a political trust index. By 1968 this figure had declined to 64
percent, and it continued to decline to 53 percent in 1970, 50 percent in
1972, 36 percent in 1974, and 33 percent in 1978. The proportion of
Americans who reply that they trust the government in Washington only
some of the time or almost never has risen steadily from 30 percent in
1966 to 75 percent in 1992.
In 1964, 76 percent of Americans believed they could trust the
government in Washington, DC to do what is right most of the time.
Thirty years later, only 20 percent of Americans believe they can trust
the government in Washington, DC to do what is right most of the time.
In 1964, fewer than one in three Americans believed that government is
run by a few big interests rather than for the benefit of all the people. By
the 1990s, three-fourths of Americans believe that government is run by
74


f
and for the benefit of the few. In 1960, 25 percent of Americans
thought that public officials do not care much what people like them
think. In 1990, 64 percent thought so. Confidence in government did
rebound, albeit temporarily, during the early Reagan years (Upset and
Schneider, 1987).
Americans are also less trusting overall. The proportion saying that
most people can be trusted fell from 58 percent in 1 960 to 35 percent in
1 994. Respondents with lower levels of social trust are also less likely to
trust government, less likely to vote, and less likely to feel that they have
a say in what government does; and the typical American is not inclined
to trust most people and holds particularly dim views of federal and state
government (Woodward, 1997).18 Citizens in cities with higher
education levels and above average economic growth rates have less
cynicism towards government; have higher levels of cynicism in cities
where members of the city council and the media are cynical; and have
less cynicism in cities with a strong history of citizen participation
(Berman, 1 997).
Declining political participation results from deteriorating political
relationships between citizens and government (Craig, 1996). Citizens
question their relationship with local government when it uses its power
against them or does not help them; when they feel disconnected,
75


misunderstood or ignored; and when they consider government services
and policies to be ineffective (Bianco, 1994; Robertson and Tang, 1995).
Manifestations of public cynicism include pervasive beliefs that
government policies and public officials are corrupt, inept, or out to take
advantage of citizens (Johnson, 1993).
One consequence of this decline is that hope for a participatory
politics is diminished. As White (1980) explains in terms of lessons
learned from the 1960s and 1970s:
"One of these lessons is that participation in the traditional sense -
as group involvement, community development, and so on are
lost hopes...People will perhaps be interested in finding ways of
collaborating to find or create concrete solutions to their immediate
situation, but they will no longer have the faith in government or
power, the sense of community, or the motive toward group
involvements that is required to sustain the mystique of
participation as a solution" (1980, p. 211).
A second consequence is that the crisis of legitimacy will persist. "But
the crisis of legitimacy is still with us; indeed, some believe it has even
grown more acute" (Mansbridge, 1980, p. 299).
Participation and Capacity
After voting, political efficacy is the most studied phenomenon in
political participation. But just as some theorists call for an expanded
conceptualization of participation, so too do some call for an expanded
conceptualization of efficacy. Suggesting concepts such as "participatory
76


persuasion" (Mason, 1982), "participatory community" (Fowler, 1991),
"political capacity" (Berry et a!., 1993), and "participatory equality"
(Verba et a!., 1995), they argue for moving beyond just the study of
attitudes to include participation behavior as well.
For purposes of this study, political capacity consists of two
concepts drawn from participation research: political efficacy and
participation spillover. Political efficacy, a core concept in liberal
democracy, refers to citizens' confidence in their ability to understand
politics, to participate in the political process, and their belief that
government will be responsive to their participation. Participation
spillover, a core concept in participatory democracy, refers to the belief
that the skills and attitudes shaped by participation in one setting allow
individuals' to transfer their "participatory persuasion" to other settings.
Political efficacy represents an attitudinal component of political capacity,
while participation spillover represents a behavioral component.
Institutions and associations develop political capacity and provide
opportunities for its exercise (Cohen and Rogers, 1992; Young, 1992).
This effect occurs through the effect of institutions and associations on
participants (Barzelay, 1992; Bennis, 1989; Emmert ef a/., 1983; Handy,
1990; Harmon, 1981; Milward et a/., 1993; Senge, 1990), through the
influence of institutions and participants on each other (Abramson, 1990;
77


Orians, Liebow, and Brach, 1995; Rich, Edelstein, and Wandersman,
1995; Stern; 1988; Wilson and Zhou, 1992), and through the influence
of participants on each other (Bentley, 1995; Gilmore and Barnett, 1992;
Lynn, 1993). The institutional democracy of public, private, and
nonprofit institutions, the participatory democracy of citizens and
neighborhoods, and the representative democracy of government are
each essential to this process (Potapchuk, 1996). Together these
systems provide the social and political capital for a sustainable
democratic politics.
Individuals acquire political capacity through two paths: one path is
basically socioeconomic, while the other path is based on political
socialization (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). Research in political
capacity examines the influence of political socialization and
socioeconomic resources on political participation (Florin, Jones, and
Wandersman, 1986; Jennings and Niemi, 1974, 1981; Liebes and Ribak,
1992; Onibokun, 1990; Serow, 1990; Sundeen, 1988; Wilson, 1990).
Participatory theorists suggest that the development of citizen
capacity is important to the health of democracy (Gross and Zeleny,
1958; Miljeteig-Olssen, 1992) and that civic virtue equals the proud
exercise of the capacity for self-government in public and private life
(Macedo, 1989). Democracy asks that citizens be politically competent,
78


which requires political knowledge and political participation (Dahl, 1995).
The problem of civic competence can be expressed in terms of
democracy's requirement for a certain level of political competence and a
growing body of evidence that reveals grave limits to citizens' political
competence (Dahl, 1992), such as the 55 percent national no-show rate
for jury service (Schachter, 1997). However, the practices and
institutions of modern democratic societies do not produce a sufficiently
competent citizen who can wrestle with the heavy demands of
participatory democracy (Berry et aL, 1993; Dahl, 1995; Mansbridge,
1980; Weissberg, 1974).
The heavy demands of participatory democracy may pose barriers
to developing political capacity, but certainly no more than representative
democracy, and probably a great deal less. Citizens report that while
they are not heard by government they can be heard through associations
and collective action; that they have not rejected politics but they are
abstaining from it; they are not apathetic, but they are frustrated; they
care, but do not see how to express that caring so that it makes a
difference; community problems can be solved, but political problems
cannot because they are too big; they see politics as rules, laws, and it is
dirty; politics has nothing to do with why they are involved in their
community; their sense of political efficacy is stronger locally and at
79


home, and weaker as one moves farther away in the political system;
that they mostly do not consider their local and community involvement a
part of politics; and that they do not consider themselves to be involved
in politics or to be politically efficacious (Harwood, 1991b).
Nor do the demands of participation preclude the development of
political capacity. Citizens recognize that they too have a responsibility
to enlarge the public voice; when they do participate in politics it is
because they see a possibility of creating positive change; they are more
likely to work with each other at the neighborhood and community level
to solve a problem; they seek opportunities for self-government where
those opportunities are available; when they do get involved it is because
they believe they can have a say, they believe they can create a sense of
community; they realize that campaign reform, term limits, and more laws
will not fix what is wrong with politics; they recognize the need for more
activity and participation at the local and community level, and that
nothing will change unless people act; they recognize and embrace their
sense of civic duty; they realize that they are an essential part of the
political process and of democracy; and they understand that they must
participate for it to work effectively (Harwood, 1991b).
Contrary to the expectations of liberal democracy, it appears that
most citizens hold high expectations of their own political capacity. If
80


citizens are to develop this capacity, government and politics must
embrace the development of citizens as a primary goal. But the sense of
most citizens, and many critical theorists, is that few people in politics
and government are willing to listen to citizens. As Bryan and
McClaughry (1989) write:
"Americans no longer feel at ease because Washington has
become fascinated with the techniques of governance. It is too
busy worrying about how many people die on the highways, or
whether or not teachers do their job well, or about the details of
pothole filling, or public welfare programs. As the nation has lost
faith in the localities' abilities to handle such matters, so too have
individuals lost faith in the nation's capacity to provide for the
general welfare. We say again: there is enough work for everyone.
If the national government does not entrust domestic functions to
the states and communities, it will fail at its most important task,
the maintenance of the context for a democratic civil order. And in
heart and mind Americans will continue to drift away from the
center" (pp. 274-275).
Government can inhibit participation and the development of
political capacity through the behavior of public agencies. For example,
proposals by public agencies are often presented in difficult-to-understand
technical language (Checkoway, 1981). The reinventing government
initiative, also known as the National Performance Review, promises to
enhance citizen capacity by empowering citizens and streamlining
administrative procedures. But reinventing government is more in the
liberal than the participatory tradition, and is unlikely to have any
discernible impact on the political capacity of citizens (Schachter, 1997).
81


Government can also enhance citizen capacity. Public agencies
can learn to provide technical assistance that can make citizen
participation more effective and advantageous (Cohen, 1995).
Participatory forms of administration are effective in many public
administration contexts (Bryant and Kearns, 1982; Denhardt et aL,
1987). Participation in recycling programs is significantly higher in
communities that place greater importance on citizen involvement in the
planning and design of such programs (Folz, 1991), suggesting that when
citizens have a say in governance they are more likely to engage in the
coproduction of public goods and services.19
Political Efficacy
Political efficacy is the feeling "that individual political action does
have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e., that it is
worthwhile to perform one's civic duties" (Campbell et a!., 1954, p.
187).20 People with greater participation exhibit significantly higher
levels of political efficacy (Almond and Verba, 1963; Finkel, 1985;
Greenberg, Grunberg, and Kelley, 1996; Sigelman and Feldman, 1983;
Wandersman and Florin, 1991).21 Individuals who report a greater
amount of political participation score higher on indices of empowerment
(Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988). The question of whether there is any
82


evidence to suggest that participation in non-governmental settings
contributes to this sense of political efficacy (Pateman, 1970) connects
the liberal concept of political efficacy with the participatory democratic
concept of participation spillover.
A surge of interest in political efficacy research in the 1970s began
to produce less consistent results.22 Researchers began to explore the
possibility that political efficacy really measured two distinct sets of
attitudes (Balch, 1974). Subsequent analyses based on this line of
inquiry revealed flaws in the standard battery of agree-disagree questions
(Acock, 1990; Aish and Joreskog, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989). It soon
became apparent that these attitudinal measures did not tap just a single
dimension of political efficacy.23 Political scientists concluded that the
construct of political efficacy includes two related but distinct attitudinal
dimensions, internal and external efficacy, with participation as the
theoretically expected outcome of political efficacy (Stenner-Day and
Fischele, 1 992).
Internal efficacy refers to an individual's sense that he or she is
capable of understanding politics and influencing the political process. A
statement like "Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated
that a person like me can't really understand what's going on" is
representative of the type of question used to gauge internal efficacy
83


(Mattei, 1991). External efficacy refers to an individual's sense that
government will be responsive to his or her attempts to influence it
through the process of political participation. A statement like "If you
explained your point of view to government officials, what effect do you
think it would have?" is representative of the type of question used to
gauge external efficacy (Balch, 1974; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982).
Early studies suggested that causality is unidirectional, with some
researchers arguing that efficacy causes participation, while others
maintained that participation produces political efficacy. Finkel (1985)
finds that causality is reciprocal for political participation and external
efficacy, but not for internal efficacy. External efficacy influences
participation and participation influences external efficacy. Internal
efficacy influences participation, but participation does not influence
internal efficacy. Finkel's study suggests that participation is more likely
to be the effect rather than the cause of internal efficacy. He interprets
his findings as somewhat negative support for democratic theories that
stress the developmental aspects of participation. Most subsequent
studies find support for the idea of idea of reciprocal causality between
political participation and political efficacy (Aish and Joreskog, 1990;
Berry et a!., 1993; Muller and Seligson, 1994; Niemi, Craig, and Mattei,
1991; Stenner-Day and Fischele, 1992).24
84


The question of the relationship between efficacy and face-to-face
political participation is of relatively recent origin. Research into political
efficacy typically uses electoral forms of political participation.
Participatory theorists argue that participation in strong or face-to-face
democracy differs from participation in weak or liberal democracy.
Political efficacy is related to a variety of forms of community
participation (Berry et al.r 1993), but the empirical connection between
efficacy and participation in neighborhood associations has not yet been
examined.
Participation Spillover
Participatory democracy suggests that participation in one sphere
of life can "spill over" into other spheres (Mason, 1982; Pateman,
1970).25 Participation spillover can be conceptualized as a behavioral
component to political efficacy; to the extent that individuals increase
their sense of political efficacy, they should be more likely to increase
their participation in political activities, and vice versa. The concept of
participation spillover is far more theoretical than empirical, in keeping
with the tradition of participatory democracy dating to antiquity.26
The concept of participation spillover was developed by political
theorists who saw the potential of the workplace as a training ground for
85


democracy,27 and who saw workplace democracy as the next great
frontier in the struggle for democracy (Barber, 1984; Bowles and Gintis;
1986; Carnoy and Shearer, 1979; Cohen and Rogers, 1983; Dahl, 1985;
Gould, 1988; Greenberg, 1986; Lane, 1985; Mason, 1982).28 The next
stage of democratization in the West is expected to be the devolution of
authority in the workplace, because the idea that wisdom rests with an
elite group of guardians has not only been rejected by society as a whole,
it also is not true inside work organizations (Dahl, 1989b).29
Work is relevant to the study of participation because it is more
central to most people's lives than politics (Mason, 1982) and it is the
means through which we create ourselves (Warren, 1993). The
workplace is relevant because it approximates a community and offers
the possibility of research in the form of controlled experiments which are
unlikely in the political world (Berry et a!., 1993). The ideas of workplace
theorists are relevant because social, political, and economic changes
have blurred the boundaries between the public and private spheres
(National Civic League, 1992; O'Toole, 1993; Woodwell, 1994).
The normative arguments made by participatory theorists for a
workplace connection to democracy bear a striking resemblance to the
normative arguments of democratic governance theorists. The concept
of governance extends the public interest to the workplace in ways which
86


the concept of government cannot. Members of any association for
whom the assumptions of the democratic process are valid have a right
to govern themselves by means of the democratic process; if democracy
is justified in governing the state, then it must also be justified in
governing economic enterprises (Dahl, 1985). The merely business
aspect of government is the least important; the most important aspect of
government is its influence on human development (Mill, in Himmelfarb,
1962).
The workplace can play a role in realizing the ideal of democracy
and in developing the political capacity of citizens. Socialization in the
family, and to a lesser extent, socialization in school, represents
inadequate training for political participation; of crucial significance for
the development of political efficacy are opportunities to "participate in
decisions at one's place of work" (Almond and Verba, 1963, p. 294).
Workplace democracy encourages employees to view themselves as
responsible actors, i.e., citizens, rather than as actors dependent on such
external forces as the market (Macpherson, 1977). Participation in the
governance of the workplace is a means to achieving the good life (Mill,
1848).
Workplace participation is believed to lead to political participation
in the wider political system. Democratic institutions help shape the
87


character and political efficacy of individuals in a way that leads them to
greater political participation (Mill, 1848). Workers who are taught to
think for themselves will carry over that role to political life, which will
also assist in transforming the existing political system into a more
democratic one (Cole, 1920). Workplace democracy would lead to a
stronger sense of political efficacy that would in turn lead to higher levels
of participation in local, state, and national politics (Pateman, 1970). Like
democratic governance theory, participation spillover frames the
normative implications of participation in terms of citizenship (Bottomore,
1970).
Political and Workplace Spillover. The relationship between worker
control and political efficacy is mediated by satisfaction with self-
management opportunities and satisfaction with work; the level of self-
determination and self-governance at work is strongly associated with a
more active social life; and having some power over one's work covaries
with one's attitude toward taking up participatory opportunities (Elden,
1981). Workers with control over immediate tasks are no more likely
than other workers to participate in political groups, but workers with
input into the firm's resource allocation and business practices are
significantly more likely to participate in the political system than are
other workers (Arrighi and Maume, 1994).30
88


The hypothesized spillover effect of workplace participation on
political activity is difficult to test directly, and only a handful of studies
report empirical results. Participation in direct decision making
does not lead to the development of cooperative and egalitarian
orientations among worker-shareholders (Greenberg, 1981a), and they
are less likely to participate in outside community and political affairs than
traditional workers (Greenberg, 1981b).31
Worker-shareholders are significantly less likely to participate in the
activities of organizations outside of the workplace than are conventional
workers, although they reach parity over time; they are consistently more
involved in political participation, although only participation in
community affairs and public hearings were statistically significant; and
they are slightly more likely to espouse values of self-interest over values
of the public interest (Greenberg, 1986).32 Although not statistically
significant, active involvement in cooperative political affairs serves as an
instrument of education for participation outside the firm; but workplace
participation does not enhance workers' sense of political efficacy, either
at a single point in time or over a five year period (Greenberg, 1986).33
Direct face-to-face workplace participation is significantly related to
campaign and community participation, but not voting; representative
participation is negatively related to voting, campaign, and community
89


participation; and autonomy on the job is significantly related to
community participation but not to campaign participation or voting
(Greenberg, Grunberg, and Kelley, 1996).34 These findings support the
argument that the likelihood of spillover is greater in those areas of
participation where compatibility exists between workplace and outside
political authority structures (Sobel, 1993).
Political and Social Spillover. The relationship between "political"
and "social" participation is one of the most unambiguous findings in
participation research. Participation in social and economic institutions,
such as the family, school, and work, influences political participation
(Almond and Verba, 1963).35 Although social status is strongly related
to political participation, organizational involvement is the strongest
predictive variable (Nie et a!., 1969). Membership in voluntary
associations is positively related to voting (Olsen, 1972), and to voting,
political group membership, and active political participation (Sallach et
al., 1972).
Within a given social system each new participant triggers others,
helping the social system to reach a threshold level, where it moves from
noncooperative equilibrium to a dynamic, cooperative system (Macy,
1991). Retirement reduces formal social participation but increases
informal social participation (Khullar, 1988). Community leadership
90


Full Text

PAGE 1

PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNANCE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SENSE OF COMMUNITY, CAPACITY, AND LEGITIMACY by Phillip Boyle B.A., Monmouth College, 1976 M.S., Columbia University, 1980 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Administration 1997

PAGE 2

1 This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration degree by Phillip Boyle has been approved by Peter deLeon

PAGE 3

Boyle, Phillip (Ph.D., Public Administration) Participation in Neighborhood Governance and Its Influence on Sense of Community, Capacity, and Legitimacy Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Kathy Boyd ABSTRACT This study examines the effect of participation in neighborhood associations on citizens' sense of community, capacity, and legitimacy. Despite their existence in nearly every American city, neighborhood associations are frequently ignored in research on political participation. Within the framework of liberal democratic theory, "political" participation is often restricted to electoral participation within the sphere of government. Since neighborhood participation takes place in the social sphere of community rather than the political sphere of government, it is considered "social" participation and is generally excluded from most studies of "political" participation. Using a conceptual framework based on participatory democracy and democratic governance theory, this study conceptualizes political participation as any activity that involves direct participation in decision making, such as participation in neighborhood associations. This study iii

PAGE 4

I hypothesizes that neighborhood participation increases citizens' sense of legitimacy as measured by representation, responsiveness, and trust in government; enhances citizens' sense of political capacity as measured by political efficacy and participation spillover; and contributes to citizens' overall sense of community. Based on a secondary analysis of data from the National Citizen Participation Development Project, this study finds strong support for neighborhood participation's effect on political capacity, moderate support for neighborhood participation's effect on sense of community, and weak support for neighborhood participation's effect on legitimacy. These findings are interpreted to suggest that public administration should be as concerned with the process of governance in nongovernment settings as it is with the process of government within public institutions. This argument bears directly upon the crisis of legitimacy that confronts the discipline. Much of public administration theory and practice seeks to legitimize the administrative state through rational and efficient government. Using a normative approach, democratic governance theory argues that the proper scope of public administration is the process of governance rather than merely the institution of government, and that the legitimacy of government rests upon the active participation of citizens. Neighborhood associations represent active iv

PAGE 5

I participation by citizens in the process of governance. The developmental and legitimizing effects of such participation should be of interest to those seeking to improve the relationship between citizens and the state. This abstract accurately reflects the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. v

PAGE 6

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my wife Scottie, for her patience, support, understanding, and sense of humor, and who gave birth to our two daughters in the time it took me to write this.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are numerous people deserving of my thanks. Several deserve particular mention. To the members of my committee, who shared their time, knowledge, and advice. To Kent Portney, Department of Political Science, Tufts University, who provided me access to data from the National Citizen Participation Development Project. To Fran Groff, of the Norwest Public Policy Research Center, who provided me access to work space and computer facilities. To Franklin James and Peter deleon, past and present Directors of Doctoral Studies at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, who provided me financial support for this study. To Michael Cummings, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado at Denver, for sharing his time and interest in democratic theory. To George Brager and Shelly Akabas of Columbia University, professors and mentors, who remain inspirations to me to this day. To Linda de leon, Dail Neugarten, and Julie Carnahan of the University of Colorado at Denver, Arlene Rhodes of the Community College of Denver, Norman Provizer of Metropolitan State College of Denver, and Earline Hill of the Denver Department of Social Services, who allowed me the opportunity to experiment with participatory democracy in the classroom. Finally, to all the participatory democratic theorists and practitioners upon whose shoulders I have climbed in order to glimpse the possible, my gratitude. The people mentioned above are in some way responsible for my interest and persistence in this topic. The time, energy, and emotional and normative commitment they have inspired in me have helped shape this research and made it possible to occur. They are in no way responsible for any of my errors, fact or faith, that inhabit this document. As a researcher, I must ultimately be responsible for my own rat (Frost and Stablein, 1992).

PAGE 8

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................... . ..... .. ....... 1 Participation and the Crisis of Legitimacy .................. 2 Participation and Democratic Governance ................. 5 Purpose and Scope of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2. PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY ............... 15 Participation and the Poles of Democracy ... .............. 18 The Liberal Democratic Perspective ................. 22 The Participatory Democratic Perspective ......... 30 Participation and Voluntary Association .................... 36 The Democratic Potential of Neighborhoods ... . 43 Neighborhood Participation ........... ................ 47 Neighborhood Associations and Participatory Democracy ................................ 50 Summarizing the Participation Perspective ................. 55 3. PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ....... 64 Participation and Legitimacy ................ ... .......... .. ..... 65 Participation and Administrative Legitimacy ..... 67 Participation and Political Legitimacy ............... 73 viii I

PAGE 9

Participation and Capacity ...................................... 76 Political Efficacy ........................................... 82 Participation Spillover .................................... 85 Participation and Community ................................... 92 Community and Governance ........................... 95 Participatory Community ................................ 99 Participation and Sense of Community ............. 1 03 Community and Discourse ............................. 1 06 Costs and Benefits of Participation .................. 11 0 4. METHODS AND RESULTS .......................................... 124 Methods .............................................................. 1 25 Research Design ........................................... 126 Sampling ..................................................... 127 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32 Measurement ............................................... 1 34 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 39 Data Analysis .............................................. 140 Results ................................................................ 1 50 Interpretation of the General Log it Model ......... 1 51 Participation and Legitimacy .......................... 157 Participation and Capacity ............................. 169 ix I

PAGE 10

Participation and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 82 Summary of Findings .................................... 1 96 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................ 206 The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on Community ...................................................... 206 The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on Capacity .......................................................... 211 The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on Legitimacy ....................................................... 21 6 Limitations and Delimitations of This Study ............. .. 221 Limitations of Positive Social Science for the Study of Participation .............................. 223 Limitations of Survey Research ...................... 226 Alternatives to Positivist Methodology ............. 228 Toward a Public Philosophy of Social Science ... 231 Issues for Future Research .................................... .. 233 Recommendations ................................................. 235 Summary ............................................................. 241 APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT .............................................. 247 B. QUESTIONS AND THEIR SOURCES ............................. 251 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................... 252 X

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Writer and satirist Kurt Vonnegut favors a "canary in the coal mine" theory of the arts. Artists, he writes, often perceive dangers to our culture that science and the mass media fail to notice. He urges us to take seriously the often disturbing themes developed by artists, if for no other reason than that such themes portend significant disturbances in the cultural fabric of mainstream society. A number of "political artists" have developed one such disturbing theme. Political theorists ranging from participatory democrats affiliated with the New Left to conservative social critics affiliated with the New Right have converged on the growing civic crisis in America. During the 1 960s and 1 970s, it was primarily political theorists associated with the New Left who criticized the state of America's democracy, its civic culture, and the legitimacy of its government. The 1 980s saw much of the this type of criticism shift from the New Left to the New Right, as conservatives picked up the pieces of the New Left's war on the liberal state and began to voice their criticism of America's state of democracy and its civic culture (Dionne, 1991 ). 1

PAGE 12

A central element of this civic crisis is the deteriorating relationship between citizens and the state, reflected in rising levels of distrust and a declining sense of the legitimacy of government. It is almost as if there are two democracies in America: one defined by national parties, presidential politics, bureaucracies, and a politics of media; and the other defined by neighborhoods, block associations, and a politics of participation and deliberation (Barber, 1984). Theorists on both the political left and right agree that much of the blame for this crisis can be laid at the feet of liberalism (Dionne, 1991; Gutmann, 1985; Huntington, 1981; Lowi, 1979; Mason, 1982; Sandel, 1984; Sleeper, 1990; Walzer, 1990), but they are much less likely to agree on the cure.1 Participation and the Crisis of Legitimacy Within public administration, the crisis of civic culture takes the form of a crisis of administrative legitimacy, meaning that the declining sense of trust in government corresponds to a declining sense of the legitimacy of the administrative state. 2 Some theorists suggest that participatory democracy, an American political theory that evolved in response to the social and political crises of the 1 960s, can help repair this rift in the nation's civic fabric and resolve the crisis of legitimacy (Bachrach and Botwinick, 1992; Barber, 1984; Cisneros, 1991; Kramer, 2 J

PAGE 13

1972; MacKinnon, 1973; Marston, 1995; Warren, 1993; Zimmerman, 1986). While citizen participation has held an enduring appeal for democratic theorists throughout American political history, it has always been conceptualized as existing in a state of tension (Marone, 1990). The participation literature reflects this state of tension in its conceptual schism between "political" and "social" participation. Political theorists seek to explain political participation in terms of the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of participants. 3 They describe "political" participation in terms of electoral activities, particularly voting, that occur within the political sphere of government. Participation that occurs outside of the governmental sphere and in other than electoral activities is considered nonpolitical or "social" participation (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).4 As a result of this distinction, participation in the social sphere of community, such as in neighborhood associations, has been relatively ignored in research on political participation. Participatory theorists5 challenge the legitimacy of this "political" conceptualization of participation, arguing that it is artificial and restrictive.6 They propose a much broader view of political participation, and seek to expand its definition to include face-to-face gatherings that involve direct participation in decision-making (Bachrach and Botwinick, 3

PAGE 14

I 1992; Barber, 1984; Crosby, Kelley, and Schaefer, 1986; Dryzek, 1990; Fishkin, 1991; Gastil, 1993a, 1992a; lchilov, 1990; Majone, 1989; Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982; White, 1994). While most research continues to focus on liberal, macropolitical forms of citizen participation7 there is a growing body of literature that focuses on participation in relation to strong democracy, small group democracy, social trust and capital, and civic culture.8 Participatory democracy predicts that participation contributes to a sense of community, enhances political capacity, and increases trust and confidence in political institutions by educating citizens about political issues, and transforming individuals' self-interest into civic behavior and concern for community (Bellah et at., 1985; Pateman, 1970; Warren, 1 993). Participatory democracy also predicts that participation in one sphere of activity leads to increased participation in other spheres. Participation in the economic sphere of the workplace or the social sphere of voluntary associations, for example, is predicted to lead to greater participation in the political sphere (Arrighi and Maume, 1 994; Elden, 1981; Greenberg, 1986; Mason, 1982). The transformative and educative effects of participation are most likely to occur through participation in "strong" democracy, i.e., experiences that involve face-to-face participation in decision making 4

PAGE 15

(Barber, 1984; Berry, 1989; Dryzek, 1990; Gastil, 1993a; Glendon, 1991; Kemmis, 1990; Lasker, 1949; Leo, 1995; Rucinski, 1991; Schonfeld, 1975; Schwartzman, 1989; Seabrook, 1984; Sembor, 1992; Weissberg, 1974; White, 1994). For example, democratic participation in the New England town meeting is alleged to expand the intellectual, social, and moral dimensions of the individual, and develops "civic virtue" by tempering the values of individualism with communitarian values (Mansbridge, 1980; Tocqueville, 1848). Some scholars find limited but encouraging support for these premises (Greenberg, 1986), while others find little or no support (Schweizer, 1995). Even proponents of participatory democracy agree that the results of empirical research are ambiguous, if not disappointing (Grady, 1990). Despite a rich body of theory and the normative claims made by participatory democratic theorists on behalf of participation, there is little empirical evidence to substantiate claims that such participation influences the political attitudes and behavior of citizens. Participation and Democratic Governance The concept of participation is simply a way of raising one of the timeless questions of political theory, namely who governs? This question has always maintained direct relevance for public administration 5

PAGE 16

(Waldo, 1984). Participation reveals the unity of the field of public administration, which is demonstrated explicitly in the continual, recurring tension between the seeming necessity of an administrative state and the desirability of a democratic one (O'Toole, 1975; Waldo, 1980). 9 Some public administration theorists tackle this problem by recommending that public administration incorporate elements of participatory democracy and democratic governance. Thompson ( 1 970) argues that the most pressing problem of public administration in a democracy is the formulation of an administrative doctrine, a normative theory, that squares more closely with the administrative reality of an open, pluralistic society. Frederickson (1991) suggests that a theory of the public must incorporate several dimensions of democratic governance, including a notion of the public interest, the "virtuous" citizen, and responsiveness. The New Public Administration is often portrayed as public administration's response to the participatory democracy of the New Left (Frederickson, 1980). While the New Public Administration is not a direct result of the New Left, it is a logical vehicle for translating the New Left's critique into an action agenda for public administration (O'Toole, 1975). As a blend of radicalism, conservatism, and liberal reform, the New Public Administration is unquestionably participatory in spirit (Frederickson, 6

PAGE 17

l 1 980; Marini, 1 971). But the New Public Administration is less coherent on the subject of participation than is the older public administration literature, and there emerges from the New Public Administration no new position on the reconciliation of democracy and administration by way of participation (O'Toole, 1975). While related to the New Left of the 1960s, the New Public Administration, as a response to a time of revolution, is not in itself revolutionary (Waldo, 1980). The New Public Administration has been relegated to little more than a historical footnote in public administration theory, and it has had little impact on the practice of public administration. The issue of participation is often reduced to a question of how many people should be let in on public decision making (White, 1990). Participants often perceive participation as a symbolic ritual, as a sham, and its outcome as a fait accompli (Petersen, 1984; Checkoway, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1978). Instituting specific citizen participation requirements for democratic policymaking has not proven effective (Berry eta/., 1984). Not until the Blacksburg Manifesto of the 1 980s did issues of democratic governance regain center stage in public administration. The Blacksburg Manifesto, also known as refounding theory, is descended from a tradition of democratic governance first espoused in the New Public Administration. Although the New Public Administration rejected 7

PAGE 18

the dominant positive science and scientific management paradigm of administrative theory and espoused such values as participation and social equity, it was never able to transcend the discipline's self-imposed restrictions that limited the scope of public administration to government organizations and institutions. Refounding theory seeks to overcome this restrictive conceptualization by expanding the boundaries of administrative theory to include the process of governance, and to expand the boundaries of administrative practice to include concepts such as citizenship and community. The argument on behalf of citizen participation can be expressed in terms of several key normative assumptions derived from refounding theory (Goodsell, 1990; Stivers, 1990; Wamsley eta!., 1990; White, 1 990). First, public administration theory is by its very nature a normative theory, which makes governance, rather than merely government, the proper theoretical and practical scope of the discipline. Second, trust in government is created through a reciprocal relationship between accountability and the exercise of administrative discretion. Third, accountability to citizens is reflected in how well government represents and responds to citizens, and is mediated through discourse and participation. Fourth, citizens are capable of learning from participation, and public administrators are obligated from an agency 8

PAGE 19

perspective to develop the political capacity of citizens. Fifth, democratic governance requires the practice of active citizenship, which means that citizens exercise their political capacity through civic participation in a community characterized by shared knowledge and informed judgment. Democratic governance theory addresses the issue of administrative legitimacy by attempting to specify the normative foundations of the administrative state, with particular attention to the active participation of citizens (Appleby, 1952; Barzelay, 1992; Follett, 1918; Korten, 1981; Lee, 1986; Levitan, 1943; Redford, 1969; Stivers, 1990; Waldo, 1952, 1990; White, 1990). 10 Democratic governance links participation directly to the legitimacy of the administrative state by reconceptualizing the relationship between authority and participation (White, 1990), by resurrecting the concept of the public interest (Goodsell, 1 990), and by replacing the more rational concept of citizen participation with the more normative one of active citizenship (Stivers, 1990). Participation and citizenship are key themes in a number of recent works dealing with the legitimacy of the administrative state (Mead, 1986; Rohr, 1986; Stivers, 1993; Wamsley eta/., 1990). With the public administration literature replete with references to a crisis of legitimacy, a strong case can be made for examining its connection to participation. 9

PAGE 20

Purpose and Scope of This Study The efforts of participatory theorists to legitimize the normative elements of participation parallel the efforts of refounding theorists to legitimize the normative elements of administration. Within public administration, refounding theory (Wamsley eta/., 1990) comes closest to incorporating the theoretical and normative expectations of participatory democracy. Like participatory democracy, refounding theory is based on norms of democratic governance. The applicability of refounding theory to the crisis of administrative legitimacy rests upon the argument that citizen participation in the process of governance is an essential ingredient in establishing the legitimacy of the administrative state. Participatory theorists suggest that unitary, face-to-face participation in strong democracy differs from political participation in electoral activities as described by the socioeconomic model of participation. They also suggest that individuals' political attitudes are more likely to explain their participation in strong democracy than are their social or economic characteristics. These distinctions have important implications for participation research. Researchers can use the work of participatory theorists to conceptualize all participation as 10

PAGE 21

political and thereby target participation in settings other than just electoral. They can also expand the concept of participation to include participants' attitudes and behavior in addition to their social, economic, and demographic characteristics. This conceptualization of "political" participation encompasses much of what participation researchers traditionally relegate to the arena of "social" participation. This study uses a conceptual framework drawn from participatory democracy and democratic governance theory to examine the relationship between participation and community, capacity, and legitimacy. It incorporates participatory democracy's emphasis on settings that are (a) characterized by strong democracy (Barber, 1984) and face-to-face participation in decision making (Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982), (b) less likely to be dominated by individuals with higher socioeconomic status (Berry eta/., 1993), and (c) offer opportunities to participate in activities that are more likely to contribute to citizenship than are acts of electoral participation, such as voting (Mill, in Himmelfarb, 1962). This framework also extends refounding theory's conceptualization of democratic governance to include citizen participation in (a) the process of governance within non-government settings, (b) activities that develop political capacity, and (c) secondary associations and intermediate institutions that foster a sense of community. Neighborhood associations 11 i j

PAGE 22

satisfy all of these criteria and offer an opportunity to conduct an empirical investigation of the hypothesis that participation in the process of neighborhood governance contributes to citizens' sense of community, political capacity, and trust and confidence in government. This study reports the results of a secondary analysis of cross sectional survey data from the National Citizen Participation Development Project ( 1987-1988), sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Chapters 2 and 3 review the participation literature pertaining to democratic theory and democratic governance. Chapter 4 describes the methods used and presents the results of this study pertaining to community, capacity, and legitimacy. Chapter 5 discusses the significance of the findings, the limitations of this study, implications for participatory democracy and future research, and recommendations for theorists and practitioners concerned for the vitality of civil society. Chapter 5 also discusses the paradox of studying the phenomenon of participation using a positivist social science approach. Many scholars disagree on the significance and interpretation of empirical research on participation. No small part of this disagreement is due to the fact that interpretations that support participatory democratic theory have implications for the prevailing paradigm of liberalism in public administration and political science (Kuhn, 1970). 12

PAGE 23

Notes 1 So many prescriptions have been proffered for dealing with the crisis of civic culture that critiques of these prescriptions have become a cottage industry (Bookchin, 1995; Burnheim, 1985; Cronin, 1989; Derber, 1995; Drucker, 1989; Elshtain, 1994; King, 1997; Lasch, 1995; Nelson, 1 996). 2. Prescriptions for the crisis of administrative legitimacy abound. A sample of the political and administrative literature includes reinventing government (Osborne and Gaebler, 1 992), breaking through bureaucracy (Barzelay, 1992), democratizing public policy and administration (deleon, 1992; Ingram and Rathgeb, 1993; Ostrom, 1989), engendering democracy and administration (Phillips, 1991; Stivers, 1993), refounding public administration (Wamsley eta/., 1990), returning to constitutionalism (Rohr, 1986; Spicer, 1995); paying for performance (National Research Council, 1991), governing with tools (Salamon, 1989), building accountability (Light, 1993); and empowering, deregulating, and leading the public service (Dilulio, 1994; Ingraham and Ketti, 1992; National Academy of Public Administration, 1 993; National Commission on the Public Service, 1 989). 3. This relationship between higher socioeconomic status and higher rates of electonl participation is so well established in the social sciences that it is often referred to as the "standard socioeconomic model" of participation (Berry eta/., 1993). 4. This conceptual distinction originated with Almond and Verba's ( 1 963) The Civic Culture and has been generally accepted by most participation theorists, largely because it parallels the separation between the public and private spheres that is central to liberal democratic theory. Mason ( 1 982) argues that social and political participation are merely different manifestations of the same phenomenon, i.e., political participation. Almond and Verba acknowledge that the boundaries between the two forms of participation are difficult to distinguish clearly. 5. I use the term "participatory theorists" to refer to all theorists who advocate greater democratization and citizen participation. Participatory theorists are most likely to represent the perspectives of participatory democracy, democratic governance, and communitarianism. 13

PAGE 24

6. This limitation can be seen in the theoretical separation of participation in the political and economic spheres, and in the conceptualization of participation in most secondary associations and intermediate institutions as "social" rather than "political" participation. 7. Recent examples include Arrighi and Maume ( 1 994); Breinlinger and Kelly (1995); Crotty (1991 ); Dahl (1994); Eksterowicz and Cline (1990); Marone (1990); Osbun (1985); Rosenstone and Hansen (1993); and Schlozman, Burns, Verba, and Donahue (1995). 8. For an example of strong democracy, see Barber (1984). For examples of small group democracy, see Gastil (1992a, 1993a, 1993b; Littlepage and Silbiger (1992); and Yammarino and Naughton (1992). For examples of social trust and social capital, see Fukuyama (1995); Ostrom ( 1 994); and Putnam ( 1 993a, 1 995a, 1 995c). For examples of civic culture, see Bridges (1994); Dahl (1995); Leo (1995); Muller and Seligson (1994); National Civic League (1993); Oldfield (1990); Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti (1993); and Walzer (1980). 9 The period of public administration orthodoxy saw no wholesale rejection of the "good life" of democracy. From scientific management through the progressive era and continuing into today, the discipline has maintained some commitment to the ideal of democracy. O'Toole (1975) notes that even the Taylor society found time at meetings and space in journals to discuss the possible attributes of industrial democracy. 10. Mary Parker Follett (1918) reminds us of the true vintage of this issue when she writes, "There have been three stages in our thinking: (1) our early American democracy thought that public offices could be filled by the average citizen; (2) our reform associations thought that the salvation of our cities depended on expert officials; (3) present thinking sees the necessity of combining expert service and an active electorate" (p. 175). 14

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY Democracy is an old word but centuries of use have not helped clarify its many meanings It came into English in the sixteenth century from a translation of the Greek demokratia, from the root words demospeople, and kratos rule. But it is only since the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that democracy has become a popular political ideology (Williams, 1976).1 The struggle for democracy, having largely been won on the battlefield, is now being fought even more vigorously in the voting booth (Green, 1993). Both democracy and democratic policy analysis seem victorious today (Dryzek and Torgerson, 1993). Democracy is usually viewed as either a social or a political system, with the political view most common (Kaltsounis, 1990). A political theory is considered a democratic theory if it specifies some way in which each member of "the people" can influence political decision making, and in which all legitimate interests in a society may be considered in the decision making process (Walker, 1992). Democracy "focuses on what might be called 'conscious social reproduction' the ways in which citizens are or should be empowered to influence the 15

PAGE 26

education that in turn shapes the political values, attitudes, and modes of behavior of future citizens" (Gutmann, 1 987, p. 14). Theorists generally agree that the social/political sphere operates by democratic values and principles while the economic/organizational sphere operates by business values and principles, and that both spheres struggle with accommodating the values of the other. Critical theorists tend to view this struggle as the subordination of democratic values to capitalist values (Poggi, 1978). Macphersor.'s (1977) development of the notion of "possessive individualism" in liberalism emerged from his conception of democracy as subservient to the economic power of capitalism (Mansbridge, 1 983). The economic, utilitarian view of liberal democracy implies that the aggregation of citizens' individual decisions will produce a market-like, Madisonian balancing of factions leading to an equitable public policy (Anderson, 1993). Some theorists doubt the extent to which democratization can proceed under capitalism, but they acknowledge that small moves toward democracy are feasible, and if successful, they would perhaps signify a small gain for democratic governance (levine, 1992). One of the paradoxes of democratic theory is that although the virtues of democratic citizenship are described by a long line of political theorists from Aristotle to Mill to Rousseau to Tocqueville, sufficient 16

PAGE 27

contradictions exist in their writings to satisfy any contemporary conception of democracy. These theorists have influenced not only our fascination with democracy but also our confusion. Democracy has come to function both as a normative but impossible ideal, and as the description of a concrete but quite different reality (Burnheim, 1985). On one hand democracy refers to a political theory and state of affairs that does not exist, best represented by the theoretical and normative writings of participatory democrats. On the other hand democracy refers to a political theory and state of affairs that exists but is not well understood, best represented by liberal democratic theory and behavioral research. 2 One reason for this situation is that historically, few political philosophers have been strong supporters of democracy, and democratic philosophers such as Mill, Rousseau, and Dewey are the exceptions, and even Mill had substantial reservations (Wolin, 1990). Contemporary theorists express a wide range of hopes and beliefs about democracy. Some argue that democracy does not exist in practice; that at best we have what the ancients would have called elective oligarchies with strong monarchial elements (Burnheim (1985). Some are concerned about the vitality of the democratic process and suggest making stronger democratic institutions below the level of the state (Dahl, 1994). Some theorists hope that democracy can be improved, 17

PAGE 28

suggesting that the key to revitalizing democracy in the 1 990s is Tocqueville's vision of democracy rather than Schumpeter's (Putnam, 1 993b). Some advocate direct democracy (Gordon, 1993), while others promote representative democracy (Wildavsky, 1 9921.3 Some argue for electronic democracy (Grossman, 1995) as a means to increasing democracy's efficiency. 4 Still other theorists reach into the past in an attempt to discover democracy's future, rediscovering and reinventing such democratic theorists as Tocqueville (Ankersmit, 1991; Elster, 1991), Rousseau (Bader, 1995; Berry, 1989), and Dewey (Galston, 1993; Ryan, 1996). Participation and the Poles of Democracy No other issue is simultaneously as taken for granted and yet controversial within democratic theory as the issue of participation. This paradox is reflected in the two principal and competing views of the role of participation. Referred to as liberal democracy and participatory democracy, they conceptualize participation in a polar fashion. Liberal democracy distinguishes "political" participation, e.g., electoral participation, from other forms of participation. 5 Participatory democracy views all forms of participation as "political," from national electoral voting to decision making activities in small groups. 18 ; J

PAGE 29

To democratic theorists, citizen participation embodies the best and the worst of what democracy represents. Because of this paradoxical view, political participation is the most studied element of democracy in the social sciences. Participation has been primarily the province of political scientists, who pioneered the investigation of electoral participation, particularly in the form of voting. 6 The vast majority of the participation literature is paradigmatically restricted to "political" participation as it relates to the "public" sphere and to the institution of government. This body of literature conceptualizes participation in terms of behavior related to political campaigns, electoral contests, and government activities. In order to build a theory of participation, researchers seek to answer questions such as who participates and why, in what do they participate and how, and what are the means and ends of participation. Despite major theoretical and practical implications for the field of public administration, empirical investigations into the nature and dynamics of citizen participation have mostly been left to other social science disciplines. The significance of "democratic" questions posed by early theorists has been relatively ignored by most contemporary public administration scholars. 7 In recent years, other social scientists, particularly sociologists and 19

PAGE 30

social psychologists, have begun to explore more vigorously some of the characteristics and dynamics of participation, focusing their research on small groups, organizations, communities, and collective action. 8 A number of recent studies point to the significance of research in participation for the public policy and public management areas of public administration. 9 Democratic theorists have traditionally recognized two ways in which citizens can put their interests on the political agenda representation and participation. The relation between representation and participation, a relation of some tension, is a problem shared by all theories of democracy. Some theorists argue it is not necessary that we choose between participatory and representative democracy, suggesting that a mix is both feasible and necessary if modern society is to harness the capacities of its members (Parry, 1989). Most theorists express some concern about participation, such that both sides of this relationship should be regarded as equally problematic (Walker, 1992). Some theorists argue in favor of expanding participation, based on criteria such as rights, social justice, equality, responsiveness, effectiveness, and citizen capacity (Bamberger, 1991; Langton, 1987; Vasoo, 1991). Some theorists argue for limiting participation based on concerns about increasing polarization and distrust and decreasing 20

PAGE 31

political efficacy and efficiency (Crozier, Huntington, and Watanuki, 1975; Etzioni, 1969); limitations of size and scale (Dahl, 1967); or the unrealistic goals and undesirability of participatory democracy (Schumaker, 1991 ). Other theorists find concerns about excessive participation (Canan and Pring, 1988) and the demise of participation (Boyte, 1980) unwarranted. Critics of participation argue that participatory democracy represents a romantic and antiquated view of the world, and that modern American democracy is characterized by group-based politics in the form of pluralism (Dahl, 1982; Mouffe, 1992; Olsen, 1982), polyarchy (Dahl, 1961, 1956), and interest group liberalism (Lowi, 1979; Sandel, 1982). In an effort to merge these views, one policy scholar has recently proposed a participatory policy analysis based upon pluralism, polyarchy, and interest group liberalism (Laird, 1993). Thus the debate over participation can be framed in terms of two polar views. Theorists who argue that equaiity, efficiency, liberty, and community can be enhanced through participation favor expanding the scope of participation as a means to increasing democratization. Theorists who argue that these poles of democracy require trade-offs favor restricting participation as a means to promoting democratic stability. Restrictive theorists limit political participation to the political 21

PAGE 32

sphere of government. Expansive theorists seek to extend the concept of political participation to the social sphere of community. The Liberal Democratic Perspective Liberalism is America's public philosophy (Daly, 1994; Huntington, 1981; Sandel, 1996a, 1996b), is sometimes referred to as corporatism (Lowi, 1979; Saul, 1995), and is often referenced in terms of interest-group liberalism (Lowi, 1979). Liberalism is compatible with the Enlightenment's legacy of egalitarian and democratic values (Huntington, 1981; Drukman, 1971) and with political science's pluralist view of society (Lowi, 1 979). Contemporary liberalism is thought to be in its decline (Lasch, 1995; Lowi, 1979; Sandel, 1996a). Liberal democracy represents the integration of our dominant political philosophy of liberalism and our political system of democracy. In its simplest form, liberal democracy is a type of regime where the distinction between public and private is central, and where popular political control and the state's promotion of business interests operate simultaneously (Elkin, 1985). In spite of numerous permutations and transformations, two central features of liberalism have persisted: its commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense with civic virtue (Lasch, 1995). 22

PAGE 33

Liberal democracy is a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials, and a social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders for political office (Upset, 1963). It combines electoral representation, majority rule, one citizen/one vote (Mansbridge, 1 980) and the aggregation of individual preferences (Miller, 1992). Citizens are seen as controllers more than participants, so that, to some degree, the question of citizen competence becomes less important (Parry, 1989). It is a system of power by which people can be governed, and a system by which different people, in different capacities, are given power over others (Macpherson, 1 977). The study of political participation has long been dominated by a liberal democratic perspective. The characteristics of liberal democracy can be seen in the theoretical framework underlying participation research. These include (1) a basic division between the economic, social and political spheres; (2) limitation of the political sphere to government; (3) a focus on national institutions; (4) achievement of the democratic ideal through representative government; (5) voting is the only major political activity available to the mass public; (6) political stability is the prime objective; and (7) a restricted conceptualization of 23

PAGE 34

participation that views limited participation as a necessary and positive condition of democracy (Bachrach, 1967; Berelson, 1954; Pateman, 1970; Schumpeter, 1950). Liberalism is marked by its belief that a liberal state could dispense with civic virtue. Citizens could and should devote themselves to their private business, thus reducing the need for government. Liberalism takes the position that it is liberal institutions, not the character of citizens, that make democracy work. Economic progress would allow materially abundant societies to dispense with the active participation of ordinary citizens in government. It is citizens rather than the state who must take responsibility for creating civic culture (Bridges, 1984). In a perverse self-fulfilling prophecy, most institutions, public and private, take a dim view of the people's ability to intelligently exercise their democratic rights; having been effectively excluded from public debate on grounds of their incompetence, most Americans have little incentive to master the knowledge that would make them capable citizens (Lasch, 1995). One indicator of liberalism's success in discouraging civic virtue is the increase in nonparticipation, particularly in the form of declining levels of voter turnout. Because voting is a unique political act, and it is the most common political act, and because voting determines who governs, political scientists devote a great deal of attention to the vote. Voters are 24 i

PAGE 35

the most representative of any of the participatory publics. While many classical democratic theorists equate the notion of one person, one vote with political equality, the effect of non-voting on the nature and equality of the expression of citizen preferences has stimulated recent interest by researchers (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Bennett and Resnick, 1990; Gant and Lyons, 1993). Liberal theorists argue that nonvoting does not really matter, while critical theorists argue that it does. Liberal theorists argue that nonvoting does not matter. Even though voters represent a skewed sample in terms of education, class, race, ethnicity, age, and geographic region, they do not differ significantly from the entire electorate on the issues themselves (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980) .1 Critical theorists argue that knowledgeable nonvoters are significantly more liberal than ignorant nonvoters, but knowledgeable voters tend to be more conservative (Entman, 1989). Liberal democracy holds that the political system, once formed on the basis of the consent of all citizens, requires only implied consent thereafter for the perpetuation of society (Dahl, 1961; Schumpeter, 1 950). This perspective relegates political participation to the limited role of choosing between competing elites. This is a role that liberals take as the hallmark of democracy (Guarasci and Peck, 1987). Even for those 25

PAGE 36

liberal theorists who have expanded the concept of political behavior (Easton, 1965; Laswell, 1948), it is the activities within formal government structures and the behavior of elites that capture their attention. Under liberalism, democracy is generally considered to include representative government plus universal suffrage. Participation is conventionally defined in terms of electoral and associated activities, and widespread participation is viewed as leading to totalitarianism (Pateman, 1 970). High levels of participation are viewed as necessary only from a small minority, since in any form of social organization only a small proportion of individuals will participate in decision-making activities (Dahl, 1956). The non participation of the majority is viewed as a stabilizing influence on the system as a whole.11 The minority's responsiveness to the majority is ensured by the fact that individuals are free to switch their support if responsiveness proves unsatisfactory (Schumpeter, 1950). This "elitist" model of democracy is one where the majority gain maximum output (policy decisions) from political leaders with minimum input (participation) on their part (Bachrach, 1967; Dye and Zeigler, 1990; Upset, 1963; McCloskey, 1964). Liberal democratic theory portrays an instrumental view of participation. Participation is expected to be widespread but relatively 26

PAGE 37

uninvolved, e.g., voting, or involved but relatively narrow, e.g., protest. Participation is seen as providing the minimal means necessary for satisfying democracy's requirement that the "people" govern. Participation can be learned and possibly even manipulated (Milbrath and Goel, 1977; Verba and Nie, 1972). The evolution of mass participation totalitarian regimes during the early 1 900s caused participation to be linked to totalitarianism rather than democracy, and increased the concern of some prominent theorists with the necessary conditions for stability in a democratic state.12 These fears were not always unfounded, as the ideas and techniques of "democratic social engineers" such as Kurt Lewin were used for undemocratic purposes in the first half of this century (Graebner, 1986). Liberalism emphasizes conflict among competing interests, while cooperative and collaborative participation are generally ignored. Liberalism emphasizes that individuals have their interests represented, but that they need not participate directly other than in terms of electoral participation. This emphasis on interests allows liberalism to shift from individual interests to group interests, the basis of our contemporary form of pluralism. Pluralism regards government either as an arbiter of group conflict or as merely another interest group (Schonfeld, 1975). The liberal view of participation as necessary but idealistic 27

PAGE 38

is traceable to the founders. The Federalists feared the instability of republican governments, and urged abandoning the language of civic virtue. The two options facing the founders were to emphasize conscious responsibility for political community, or to create mechanisms to control the effects, not the causes, of tyranny. Jefferson favored the former approach, while Madison favored the latter. Madison won, which resulted in a lack of reliance upon and language of civic virtue (Sullivan, 1 982). This outcome has led some theorists to portray the founders as primarily concerned with and fearful of the darker side of human nature {Nigro and Richardson, 1992). Empirical research has not shown an untapped need among citizens for greater participation. Pateman (1970) concludes that data from empirical studies of political attitudes and behavior reveal that most citizens, especially those in lower socioeconomic groups, have a general lack of interest in politics and political activity, and that non-democratic or authoritarian attitudes are widespread. Several studies show that in contrast to the active, educated citizenry of traditional democratic theory, the average citizen is unaware of the mechanics of the political system, is uninformed, has a quite limited knowledge of government, and an even more limited desire to participate in it (Berelson eta!., 1952, Campbell, 1960).13 28

PAGE 39

Several propositions have been substantiated by participation research within the liberal paradigm (Checkoway and Til, 1978). Participation is exercised in differential frequency by individuals a. :d groups in society. Relatively few people participate, and those in the social and economic center participate more than those on the periphery. Citizens with higher socioeconomic status (SES) participate more than citizens with lower socioeconomic status. Participants are few in number and generally unrepresentative of the population overall. As Schattschneider ( 1 960) writes, "the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent" (p. 33) Liberalism restricts democracy and political participation to the political sphere. Liberalism identifies the political with the government of the state and sees it as a sphere separate from the rest of social life. Liberal theorists argue that economic and social organizations are not political, defining political participation as activity that is intended to or has the consequence of affecting, either directly or indirectly, government action (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). From the liberal perspective, the workplace, churches, and neighborhood associations are considered nonpolitical. Liberal theorists also reject democracy as a model for organization and administrative theory.14 Pateman (1975) explains this rejection in terms of liberalism's tendency to equate the 29

PAGE 40

j political with the governmental: "At the heart of liberal democratic theory lies the assumption that because 'democracy' is a political concept it properly refers only to the government (national and local) of the state. To use the term to refer to organizations that fall within the jurisdiction of the state as in 'industrial democracy' is seen as either illegitimate or involving some special sense of the term; that is, a nonpolitical sense" (p. 5}. Other than voting, the more frequent types of political participation occur outside electoral activity, such as affiliation with a political organization, informal community activity, and contacting a public official. Although Americans vote less than citizens in other democracies, they are more likely to engage in other forms of political participation. Americans are more likely to be active members of voluntary associations in general, and religious organizations, in particular, than are citizens of other nations (Curtis, Grabb, and Baer, 1992). But other than voting, there is no single form of participation within the liberal definition in which a majority of the public engages, and one-third of citizens do not participate beyond voting (Verba eta!., 1995}. The Participatory Democratic Perspective Participatory democracy is a Rousseauian concept that reemerged during the intellectual turmoil of the 1 960s, and it has been developed by social scientists into a full-blown theory of democracy.15 Although it 30

PAGE 41

grew out of a focus on the democratization of the workplace, it is portrayed by participatory theorists as a promising solution to the present decline and decay of American democracy (Bachrach and Botwinick, 1992). While some theorists might argue that the term "participatory democracy" is redundant, the concept of democracy has become so obfuscated that it is necessary to retain the term to emphasize the participatory nature of democracy (Mason, 1 982). Participatory theory sees democracy as a kind of society rather than simply a system of government, a conceptualization of democracy distinctively different from the classical liberal formulation. 16 Participatory democracy supports participation as an unlimited ideal, without boundaries. For participatory theorists, democracy is a means but not an end. Participatory democratic theory defines democracy as a type of community rule, in which the process of decision making generally entails widespread and effective participation of community members (Gastil, 1993a; Mansbridge, 1980; Mason, 1982). Democracy as a process of decision making emphasizes participation, and participation becomes the measure of a democratic system more so than its values, institutions, or other qualities. Participatory theorists promote the ideals of community and a self-31

PAGE 42

governing citizenry, which have been called the two great "American Commitments" (Stevens, 1994). In participatory democracy these ideals have a reciprocal relationship with each other. Community is strengthened by a self-governing citizenry, while a self-governing citizenry creates a sense of community. Participatory theorists argue that a democratic society requires its institutions to be democratic also. They suggest that more democratic institutions increase the overall democracy of society, and by doing so help to create the good life (Mason, 1982). Increased democratization enhances the legitimacy of the administrative state, because participation mediates the relationships between individuals and the authority structures of institutions (Rousseau, 1 762). Citizen participation makes it more likely that the harmful effects of administrative decisions on citizens will be considered in the administrative process, and it provides a means of informing citizens about particular administrative actions and their possible effects (Spicer, 1995). Participatory theorists argue that political participation should be redefined to include both social and economic participation (Bachrach and Botwinick; 1992; Dahl, 1985; Fleurbaey, 1993; Gould, 1988; Greenberg, 1986; Mason, 1982; Mouffe, 1992; Pateman, 1970; Walzer, 1980). Tocqueville's ( 1848) study of temperance associations clearly reveals the 32

PAGE 43

conceptual difficulty of distinguishing the "political" from the "social." He argues that political agitation spills over into civil society, and as the extent of political society expands, the sphere of private life must contract. Even liberal researchers acknowledge the tenuousness of the distinction between these spheres (Verba and Nie, 1972). Participation is defined as "political" activity related to decision making (Mason, 1 982), while political activity unrelated to actual decision making is termed "pseudoparticipation" (Verba, 1961). Participatory democracy seeks to maximize the development of individuals through participation. Individuals have the capacity to develop not only their internal selves but also a potential for expanding their self-interest to encompass an identification with and a commitment to the well-being of others (Warren, 1993). For participatory theorists, the principal function of participation in democratic theory is an educative one, which occurs through the processes of deliberation and discourse (Dahl, 1989a; Miller, 1992). Tocqueville (1848) suggests that it is by governing that citizens become educated about government, and that social democracy begets political democracy. Mill ( 1 861 l, despite being a proponent of representative rather than participatory democracy, emphasized that only by practicing government on a limited scale can citizens learn how to exercise it on a 33

PAGE 44

larger scale. Pateman ( 1970) argues "that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment" (p. 1 05). Almond and Verba ( 1 963) first established an empirical connection between political efficacy and participation, a relationship confirmed by subsequent studies (Balch, 1974; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982; Elden, 1981; Finkel, 1985; Kerr, 1989; Wollman and Stouder, 1991; Yeich and Levine, 1994). While liberal theorists emphasize that educated citizens may be more likely to participate in democracy (Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980), participatory theorists argue that participation in democracy builds an educated citizenry. For participatory theorists the prescription for what ails democracy is more democracy in the form of more participation. As Dewey writes, "The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy" (1927, p. 146). Other theorists express similar themes. Barber (1984) argues that participation is directly related to the strength of democracy. Mansbridge ( 1 980) suggests that greater face-to-face participation will facilitate a shift from adversarial to unitary democracy. Jefferson argues for dividing the country into wards as a means of encouraging participation (Dumbauld, 1955). Participatory theorists argue that increasing opportunities for 34 i

PAGE 45

participation will result in an increase in participation, and that increased participation will produce a greater sense of community. How this is supposed to occur is as follows: if groups of citizens get together and discuss issues of common concern to them and which they have some power to resolve, their discussion of "politics" will turn to a discussion of other, more personal matters, and so their relationship will be transformed from just a political relationship (e.g., voter, council member) to a social relationship (e.g., neighbor, friend). In this way participatory theorists view the relationship between politics and community as one in which politics is a necessary although not sufficient means of finding meaning in one's personal life But prescribing more participation and increasing participation are two different things. Bellah eta/. (1985) conclude that Americans participate when they perceive their participation to be relevant and effective. They suggest that the key to making Americans more participatory may be to make their political participation more meaningful in the context of the communities in which they live. Along with a number of other related proposals, several theorists and researchers advocate national political focus groups conducted at the community level (Bryan and McCiaughry, 1989; Dahl, 1994; Fishkin, 1991; Gardner, 1994; Harwood, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c). 35

PAGE 46

I Participation and Voluntary Association The importance of voluntary association and its relationship to democracy traces its roots to Tocqueville (1848), who writes, "In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others" (p. 517). Tocqueville theorized that churches, political parties, and fraternal organizations have served historically as mediating institutions to help sustain democratic values and beliefs and reduce the effects of alienation. Tocqueville was particularly interested in those social forces that fill the gulf between the individual and the state, which he believed operated primarily in the form of voluntary associations. More than in most democracies, voluntary activity in America shapes the allocation of economic, social, and cultural benefits and contributes to the achievement of collective purposes (Wuthnow, 1991). "The vital center of democracy is the community of associations. Any person without access to that forum is effectively denied citizenship" (McKnight, 1987, p. 57). Investigations of participation in voluntary associations illustrate some of the uniquely American aspects of participation. Americans are highest in active membership in community organizations but relatively 36

PAGE 47

low in membership in political organizations (Verba, Nie, and Kim, 1978), preferring voluntary community organizations to politics (Bellah eta!., 1985). Voluntary association membership in Canada and the United States is higher than in Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico (Curtis, 1 971), while voluntary association membership in Scandinavian countries is as high or higher as in Canada and the United States (Smith, 1975). Europeans are more likely to turn to alternative political parties, but Americans are more likely to turn to social movements (Fiacks, 1971; Hampton and Faver, 1990; Hunter, 1991; Levinson, 1974; Piven and Cloward, 1977; Roszak, 1969; Schlesinger, 1992; Skolnick, 1969) .17 Voluntary association persists, but it is not always clear how or why this is so.18 We have a political system laden with rules, but we also have a system suffused with participation, in forms such as advisory boards, citizen groups, and neighborhood councils (Wilson, 1 989). Scholars are showing renewed interest in the topic of voluntary association (Gay, 1990; Markowitz, 1992; Nixon, 1989). As the backbone of civil society, the role of voluntary associations in stimulating political activity merits investigation, since wherever people are brought together, they may chat about politics (Oldenburg, 1989). This is especially true in light of how voluntary associations and members attract each other. McPherson and Rotolo ( 1996) find that sociodemographic 37

PAGE 48

variables define social niches in which voluntary groups compete for members. Such voluntary commitments tend to be long-term and are not easily changed for reasons associated with external political messages (Huckfeldt, 1993). Some scholars are concerned that the mediating processes of secondary associations and intermediate institutions are in decline, leading to an erosion of the traditional source of consensus making that sustains a civic and democratic society (Cohen and Rogers, 1992; Lasch, 1995; Putnam, 1995a, 1995bl .19 Evidence that American progress toward the democratic ideal may be slipping is provided by Putnam (1995a), who argues that America's social capital is dwindling dangerously. He reports that membership in such mainstream associations as Rotary clubs, PTAs, and the Boy Scouts is declining. 20 Putnam acknowledges that the evidence of declining social and civic participation is easier to uncover than the causes. Aristotle held that all associations aim at some good, that the end and purpose of the polis, or political community, is the good life, and that institutions of social life are means to that end (Barker, 1962). Social institutions are the principal mechanism by which society generates "social capital," which is the sense of trust, mutual obligation, and connectedness that a civic society requires (Putnam, 1993). The 38

PAGE 49

ability to form groups depends on trust, and if citizens have the capacity to trust people outside their families, it generates social capital (Fukuyama, 1995). Participatory theorists argue that citizen participation within communities serves to compensate for this decline in social capital (Barber, 1984; Berry eta/., 1993; Langton, 1978). Thus the role of voluntary associations in fostering democratic participation is important to examine, for it is through the process of voluntary association and through the mechanism of secondary institutions that citizens participate in their neighborhoods and communities. Participatory theorists ascribe a democratizing role to voluntary associations. 21 Cohen and Rogers ( 1992) develop a model of "associative democracy," which they define as a deliberate politics of associations, in which the state assumes some responsibility for altering the political environment so as to both increase the number and scope of associations and to expand their role in the political process. Associations can increase democratic participation, but they cannot alleviate all obstacles to democracy, such as ensuring effective representation (lmmergut, 1992). Communitarian theorists suggest that we need to educate ourselves as citizens so that we can make a difference in the institutions 39

PAGE 50

that have such an impact on our lives. Douglas ( 1 986) argues that "The most profound decisions about justice are not made by individuals as such, but by individuals thinking within and on behalf of institutions" (p. 124). Wolfe (1989) suggests that we need a third way to think about moral obligation, one that locates it neither in the state nor in the market, but in everyday life. 22 Voluntary association and participatory democracy connect through a mutual emphasis on face-to-face participation. Face-to-face democracy is a much older form of democracy in which people come together to reason, based on common interests and equal respect (Mansbridge, 1980). Face-to-face association requires that participants know each other and that important decisions are made by people meeting and talking together (las lett, 1956). The small community of face-to-face relationships is the foundation of democratic life (Morgan, 1942). "In the small group .. is where we shall find the inner meaning of democracy, its heart and core" (Follett, 1924, pp 225-226). Face-to-face participation focuses upon the individual as the central actor. Democracy requires that people recognize one another's individuality. Democracy can be "fully effective only if ... people generally relate to each other as equals and with respect for each other's individual differences and interests" (Gould, 1988, p. 257). Participatory 40 I

PAGE 51

democratic decision making entails such reciprocal recognition in order for any individual to identify themselves as a part of the demos (Rucinski, 1991). This face-to-face dimension of participatory democracy is often greeted with a degree of condescension. As Mansbridge (1980) writes: "To people steeped in the adversary tradition, the very notion of unitary democracy usually appears naive and impractical. They assume that interests are always in conflict, that individuals never respect one another equally, that consensus is always a sham in which some are afraid to make their true feelings known, and that face-to-face meetings are too cumbersome to play a significant role in a modern national polity" (p. 23). Participatory theorists respond by suggesting that a model of democracy that applies to the universal meaning of the word "political" rather than to just a political system has implications for everyday life in terms of conversation, love and relationships, raising children, education, families, and work (Mansbridge, 1990b; Pateman, 1979, 1992; Phillips, 1992). Participatory democracy's focus on small-scale levels of organization, association, and collective action is often criticized by liberal theorists who argue that this notion is out of time and place as we approach the 21st century. But practicing self-government in small spheres, as Tocqueville (1848) suggests, impels citizens to larger spheres of political activity as well. The power and potential of attending to small things as a means of promoting large-scale change is attested to by 41

PAGE 52

several recent works. Epidemic theory's concept of a "tipping point" is being applied to a variety of social phenomena (Crane, 1991; Gladwell, 1 996). 23 The increased emphasis of some sities on enforcing minor civic codes appears to correspond to a reduction in more major crime (Kelling and Coles, 1 996). Large-scale social movements have arisen from small voluntary groups with powerful democratic elements within them, including the abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the welfare rights movement, working class protests, the suffragist and ERA movements, and the populist movement of the 1 880s (Evans and Boyte, 1986; lchilov, 1990; Piven and Cloward, 1972, 1977). Sandel (1996bl suggests that the civic education and solidarity cultivated in the black churches of the South were crucial prerequisites for a local political movement that eventually unfolded on a national scale. Gastil ( 1993al concludes that "When connected with participation in larger movements directed at fundamental social change, small group membership can transform not only individuals, but also society" (p. 164). Voluntary association may mitigate against authentic participation, due to factors such as organizational size and scale, short-term interests, "not-in-my-back-yard" attitudes," resistance to change and innovation, and elitist leadership (Fogarty, 1 990; Green, 1985; Jackson; 1 989; 42

PAGE 53

Stamato, 1988). Midgley eta/. (1986) question whether voluntary organizations are any more able to promote authentic participation than the state, and argue that there is little evidence to show that a reliance on nongovernmental organizations results magically in the emergence of genuine forms of participation. In contrast to the "possessive individualism" (Macpherson, 1977) that voluntary association may reinforce, Wuthnow (1995) offers a more hopeful view. He suggests that participation in voluntary associations leads individuals to realize that there are larger problems, that it is necessary to band together with others, and that it often results in their becoming more interested in community affairs, more likely to vote, and more involved in a wider range of public institutions. Wuthnow writes that "It is perhaps paradoxical that participation in voluntary associations often derives from a sense of alienation from public institutions and yet results in greater involvement in these institutions" (p. 213). This is an intriguing paradox of participation that has implications for the legitimacy of public institutions. The Democratic Potential of Neighborhoods For many democratic theorists, the neighborhood is the urban extension of the small town. Urban neighborhoods wear several faces, 43

PAGE 54

including those of a personal arena, a social community, a physical place, a political economy, and an entity within a city and metropolitan region (Hallman, 1 984). Progressive and contemporary writers refer to city neighborhoods as crucibles of civic culture (Sleeper, 1 990), as the nursery of civic life (Follett, 1 91 8), as creators of casual public trust (Jacobs, 1961 ), as switchboards of the community (DeSena, 1994), and as the home of "third places" (Oldenburg, 1989). 24 The city is the true home of citizenship, a responsibility to act with the interests of the community in mind, but many cities discourage their residents from practicing citizenship (Dagger, 1 981). Urban neighborhoods have experienced a decline along with cities. Deprived neighborhoods with a lack of resources but an overabundance of social problems have become a link removed from the chain that connects all of society (Van Rees, 1991). 25 Compared to urban residents, suburban residents generally have higher incomes, less political will to shift resources back to cities, and outnumber urban registered voters (Hallman, 1 984). Scholars argue for a combination of neighborhood organizing, neighborhood-based community development, government and private sector support, and citizen participation and political involvement as the keys to revitalizing urban neighborhoods (Saba and Austin, 1989; Keating eta!. 1996). 26 Urban neighborhoods 44

PAGE 55

retain an important place in civic life, as evidenced by the fact that neighborhood residents report substantial community and private support networks (Krumholz and Star, 1996) and by an extensive body of urban revitalization literature. 27 The relevance of neighborhoods to democracy hinges upon whether neighborhoods qualify as political and public entities (Crenson, 1 983). Neighborhoods are already informally associated for social purposes (Austin and Lowe, 1 994) and are quite ready to be formally constituted for political purposes (Kotler, 1969). 28 Neighborhoods rather than cities are the natural political entities (Hunter, 1979; Kotler, 1969). 29 In contrast to the publicness of cities, neighborhoods convey a sense of private life. The institutions of city government are public organizations, while the principal institutions of neighborhood governance, i.e., neighborhood associations, are private organizations. But the private nature of neighborhoods belies their true publicness: "This inclusive and near-compulsory character differentiates the neighborhood from virtually all other private groups in the society. In fact, the central point is that the residents of a neighborhood do not constitute a private group at all, but a miniature "public" more like citizens than like members of a private association" (Crenson, 1 983, p. 17). The common denominator of both large cities and small towns is that people live in neighborhoods. Urban neighborhoods recreated the 45

PAGE 56

conditions of small-town life, and cities fostered new forms of association, such as trade unions and neighborhood associations. Neighborhood democracy assumes that democratic institutions can be adapted to urban life (Long, 1 980}. The key to making America more participatory lies in the progressive ideal of making political participation more meaningful in the context of the communities that people live in (Bellah eta!., 1985; Berry eta/., 1993}. Contemporary descendants of progressive theorists include the "new urbanists," who recognize the importance of neighborhoods, community, and place (Garreau, 1991; Gerloff, 1994; Katz, 1994; Kemmis, 1990, 1995}, and "civic entrepreneurs," who apply a grass-roots approach to community building and economic renewal (Boyte, 1980; Henton, Melville, and Walesh, 1997}. But critical theorists fear that with urban flight to the suburbs the middle-class neighborhoods and forms of civic association that sustain a vigorous civic culture are rapidly disappearing. In many urban neighborhoods, most traditional forms of civic activity have eroded, leaving religious congregations as the only vital civic institution in many communities (Boyte, 1989). 3 Critical theory offers a normative basis for interpreting SES bias in urban political participation that goes well beyond the positivist interpretation of liberal democratic theory. Most of 46

PAGE 57

the attractions of the modern city are beyond the reach of most of its residents (Lasch, 1995). Neighborhood Participation The principal mechanism of neighborhood governance is the neighborhood association. Sixty percent of large U.S. cities report having an active system of neighborhood councils or associations to represent neighborhood concerns, with nearly three out of four cities reporting an increase in the number of neighborhood councils or associations compared to ten years earlier (Scavo, 1993). Neighborhood participation, in the form of working with others on a local problem, active membership in a community problem-solving organization, and forming a group to help solve a local problem, all showed slight increases from 1 967 to 1 987 (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). In relation to socioeconomic and demographic variables, participation is moderately related to age and education (Hunter, 1975); generally not related to SES, age, race, education, and employment status (Bennett (1989); and strongly related to SES (Berry eta/., 1993). Participation is related to home ownership (Bennett, 1989; Berry eta!., 1993; Hunter, 1975; Rohe and Stegman, 1994; Wandersman eta!., 1 987), although one study has found that public housing tenants are as 47

PAGE 58

likely to become involved in community affairs as homeowners (Reingold, 1995). Income has no effect, education has a weak positive effect, and getting together with neighbors has a strong positive effect (Doyle and Luckenbill, 1993). Participation is inversely related to neighborhood turnover and the proportion of children in the neighborhood, and directly related to SES and age (Abowitz, 1 990). 31 Length of community residence (Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) affects participation, while length of residence affects association membership but not participation (Oropesa, 1992). Women, married people, people who have lived on the block longer, and older people are more likely to be members, while race, occupation, education, the presence of children under age 17, and the number of people in the household are not related (Wandersman eta/., 1987). Social context factors are influential in determining neighborhood and community participation (Giles and Dantico, 1982; Huckfeldt, 1979), and are significant predictors of self-reported participation in community recycling efforts (Gamba and Oskamp, 1 994). 32 Employment and children represent a source of role conflicts for neighborhood residents (Abowitz, 1 990). Members are more likely than nonmembers to report involvement in other community activities, a sense of community about their block, a sense of citizen duty, and political efficacy (Wandersman et 48

PAGE 59

J a/., 1987). Social ties in the community are more important than psychological attachment for both membership and participation (Oropesa, 1992). The tendency to think about moving from the neighborhood declines with participation in neighborhood associations (Oropesa, 1989a), participants are more fearful of crime than nonparticipants (Bennett, 1989), communities with more serious crime problems and with residents who think they receive inadequate police services are more likely to be organized (Bennett, 1995), and a combination of physical problems and social enablers may increase neighborhood participation (Perkins et a/., 1 990). 33 Participation is strongly correlated with neighborhood assimilation, socioeconomic status. and political activities of residents (Olsen, Perlstadt, Fonseca, and Hogan, 1989). There is relatively little data available on neighborhood associations themselves. Studies report membership and participation levels of 8 percent (Taub eta/., 1977), 12 percent (Duncan eta/., 1973; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995), 16. 6 percent (Berry eta/., 1993), 18. 9 percent (Davies, 1994), 20 percent (Oropesa, 1989a), and 30 percent, although this figure includes block associations in addition to neighborhood associations (Hunter, 1974). 34 Even fewer residents are active participants, with relatively little attendance at board meetings 49

PAGE 60

outside of board members (Bolduc, 1980; McNamee and Swisher, 1985). The average resident engages in two acts of neighborhood participation, with the majority of residents engaging in between zero and four acts of participation (Oropesa, 1989b). Neighborhood wealth, stability, resource mobilization, organization structure, and conflict with city agencies are associated with effectiveness (Oropesa, 1989b), although city officials tend not to be appreciably more responsive to participants in neighborhood associations than to neighborhood residents in general (Berry eta/., 1993). Neighborhood Associations and Participatory Democracy Given that a complex society requires a mix of political units of different sizes, participatory theorists cannot argue that neighborhoods are the key to revitalizing democracy. Nor can neighborhood associations and voluntary action address the problems of national economic performance or of national social problems, although they can at least mitigate their consequences for marginal groups and serve as a means of advocating and addressing citizen concerns at the community level (Hirst, 1 992; Stokley and Daysog, 1 994). What neighborhood governance does have to offer is the possibility of face-to-face interaction and collaborative decision making, which lie at the heart of the theory of participatory 50

PAGE 61

I democracy (Berry eta/., 1993; Chrislip, 1994). This form of democratic participation takes place in neighborhood organizations. Neighborhood organizations have been part of American political life since the turn of the century, and provide a form of voluntary association through which neighborhood residents can participate (Frederickson, 1973). 35 Even though liberal theorists argue that these institutions are nonpolitical, they suggest that nonpolitical organizations, including neighborhood associations, are windows on a wider world of civic life, and function to enhance citizens' civic skills (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).36 Neighborhood associations must combine a capacity for both representative and participatory democracy if they are to be successful. Successful neighborhood organizations are those residents claim as their own, i.e., ones they join, participate in, and value highly (Wynn, 1995). But success does not mean that neighborhood organizations are democratic. The rewards for participatory leadership are meager, most neighborhood leaders are of relatively higher SES, and since their rewards are intrinsic, they do not need other residents to be active (Rich, 1 980). Citizen participation organizations may initially promote social change and adhere to participatory democratic processes, but they tend to be absorbed by the very institutional structures they had set out to change 51

PAGE 62

(Gittell, 1980}. The capacity for neighborhood associations to promote external democratic participation presumes a substantial degree of internal democracy, and along this dimension neighborhood organizations are more indicative of representative than participatory democracy (Cnaan, 1991}. The more successful a neighborhood organization becomes, the more it tends to de-emphasize resident participation (Cooper, 1 9801. Neighborhood organizations then face the problem of double closure, excluding those groups that are beyond one's organized groups (Farris, 1988}. This balance between representative and participatory democracy can be seen in their complex relationship with local government, which combines elements of reciprocity and mutual interest with elements of competition and opposition. This relationship is interdependent, and requires an intricate balance of neighborhood autonomy and political responsiveness by city government (Adler and Blake, 1990}. Neighborhood associations are protective of their autonomy, which makes them wary of their dependence on city government for the staff resources that are so vital to their success (Gittell, 1 980}. They are more likely to compete with each other than to mobilize their collective strength because they compete for city-wide resources (Thomas, 1986}. 52

PAGE 63

Local government is perceived as a political ally as often as an opponent, and sometimes as both on the same issue (Logan and Rabrenovic, 1990). The acceptance of participatory democracy by local government has been slow. Evaluation studies suggest that cities should maintain the involvement of neighborhood groups in the municipal decision making process, and that they should be willing to partner participation efforts with neighborhoods, including providing necessary funding (Thomas, 1 986). But the only participation mechanism used by all cities is public hearings, and while 88 percent of cities report providing technical assistance to neighborhood organizations, only 38 percent report providing financial assistance (Scavo, 1 993). Reliance upon administrative mechanisms such as public hearings all too often fails to increase actual citizen participation (Cole and Caputo, 1984). But there are positive signs also. Neighborhood organizations have been able to open up to citizen participation such areas of governance as community development planning, budgeting, and the delivery of basic services (Ahlbrandt and Sumka, 1983; Boyle and Jacobs, 1982). More importantly, yet ironically, neighborhood organizations offer citizens an additional mechanism for participation in the process of governance at a time of increasing dissatisfaction with the institution of government. Does participation through voluntary association at the 53

PAGE 64

neighborhood level offer the potential for realizing the promise of participatory democracy? Neighborhood associations cannot easily claim to be representative, especially when the substantial demands on time and energy mean that relatively few people participate. But they can claim to be responsive to those who choose to participate. Thus while the number of neighborhood association participants is fewer than the number of voters, it is greater than the number of elected and appointed officials who might worry about a particular concern. Within this context, participatory democracy is not a substitute for representative democracy, since each is better at accomplishing a particular democratic ideal than the other. Representative democracy, to the degree that people participate in elections, can better ensure representation than can participatory democracy. But participatory democracy, to the degree that people participate in democracy, can better ensure responsiveness than can representative democracy. Associations empower neighborhoods within the existing representative structure of local government. Neighborhood-based participation systems fulfill a model of democracy substantially different from the representative democracy that exists in most American cities, participation efforts clearly open up broad avenues for citizen involvement beyond electoral politics, and distortions caused by wealth and social 54

PAGE 65

status are not eliminated but neither are they exacerbated (Berry eta/., 1993). Participatory theorists, looking for the bright side, suggest that even so small a concentration of participation may diffuse itself through the community and have a greater impact on nonparticipants than the act of voting by a neighbor has on other neighbors (Berry eta/., 1993), and that even if most people are not active in neighborhood associations, these organizations foster a strong sense of neighborhood identification (Crenson, 1983). They also note that as a society we have not yet tested the limits of participatory democracy. "We have only a brief history of experimenting with the adaptations of democracy to the large scale nation-state. There is plenty of room for innovations" (Fishkin, 1991, p. 25). Summarizing the Participation Perspective There are two general and competing views of the role of citizen participation in the political process, represented by two groups of theories. The first group is referred to as "liberal democracy" (Mason, 1982), "standard liberal democracy" (Warren, 1992), or liberalism (lowi, 1979). The second group is referred to as "participatory democracy" (Mason, 1982; Bachrach and Botwinick, 1992), "expansive democracy" (Warren, 1992), or "unitary democracy" (Mansbridge, 1980). Liberal 55

PAGE 66

theorists seek to balance democratic participation against other political features such as efficiency and pluralism by limiting the spheres of society that are organized democratically. Expansive theorists see such limits to democracy as a cause of many of the ills of liberal democracy and its representative form of government. They presume that the "self" can be transformed by participation in the public arena, while liberal theorists assume that the self is preformed with regard to political participation (Warren, 1992). Liberal theorists do not see expansive democracy as a replacement for representative democracy (Lowi, 1979; Schmitter, 1995). Participatory democracy's radical and leftist roots often arouse antipathy from more mainstream political theorists. While participatory democratic theory is more compatible with faminist thought than liberal democratic theory, it is not without its share of criticism from feminist scholars. Women's involvement in organizations has been important both as an incubator for forms of political participation and as a form of community participation (Cott, 1990; Scott, 1991 ). Some feminist theorists argue that, in concentrating on voting and other forms of electoral participation, political scientists have neglected forms of participation that are especially congenial to women (Acklesberg, 1 984). Feminist scholars have taken this point even further, arguing that the 56 \ j

PAGE 67

definition of politics should be expanded to include all activities undertaken to benefit the community, regardless of whether they involve public authority (Baker, 1984). 37 Regardless of one's particular theoretical perspective, the question of what is the proper relationship between democracy and participation lies at the core of both radical and mainstream political theory. It is a timeless question, and one with revolutionary implications. Recognizing that in democratic theory all roads lead to Rome, Pateman ( 1 970) suggests that liberal political scientists should at least consider, in the absence of actual evidence about the effects of participation, that participatory experiences would enable citizens to better evaluate the performance of their national representatives and the impacts of national policies on their lives. It is also a question that cannot be ignored. As Almond and Verba write in The Civic Culture (1963), "If there is a political revolution going on throughout the world, it is what might be called the participation explosion" (p. 2). Notes 1. As Williams (1976) notes, it was especially unpopular with elites. 2. One example from popular knowledge is Americans' belief in democracy as a majority system, when in reality it operates under plurality rules. An example from social science is that we know a great deal about who participates and who does not, but very little about why people do or do not participate. 57

PAGE 68

3. James Marone (1990) observes that efforts to build more direct democracy also build more government bureaucracy, a point also noted in more generic form by James Wilson (1989), who observes that if we want less we must have less government. 4. Electronic democrats have coined the term "virtual polis" in recent literature on political participation and the internet (Groper, 1996). Their hope that technology can create a virtual polis reflects the pessimistic view most theorists hold of the vitality of the polis in America. 5. The study of participation is divided conceptually among three spheres of activity. Participation in the "political sphere" focuses on electoral activities related to the institution of government. Participation in the "economic sphere" focuses on activities related to workplace decision-making within economic organizations. Participation in the "social sphere" focuses on "non-political" activities within secondary associations and intermediate social institutions that create "community" between the institutions of the family and the state. 6. Landmark political science studies of electoral participation include Berelson eta!. (1954), Campbell eta!. (1960), Almond and Verba (1963), Verba and Nie (1972), and Verba eta/. (1978). 7. Critical theorists like Denhardt ( 1 993), Levitan ( 1 943), Stivers (1993), and Waldo (1980) have assumed the burden of keeping alive public administration's democratic heritage. With the exception of certain policy scholars, many contemporary public administration scholars seem to have forsaken the field's democratic roots and ignore the increased interest other social science disciplines are showing in participation and participatory democracy. Several recent mainstream compilations of public administration thought (Bozeman, 1993; Ingraham and Ketti, 1992; Lynn and Wildavsky, 1990; Perry, 1989) are conspicuously silent on the topics of democracy and participation. For examples of the reemergence of participation as a topic of interest among policy scholars, see Crosby et a!. ( 1 986); de Leon ( 1 992); Fischer ( 1 993); Kathlene and Martin (1991); and Kweit and Kweit (1981). 8. For examples of research in group theory and dynamics, see Braver and Wilson ( 1 986) Kerr ( 1 989), Littlepage and Silbiger ( 1 992), and Wollman and Stouder (1991 ). For examples in organization theory, see Castrogiovanni and Macy (1990), and Yammarino and Naughton (1992). For examples in community theory, see Chavis and Wandersman (1990), 58

PAGE 69

J Perkins et a!. ( 1 990), Yeich and Levine ( 1 994), and Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988). For examples in collective action theory, see Barnes ( 1 992), Breinlinger and Kelly ( 1 995), Heckathorn ( 1 993), and Marwell et a!. (1988). 9. These works are particularly relevant to public policy scholars: Bachrach and Botwinick (1992), Berry eta/. (1993), Dilger (1992), Florin and Wandersman (1990), Marston (1995). These works are particularly relevant to public management/organization scholars: Christenson eta/. (1988), Gastil (1993a), Iannello (1992), Lee (1986), Maxwell (1981). 10. Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) acknowledge that those most likely to be underrepresented are those who lack opinions. 11 The two dominant social sciences of economics and political science have both been heavily influenced by equilibria models developed by classical physics. Systems at or near equilibrium follow specific rules of behavior and are amenable to causal analysis. Within political science, social choice theory and group theory and pluralism attempt to establish the existence of equilibria in political systems. Most political scientists and political theorists have concluded that instances of equilibria are rare in politics, if not nonexistent altogether. For a discussion of the evolution and critique of equilibria models in political science, see Baumgartner and Jones (1993), who argue that the American political system is characterized by a much greater degree of punctuated equilibria, instability, multiple policy venues, and parallel processing than the classical mobilization-countermobilization model dating back to Madison. 12. This view is most famously represented by Joseph Schumpeter, whose gloomy view of and apprehension about socialism colors his theoretical perspective on democracy in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1950). Schumpeter rejects the ideal of participation embodied in classical democratic theory because of its potential for creating political instability. Schumpeter limits democracy to a method for selecting political leaders, a means with no discernible ends. He argues that politicians' competition for political leadership makes it possible for disenfranchised or just unhappy groups to express their dissent and bring some pressure to bear on prospective or current political leaders. 13. Campbell et at. (1960) note that the average citizen's concerns are usually closer at hand, rooted in the daily life of job, home, and family. In 59

PAGE 70

a similar vein, Marone (1990) argues that the current Madisonian form of politics centers too much on the high politics of Washington and is of little immediate interest to the average American. 14. Waldo ( 1980) faults political science for failing to develop a political theory of organization. 1 5. Not all political theorists emphasize the participatory nature of democracy. Participatory democratic theory attempts to develop a conceptual link between the "political," "social," and "economic" spheres. It emerged from attempts to integrate democracy and capitalism through worker participation experiments. Principal participatory theorists include Bachrach and Botwinick (1992), Barber (1984), Benello and Roussopoulos (1971 ), Bottomore (1970), Gastil (1993), Kaufman (1969), Mansbridge (1980), Mason (1982), Mill (1963, 1965), Marone (1990), Olsen (1982), Pateman (1970), Rosenbaum (1978), Rousseau (1950), and Weissberg (1974). Participatory theorists whose principal emphasis is the workplace include Bernstein (1976, 1982), Garson (1974), Greenberg (1986), Krimerman and Lindenfeld (1992), Lindenfeld and Rothschild-Whitt (1982), Mason (1982), Maxwell (1981), Rothschild and Whitt (1986), Weisbord (1987), and Zwerdling (1984). 16. Macpherson (1977) argues that the principle of seeing democracy as a society rather than a system of government is the principle introduced into predemocratic liberal theory in the nineteenth century to make it liberal-democratic. 1 7. This thesis is illustrated by Piven and Cloward ( 1 971), who argue that the poor have fared better by engaging in mass civil movements rather than by participating in electoral politics. Reversing this thesis, one might argue that the surge of recent national interest in a third national political party may result in part from the lack of impetus for some current form of national social movement. 18. For example, Delgado (1989) notes that there is little scholarly research available on the experiences of private foundations in funding community organizations and public policy efforts. He suggests that successful and effective approaches to community revitalization must be evaluated and documented. 19. Secondary associations and intermediate institutions are those social, political, and economic organizations situated between the family 60

PAGE 71

and the state. Much of the current scholarly interest in intermediate institutions is stimulated by Putnam et a/. 's ( 1 993) Tocquevillian study of Italian politics. Putnam and his colleagues argue that the rich civil society of northern Italy has fostered better government than the associationpoor society of southern Italy. Fukuyama (1995) notes that the title of Putnam's book is somewhat misleading in that northern Italy has not always been democratic. 20. As a symbol of this problem, he notes that while more Americans are bowling, fewer are bowling in leagues and groups. 21 Communitarian theorists also place a great deal of importance on intermediate institutions. Bellah eta/. (1991) report that many Americans see individuals as pitted against institutions. They see this dilemma as paradoxical in that faith and trust in institutions is declining in a society that is becoming increasingly dependent upon and driven by institutions. Institutions can be constraining, but they can also be enabling. Drawing on twentieth-century political philosophy, particularly the work of John Dewey, Bellah eta/. (1991) envision the good society in terms of a widening of democratic participation and accountability of institutions, and an interdependence between democratic participation and institutions themselves. 22. Wolfe's argument resonates with the ideas of Robert Bellah eta/. in The Good Society (1991 ). But as Christopher Lasch (1995) points out, although both works seek a third way, like most communitarians they are more critical of the market than of the welfare state. 23. In epidemic theory a tipping point refers to the point at which a relatively controlled phenomenon becomes uncontrolled. Epidemic theory is applied to social phenomena to help explain why a relatively large intervention may have little or no impact if the tipping point is out of reach, while a relatively small intervention may have a large impact if the tipping point is within reach. 24. The social and political importance of neighborhoods to urban life has been well documented (Antunes and Plumlee, 1977; Saba and Austin, 1989; Cnaan, 1991 b; Crenson, 1983; Davison, 1988; Follett, 1918; Frederickson, 1973; Gay, 1990; Hallman 1974, 1984; Jacobs, 1961; Keller, 1968; Kotler, 1969; Marston, 1995; National Commission on Neighborhoods, 1 979; National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, 1968; Schild, 1994; South, 1987; Suttles, 1972; 61

PAGE 72

t I Taylor, 1986; Thomas, 1986; Yates, 1973). 25. Van Rees (1991) suggests that having now been rejected by society, deprived urban neighborhoods are on a par with asylums and prisons. 26. For a detailed analysis of the history, evolution, and development of neighborhoods in America, see Keating eta!. ( 1 996) who trace the emergence of neighborhoods in mid-nineteenth century cities, the impact of European and southern migrations, theories of neighborhood change, the history of neighborhood organizing, and the impact of federal policy on the decline, redevelopment, and revitalization of urban neighborhoods. 27. There is an extensive literature on neighborhood revitalization. For a sampling of contemporary explications of the issues and challenges faced by urban neighborhoods, see Bennett (1990), Boyte (1989), Cochrun (1994), Davis (1991 ), Fisher (1994), Halprin (1995), Pierce ( 1 9931, Scavo ( 1 993), and Williams and Laird ( 1 992). 28. Kotler makes a interesting connection between the social sphere of community participation and the political sphere of government participation. He suggests that local formal organizations attract local leadership because the political objectives of neighborhood organizations do not threaten the existing social structure of community leadership. 29. Crenson (1983) argues that neighborhoods have three distinct characteristics that qualify them as political entities: (1) neighborhoods can be direct participants in the political process; (2) neighborhoods can perform internal functions that imitate the political system itself; and (3) neighborhood membership is based on geographic location, and the necessary qualifications for being a neighbor are about as indiscriminate and inclusive as the requirements for citizenship. 30. San Antonio, one of the cities used in this study, is an example of a city where nonpolitical religious affiliation led to the creation of a political organization. Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS) is a citizens' group founded in 1974 in the impoverished Hispanic neighborhoods of San Antonio. Its civic base is the network of Catholic parishes. COPS provides the institutional resources for citizens to develop their political capacity. 62

PAGE 73

31 Abowitz { 1990) developed her article from her doctoral dissertation, which was based on a secondary analysis of data for Detroit from 1975 {n=664). 32. Social context reflects almost exclusively the influence of neighborhood social class composition or status. 33. This is perhaps not such a surprising finding given that Bennett specifically looked at neighborhood watch programs. 34. Block associations appear to have been generally excluded from most studies of neighborhood and community participation. Perhaps their form of organization is deemed too informal even by community participation standards. 35. They gained recognition first through the settlement house movement, civic clubs, and neighborhood improvement associations, and later through community organizing programs of the 1 960s and community populism of the 1970s. 36. While the vast literature on community organizing and community organizations is beyond the scope of this study, several works connect community organizations to neighborhood democracy. Katan and Cnaan {1986) identify three main stages of neighborhood social development in Israel: the neighborhood as a community, the decline of the neighborhood as a community, and the renewal of the neighborhood as a community. Checkoway ( 1991) finds that organizations that successfully encourage participation have a strong executive director and leadership core, active board or committee members, staff members who are developed and transitioned from voluntary action to professional expertise, and evidence a demonstrated commitment to their neighborhoods. Mclaughlin, lrby, and Langman ( 1 994) argue for turning more policy attention to the role of community organizations in strengthening neighborhoods, and for designing ways to strengthen existing successful organizations and create needed new ones. 37. Mainstream political science has developed a reputation for slighting nonelectoral forms of citizen participation because the single best source of continuing survey data is the biennial National Election Study. Because it is anchored in national elections, the NES naturally emphasizes voting and other forms of electoral participation (Schlozman eta/., 1995). 63

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE Democratic governance refers to they way in which governing institutions carry out the process of governance in accordance with democratic norms, especially citizen participation. This chapter discusses the relationship between participation and democratic governance in terms of the concepts of legitimacy, capacity, and community. Legitimacy refers to the attitudes that characterize the relationship between citizens and government. Democratic governance theory suggests that, to a large extent, legitimacy depends upon the active participation of citizens. Capacity refers to the attitudes and beliefs of citizens about their ability to engage in political participation, and the degree to which participation in the process of governance leads to further participation. Democratic governance theory suggests that citizens have the capacity to become knowledgeable about politics, and to use this knowledge to participate in self-governance. Community refers to the degree to which participation in the process of governance creates a sense of belonging among participants, and helps participants to connect their self-interest to concern for the larger community. 64

PAGE 75

l Democratic governance theory suggests that participation helps to create a sense of community among participants, and that participation leads to the development of communitarian attitudes. Participation and Legitimacy The history of the modern state is characterized by an "extended sense of crisis" (Freedman, 1978, p. 9). This sense of crisis persists today, and is reflected in the growing numbers of citizens who "are questioning the effectiveness of our public institutions" (Putnam, 1995b, p. 33), and by the "repudiation of democracy in its most generous incarnations from within" (Eishtain, 1995, p. xiiil. The roots of this crisis of legitimacy stem from a sense of political unease dating back prior to the American Revolution (Lockridge, 1981 ). Part of this unease is due to the tension between competing democratic ideals. 1 Both liberal and communitarian elements have been present throughout the political history of the American republic, with the republican tradition predominant in the first half of the nation and the liberal tradition supplanting it by the mid-twentieth century (Sandel, 1 996bl. The triumph of a liberal public philosophy over a republican one has resulted in a "procedural republic," with adverse consequences for democratic politics and the legitimacy of the regime (Sandel, 1988). 65

PAGE 76

Critical theorists agree that this sense of crisis permeates the nation as a whole, and that it questions the very legitimacy of democracy. 2 Observers attribute this crisis to a decline in civic culture and democratic dispositions (Eberly, 1994; Elshtain, 1995; Lasch, 1995; Saul, 1995), to liberalism's adoption of moral relativism and neutrality (Berger, 1992; Moynihan, 1993; Rauch, 1994; Schlesinger, 1992), to the "false choices" offered by both liberals and conservatives that produce increasing polarization and alienation (Bok, 1997; Dionne, 1991; Eberly, 1995; Wolfe, 1989), and to the ideological contradictions between capitalism and democracy (Adamson, 1990; Orren, 1988; Parenti, 1995). While public administration theorists debate the meaning, relevance, and even existence of the "public interest" (Barzelay, 1992; Frederickson, 1991; Goodsell, 1990; Stillman, 1996), other scholars are attempting to revitalize this idea (Orren, 1988; Persons, 1990; Saul, 1995). The notion of public interest necessarily lies at the heart of the problem of legitimacy, since government is the only organized mechanism that makes possible that level of shared disinterest known as the public good (Saul, 1 995). 3 Sandel ( 1988) draws this connection when he asks, "But what theory of the public interest is appropriate to an administrative state that is also a democratic state" (p. 1 09). The inability of theorists and politicians to identify and understand 66 I .I l.

PAGE 77

the public interest is clearly understood by the public and is reflected in their growing dissatisfaction with government.4 The public's increasing dissatisfaction with how democracy is working has led to an increase in proposals from every sphere of life to make democracy work better.5 While many citizens cite a lack of responsiveness on the part of government and elected officials as to what is wrong with democracy, the problem may be just the opposite (King, 1997). 6 Participation and Administrative Legitimacy Administrative legitimacy as a topic of inquiry for public administration connects governmental legitimacy with administrative processes (Freedman, 1978). Public administration theorists frame the issue of legitimacy by asking, "Does a democratic society require democratic institutions?"7 Some public administration theorists argue that autocratic administration may be required in a democratic society (Goodnow, 1900; Gulick and Urwick, 1937; Hamilton, 1961; McGregor, 1984; Perry, 1989; Simon, 1976; White, 1926; Wilson, 1887). Critical theorists argue that the administration of democratic institutions cannot be separated from a democratic society, and that a focus on administrative efficiency which minimizes or excludes democratic values in turn diminishes democracy (Appleby, 1945; Denhardt, 1981; Hart, 67 ; I

PAGE 78

1974; Lee, 1986; Levitan, 1943; Waldo, 1984). The normative implications of this argument bear directly upon the theoretical relationship between participation and administrative legitimacy. 8 Since its inception, public administration has repeatedly faced the challenge of how to conceptualize and design a means of legitimizing the administrative state. 9 Despite repeated theoretical reformulations, little progress has been made in resolving this public administration paradox that scholars described nearly half a century ago.10 Ironically, at the time Waldo and other scholars raised this fundamental normative issue, the American administrative state was enjoying a period of unparalleled support and faith in its legitimacy (Van Riper, 1983). But this "popular legitimacy" was short-lived, as it came under attack in the mid-1960s. Thus began the contemporary "crisis of legitimacy" that has led many political leaders to undermine public trust by campaigning against government bureaucracy, public intrusion in the "private" realm of affairs, and against government itself.11 This crisis of legitimacy questions the very essence of what it means to participate in and practice democracy .12 It is a crisis of citizenship and civic culture.13 Theoretical connections between participation and legitimacy are an integral part of the intellectual heritage of public administration. These connections can be seen in administrative theory (Levitan, 1943; Redford, 68

PAGE 79

1969; Stivers, 1990; Wamsley eta/., 1990) and in public management and organizational theory (Argyris, 1964; Barnard, 1938; Follett, 1940; Denhardt, 1990, 1 993; Romzek, 1 992; White, 1 990). Concerns about legitimacy permeate, if not dominate, contemporary public administration theory (Campbell and Naulls, 1992; Denhardt, 1990, 1993; Farazmand, 1989; Ostrom, 1989; Rohr, 1986; Spicer, 1995; Stivers, 1993; Waldo, 1980, 1990; Wamsley eta/., 1990). The emergence of democratic governance theory and policy science theory represent the two most significant public administration responses to the crisis of legitimacy. They are of particular interest and relevance to this study because they share several theoretical and normative premises with participatory democratic theory. The policy sciences are of relatively recent origin, dating to the formulation of the "policy sciences of democracy" (Lasswell, 1971). Democratic governance, in numerous forms and incarnations, has surfaced repeatedly as a critical issue in the discipline. 14 Democratic governance theory addresses the issue of administrative legitimacy by attempting to specify the normative foundations of the administrative state. The most important theoretical formulation of democratic governance theory can be seen in the Blacksburg Manifesto of the late 1 980s, which calls for a refounding of 69

PAGE 80

public administration based on a new paradigm of the relationship between citizens and the state (Wamsley eta/., 1990). Refounding theorists suggest that public administration theory is a theory of governance, and is by nature a normative theory. They argue that the quest for such a normative theory must include an examination of the nature of the relationship between administrative practice and the ultimate source of values in a democratic polity, that is, the people (Stivers, 1 990). This relationship suggests that to the degree that the administrative state fails to maximize participation in democracy, it is regarded by citizens as less legitimate. In this way the theory of democratic governance advanced in the Blacksburg Manifesto links the legitimacy of the administrative state with active citizen participation. 15 The policy analysis paradigm exists in genuine tension with the institutions and principles of democracy, meaning that policy analysis is confronted with significant normative issues related to determining citizen preferences, resolving conflict, and creating meaningful opportunities for participation (Jenkins-Smith, 1990). This tension is a legacy of the politics-administration dilemma, which provides us no way to acknowledge publicly the interconnectedness of policymaking and administration, despite the fact that we all acknowledge it privately (McSwain, 1985). This results in democracy and the policy sciences 70

PAGE 81

seeming an unlikely couple, in that they combine rational and efficient policy analysis and nonrational and inefficient politics (deLeon, 1995). Policy science should be subject to the democratic norm of citizen participation (deLeon, 1 995) and should be informed by the epistemological and political aspects of a participatory methodology (Fischer, 1993) because politics and methodology converge on participation (Torgerson, 1986). Participatory policy analysis can protect the normative elements of democratic policy analysis (Dryzek, 1989; Durning, 1993), and can improve policy making because democratizing the process promotes rather than impedes rationality (Renn eta/., 1 993). Normative democratic criteria can be used to judge to what extent and in what way a specific participatory mechanism makes a policy process more democratic (Fiorino, 1990). The legitimacy of policy making depends on normative criteria such as the quality of representation and participation (Persons, 1990) and reducing the inherent bias toward policymakers as the only legitimate clients (deLeon, 1993). In light of the limitations of social science, it is difficult for public administrators to seek legitimacy on the basis of expertise (Lindblom, 1990). Normative considerations prohibit excluding scientific and technological policy issues from the scope of citizen participation (Laird, 1993). Since policy expertise flourishes as 71

PAGE 82

abundantly in the outside world as it does within government (Rourke, 1992) and technical policy methodologies are inherently limited, the reluctance to involve lay persons becomes untenable (Robinson, 1992). While political knowledge is not a substitute for political judgment, citizens can judge only on the basis of a great deal of knowledge, and while political education can be a consequence of participation, it need not be the reason (Parry, 1 989). This normative conceptualization of participation in public administration has two important implications for the legitimacy of the administrative state. Participation expands the technical, rational, and instrumental boundaries of public administration theory to include politics, values, and human behavior (Adams, 1 992; Denhardt, 1 990); and it expands the boundaries of public administration practice from the institution of government to include the process of governance (Iannello, 1 992; Sergiovanni, 1 984; Waldo, 1952; Wamsley eta/., 1990). Today, it is nearly a cliche to say that the American administrative state faces a crisis of legitimacy.16 Yet there is ample evidence to suggest that this crisis extends beyond the institution of government and beyond the profession of public administration. An "uncivic" culture is unlikely to create strong public faith in the legitimacy of the administrative state, or in high levels of trust in government, or in 72

PAGE 83

widespread citizen participation. From a participatory democratic perspective, the administrative state must be able to equip citizens and "citizen-administrators" (Cooper, 1984) with the civic skills necessary to participate both "at work" and "after hours" (Waldo, 1984). The political consequence of nonparticipation or "pseudoparticipation" is that it diminishes the legal-rational legitimacy of the state, thereby diminishing the state's capacity to command moral compliance, the foundation of meaningful public policy (Ingram and Schneider, 1993; Spicer, 1995). In this context, the crisis of civic culture is the crisis of administrative legitimacy writ large. 17 Participation and Political Legitimacy Despite the recent flurry of attention paid to the crisis of legitimacy, our political legitimacy may have suffered irreparable harm. American political culture has always been characterized by citizens' trust in government as a condition of government performance (Nelson, 1986). Democracy requires a degree of trust that we often take for granted (Bellah eta!., 1991 ). "Democracy relies on trust. There is no substitute for it" (Fiuno, 1971, p. 209). Trust in government peaked during the period between World War II and the 1960s (O'Neill, 1986). Research in the 1950s and early 1960s found Americans loyal and trusting of political 73 j

PAGE 84

j authorities (Almond and Verba, 1963). Since the mid-1960s, a large number of studies have found substantial declines in political trust and confidence. The decline of political trust between constituents and their representatives, documented through public opinion studies, is among the most clearly documented trends in American public opinion (Abramson and Finifter, 1982; Bianco, 1994; Feldman, 1983; Gallup, 1992, 1994; Hart, 1978). In 1964, 72 percent of Americans surveyed scored medium or high on a political trust index. By 1968 this figure had declined to 64 percent, and it continued to decline to 53 percent in 1970, 50 percent in 1972, 36 percent in 1974, and 33 percent in 1978. The proportion of Americans who reply that they trust the government in Washington only some of the time or almost never has risen steadily from 30 percent in 1966 to 75 percent in 1992. In 1964, 76 percent of Americans believed they could trust the government in Washington, DC to do what is right most of the time. Thirty years later, only 20 percent of Americans believe they can trust the government in Washington, DC to do what is right most of the time. In 1964, fewer than one in three Americans believed that government is run by a few big interests rather than for the benefit of all the people By the 1990s, three-fourths of Americans believe that government is run by 74

PAGE 85

and for the benefit of the few. In 1960, 25 percent of Americans thought that public officials do not care much what people like them think. In 1990, 64 percent thought so. Confidence in government did rebound, albeit temporarily, during the early Reagan years (Upset and Schneider, 1987). Americans are also less trusting overall. The proportion saying that most people can be trusted fell from 58 percent in 1 960 to 35 percent in 1 994. Respondents with lower levels of social trust are also less likely to trust government, less likely to vote, and less likely to feel that they have a say in what government does; and the typical American is not inclined to trust most people and holds particularly dim views of federal and state government (Woodward, 1997).18 Citizens in cities with higher education levels and above average economic growth rates have less cynicism towards government; have higher levels of cynicism in cities where members of the city council and the media are cynical; and have less cynicism in cities with a strong history of citizen participation (Berman, 1997). Declining political participation results from deteriorating political relationships between citizens and government (Craig, 1996). Citizens question their relationship with local government when it uses its power against them or does not help them; when they feel disconnected, 75

PAGE 86

misunderstood or ignored; and when they consider government services and policies to be ineffective (Bianco, 1994; Robertson and Tang, 1995). Manifestations of public cynicism include pervasive beliefs that government policies and public officials are corrupt, inept, or out to take advantage of citizens (Johnson, 1993). One consequence of this decline is that hope for a participatory politics is diminished. As White (1980) explains in terms of lessons learned from the 1960s and 1970s: "One of these lessons is that participation in the traditional sense as group involvement, community development, and so on are lost hopes ... People will perhaps be interested in finding ways of collaborating to find or create concrete solutions to their immediate situation, but they will no longer have the faith in government or power, the sense of community, or the motive toward group involvements that is required to sustain the mystique of participation as a solution" (1980, p. 211). A second consequence is that the crisis of legitimacy will persist. "But the crisis of legitimacy is still with us; indeed, some believe it has even grown more acute" (Mansbridge, 1980, p. 299). Participation and Capacity After voting, political efficacy is the most studied phenomenon in political participation. But just as some theorists call for an expanded conceptualization of participation, so too do some call for an expanded conceptualization of efficacy. Suggesting concepts such as "participatory 76

PAGE 87

persuasion" (Mason, 1982), "participatory community" (Fowler, 1991), "political capacity" (Berry eta!., 1993), and "participatory equality" (Verba eta/., 1995), they argue for moving beyond just the study of attitudes to include participation behavior as well. For purposes of this study, political capacity consists of two concepts drawn from participation research: political efficacy and participation spillover. Political efficacy, a core concept in liberal democracy, refers to citizens' confidence in their ability to understand politics, to participate in the political process, and their belief that government will be responsive to their participation. Participation spillover, a core concept in participatory democracy, refers to the belief that the skills and attitudes shaped by participation in one setting allow individuals' to transfer their "participatory persuasion" to other settings. Political efficacy represents an attitudinal component of political capacity, while participation spillover represents a behavioral component. Institutions and associations develop political capacity and provide opportunities for its exercise (Cohen and Rogers, 1992; Young, 1992). This effect occurs through the effect of institutions and associations on participants (Barzelay, 1992; Bennis, 1989; Emmert eta/., 1983; Handy, 1990; Harmon, 1981; Milward eta/., 1993; Senge, 1990), through the influence of institutions and participants on each other (Abramson, 1990; 77

PAGE 88

Orians, Liebow, and Brach, 1995; Rich, Edelstein, and Wandersman, 1995; Stern; 1988; Wilson and Zhou, 1992), and through the influence of participants on each other (Bentley, 1995; Gilmore and Barnett, 1992; Lynn, 1993). The institutional democracy of public, private, and nonprofit institutions, the participatory democracy of citizens and neighborhoods, and the representative democracy of government are each essential to this process (Potapchuk, 1996). Together these systems provide the social and political capital for a sustainable democratic politics. Individuals acquire political capacity through two paths: one path is basically socioeconomic, while the other path is based on political socialization (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). Research in political capacity examines the influence of political socialization and socioeconomic resources on political participation (Florin, Jones, and Wandersman, 1986; Jennings and Niemi, 1974, 1981; Liebes and Ribak, 1992; Onibokun, 1990; Serow, 1990; Sundeen, 1988; Wilson, 1990). Participatory theorists suggest that the development of citizen capacity is important to the health of democracy (Gross and Zeleny, 1958; Miljeteig-Oissen, 1992) and that civic virtue equals the proud exercise of the capacity for self-government in public and private life (Macedo, 1989). Democracy asks that citizens be politically competent, 78

PAGE 89

which requires political knowledge and political participation (Dahl, 1995). The problem of civic competence can be expressed in terms of democracy's requirement for a certain level of political competence and a growing body of evidence that reveals grave limits to citizens' political competence (Dahl, 1992), such as the 55 percent national no-show rate for jury service (Schachter, 1997). However, the practices and institutions of modern democratic societies do not produce a sufficiently competent citizen who can wrestle with the heavy demands of participatory democracy (Berry et at., 1993; Dahl, 1995; Mansbridge, 1980; Weissberg, 1974). The heavy demands of participatory democracy may pose barriers to developing political capacity, but certainly no more than representative democracy, and probably a great deal less. Citizens report that while they are not heard by government they can be heard through associations and collective action; that they have not rejected politics but they are abstaining from it; they are not apathetic, but they are frustrated; they care, but do not see how to express that caring so that it makes a difference; community problems can be solved, but political problems cannot because they are too big; they see politics as rules, laws, and it is dirty; politics has nothing to do with why they are involved in their community; their sense of political efficacy is stronger locally and at 79

PAGE 90

home, and weaker as one moves farther away in the political system; that they mostly do not consider their local and community involvement a part of politics; and that they do not consider themselves to be involved in politics or to be politically efficacious (Harwood, 1991 b). Nor do the demands of participation preclude the development of political capacity. Citizens recognize that they too have a responsibility to enlarge the public voice; when they do participate in politics it is because they see a possibility of creating positive change; they are more likely to work with each other at the neighborhood and community level to solve a problem; they seek opportunities for self-government where those opportunities are available; when they do get involved it is because they believe they can have a say, they believe they can create a sense of community; they realize that campaign reform, term limits, and more laws will not fix what is wrong with politics; they recognize the need for more activity and participation at the local and community level, and that nothing will change unless people act; they recognize and embrace their sense of civic duty; they realize that tl1ey are an essential part of the political process and of democracy; and they understand that they must participate for it to work effectively (Harwood, 1991 b). Contrary to the expectations of liberal democracy, it appears that most citizens hold high expectations of their own political capacity. If 80

PAGE 91

citizens are to develop this capacity, government and politics must embrace the development of citizens as a primary goal. But the sense of most citizens, and many critical theorists, is that few people in politics and government are willing to listen to citizens. As Bryan and McCiaughry ( 1 989) write: "Americans no longer feel at ease because Washington has become fascinated with the techniques of governance. It is too busy worrying about how many people die on the highways, or whether or not teachers do their job well, or about the details of pothole filling, or public welfare programs. As the nation has lost faith in the localities' abilities to handle such matters, so too have individuals lost faith in the nation's capacity to provide for the general welfare. We say again: there is enough work for everyone. If the national government does not entrust domestic functions to the states and communities, it will fail at its most important task, the maintenance of the context for a democratic civil order. And in heart and mind Americans will continue to drift away from the center" (pp. 274-275). Government can inhibit participation and the development of political capacity through the behavior of public agencies. For example, proposals by public agencies are often presented in difficult-to-understand technical language (Checkoway, 1981). The reinventing government initiative, also known as the National Performance Review, promises to enhance citizen capacity by empowering citizens and streamlining administrative procedures. But reinventing government is more in the liberal than the participatory tradition, and is unlikely to have any discernible impact on the political capacity of citizens (Schachter, 1997). 81

PAGE 92

Government can also enhance citizen capacity. Public agencies can learn to provide technical assistance that can make citizen participation more effective and advantageous (Cohen, 1995). Participatory forms of administration are effective in many public administration contexts (Bryant and Kearns, 1982; Denhardt eta!., 1987). Participation in recycling programs is significantly higher in communities that place greater importance on citizen involvement in the planning and design of such programs (Folz, 1991), suggesting that when citizens have a say in governance they are more likely to engage in the coproduction of public goods and services. 19 Political Efficacy Political efficacy is the feeling "that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e., that it is worthwhile to perform one's civic duties" (Campbell eta/., 1954, p. 187}. 20 People with greater participation exhibit significantly higher levels of political efficacy (Almond and Verba, 1963; Finkel, 1985; Greenberg, Grunberg, and Kelley, 1996; Sigelman and Feldman, 1983; Wandersman and Florin, 1991). 21 Individuals who report a greater amount of political participation score higher on indices of empowerment (Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1 988). The question of whether there is any 82

PAGE 93

evidence to suggest that participation in non-governmental settings contributes to this sense of political efficacy (Pateman, 1970) connects the liberal concept of political efficacy with the participatory democratic com;ept of participation spillover. A surge of interest in political efficacy research in the 1 970s began to produce less consistent results. 22 Researchers began to explore the possibility that political efficacy really measured two distinct sets of attitudes (Balch, 1974). Subsequent analyses based on this line of inquiry revealed flaws in the standard battery of agree-disagree questions (Acock, 1990; Aish and Joreskog, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989). It soon became apparent that these attitudinal measures did not tap just a single dimension of political efficacy. 23 Political scientists concluded that the construct of political efficacy includes two related but distinct attitudinal dimensions, internal and external efficacy, with participation as the theoretically expected outcome of political efficacy (Stenner-Day and Fischele, 1992). Internal efficacy refers to an individual's sense that he or she is capable of understanding politics and influencing the political process. A statement like "Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on" is representative of the type of question used to gauge internal efficacy 83

PAGE 94

(Mattei, 1991). External efficacy refers to an individual's sense that government will be responsive to his or her attempts to influence it through the process of political participation. A statement like "If you explained your point of view to government officials, what effect do you think it would have?" is representative of the type of question used to gauge external efficacy (Balch, 1974; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982). Early studies suggested that causality is unidirectional, with some researchers arguing that efficacy causes participation, while others maintained that participation produces political efficacy. Finkel (1985) finds that causality is reciprocal for political participation and external efficacy, but not for internal efficacy. External efficacy influences participation and participation influences external efficacy. Internal efficacy influences participation, but participation does not influence internal efficacy. Finkel's study suggests that participation is more likely to be the effect rather than the cause of internal efficacy. He interprets his findings as somewhat negative support for democratic theories that stress the developmental aspects of participation. Most subsequent studies find support for the idea of idea of reciprocal causality between political participation and political efficacy (Aish and Joreskog, 1990; Berry eta/., 1993; Muller and Seligson, 1994; Niemi, Craig, and Mattei, 1991; Stenner-Day and Fischele, 1992). 24 84

PAGE 95

' l i The question of the relationship between efficacy and face-to-face political participation is of relatively recent origin. Research into political efficacy typically uses electoral forms of political participation. Participatory theorists argue that participation in strong or face-to-face democracy differs from participation in weak or liberal democracy. Political efficacy is related to a variety of forms of community participation (Berry eta/., 1993}, but the empirical connection between efficacy and participation in neighborhood associations has not yet been examined. Participation Spillover Participatory democracy suggests that participation in one sphere of life can "spill over" into other spheres (Mason, 1982; Pateman, 1 970). 25 Participation spillover can be conceptualized as a behavioral component to political efficacy; to the extent that individuals increase their sense of political efficacy, they should be more likely to increase their participation in political activities, and vice versa. The concept of participation spillover is far more theoretical than empirical, in keeping with the tradition of participatory democracy dating to antiquity. 26 The concept of participation spillover was developed by political theorists who saw the potential of the workplace as a training ground for 85

PAGE 96

I democracy, 27 and who saw workplace democracy as the next great frontier in the struggle for democracy (Barber, 1984; Bowles and Gintis; 1986; Carney and Shearer, 1979; Cohen and Rogers, 1983; Dahl, 1985; Gould, 1988; Greenberg, 1986; Lane, 1985; Mason, 1982). 28 The next stage of democratization in the West is expected to be the devolution of authority in the workplace, because the idea that wisdom rests with an elite group of guardians has not only been rejected by society as a whole, it also is not true inside work organizations (Dahl, 1989bl. 29 Work is relevant to the study of participation because it is more central to most people's lives than politics (Mason, 1982) and it is the means through which we create ourselves (Warren, 1993). The workplace is relevant because it approximates a community and offers the possibility of research in the form of controlled experiments which are unlikely in the political world (Berry eta!., 1993). The ideas of workplace theorists are relevant because social, political, and economic changes have blurred the boundaries between the public and private spheres (National Civic League, 1992; O'Toole, 1993; Wood well, 1994). The normative arguments made by participatory theorists for a workplace connection to democracy bear a striking resemblance to the normative arguments of democratic governance theorists. The concept of governance extends the public interest to the workplace in ways which 86

PAGE 97

the concept of government cannot. Members of any association for whom the assumptions of the democratic process are valid have a right to govern themselves by means of the democratic process; if democracy is justified in governing the state, then it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises (Dahl, 1985). The merely business aspect of government is the least important; the most important aspect of government is its influence on human development (Mill, in Himmelfarb, 1962). The workplace can play a role in realizing the ideal of democracy and in developing the political capacity of citizens. Socialization in the family, and to a lesser extent, socialization in school, represents inadequate training for political participation; of crucial significance for the development of political efficacy are opportunities to "participate in decisions at one's place of work" (Almond and Verba, 1963, p. 294). Workplace democracy encourages employees to view themselves as responsible actors, i.e., citizens, rather than as actors dependent on such external forces as the market (Macpherson, 1977). Participation in the governance of the workplace is a means to achieving the good life (Mill, 1848). Workplace participation is believed to lead to political participation in the wider political system. Democratic institutions help shape the 87

PAGE 98

character and political efficacy of individuals in a way that leads them to greater political participation (Mill, 1 848). Workers who are taught to think for themselves will carry over that role to political life, which will also assist in transforming the existing political system into a more democratic one (Cole, 1920). Workplace democracy would lead to a stronger sense of political efficacy that would in turn lead to higher levels of participation in local, state, and national politics (Pateman, 1970). Like democratic governance theory, participation spillover frames the normative implications of participation in terms of citizenship (Bottomore, 1970). Political and Workplace Spillover. The relationship between worker control and political efficacy is mediated by satisfaction with self management opportunities and satisfaction with work; the level of self determination and self-governance at work is strongly associated with a more active social life; and having some power over one's work covaries with one's attitude toward taking up participatory opportunities (Elden, 1 981). Workers with control over immediate tasks are no more likely than other workers to participate in political groups, but workers with input into the firm's resource allocation and business practices are significantly more likely to participate in the political system than are other workers (Arrighi and Maume, 1994). 30 88

PAGE 99

The hypothesized spillover effect of workplace participation on political activity is difficult to test directly, and only a handful of studies report empirical results. Participation in direct decision making does not lead to the development of cooperative and egalitarian orientations among worker-shareholders (Greenberg, 1981 a), and they are less likely to participate in outside community and political affairs than traditional workers (Greenberg, 1981 b). 31 Worker-shareholders are significantly less likely to participate in the activities of organizations outside of the workplace than are conventional workers, although they reach parity over time; they are consistently more involved in political participation, although only participation in community affairs and public hearings were statistically significant; and they are slightly more likely to espouse values of self-interest over values of the public interest (Greenberg, 1 986). 32 Although not statistically significant, active involvement in cooperative political affairs serves as an instrument of education for participation outside the firm; but workplace participation does not enhance workers' sense of political efficacy, either at a single point in time or over a five year period (Greenberg, 1986). 33 Direct face-to-face workplace participation is significantly related to campaign and community participation, but not voting; representative participation is negatively related to voting, campaign, and community 89 i

PAGE 100

participation; and autonomy on the job is significantly related to community participation but not to campaign participation or voting (Greenberg, Grunberg, and Kelley, 1996).34 These findings support the argument that the likelihood of spillover is greater in those areas of participation where compatibility exists between workplace and outside political authority structures (Sobel, 1 993). Political and Social Spillover. The relationship between "political" and "social" participation is one of the most unambiguous findings in participation research. Participation in social and economic institutions, such as the family, school, and work, influences political participation (Almond and Verba, 1963). 35 Although social status is strongly related to political participation, organizational involvement is the strongest predictive variable (Nie et a/., 1 969). Membership in voluntary associations is positively related to voting (Olsen, 1972), and to voting, political group membership, and active political participation (Sallach et a/., 1972). Within a given social system each new participant triggers others, helping the social system to reach a threshold level, where it moves from noncooperative equilibrium to a dynamic, cooperative system (Macy, 1991). Retirement reduces formal social participation but increases informal social participation (Khullar, 1988). Community leadership 90

PAGE 101

development program participants take a more active role in their communities after the program than participants do before the program (Rohs and Langone, 1 993). Researchers have shown interest in the recent societal increase in religious participation. Religious participation contributes to voting, with a generally greater impact on blacks than whites, and it contributes to voluntary association membership, but more for whites than blacks (Secret, Johnson, and Forrest, 1990). Greater church participation (membership, involvement in church problem solving groups, participation in church decision making, and church attendance) is related to greater political conservatism and somewhat more politicization (interest in politics, basic level of political knowledge, and extent of participation in political activities), with some variations by race, SES, and religious denomination and independent of church doctrine (Peterson, 1992a). The influence of the liberal paradigm of participation is so strong that political scientists often have difficulty conceiving of political participation in any form other than electoral. The result is that, even when confronted with the unambiguous association between voting and social participation, researchers interpret this finding as representing a relationship between two discrete phenomena (Almond and Verba, 1963; Milbrath, 1965). But participatory theorists interpret this finding 91

PAGE 102

differently, arguing that the reason for the consistent relationship between political and social participation is because they are not discrete phenomena, but rather they are both forms of the very same political phenomenon, namely that of participation (Mason, 1982). Even some of the earliest participation researchers recognize the tenuous nature of this distinction, acknowledging that measures of social and political participation may overlap, and that there is no clear conceptual answer to determining the exact boundary between the political sphere and the nonpolitical sphere (Verba and Nie, 1972). Participation and Community Community holds a central place in democratic theory. "Democratic hopes have always settled within notions of community" (Marone, 1990, p. 335). Democracy is an ethical association, not simply a form of government; democratic community cannot exist where individuals act in their own self-interest regardless of the consequences; democracy must begin at home, and home is in the neighborly community (Dewey, 1 927). Models of human relations in the private, social sphere can lend support to notions of community and inform a richer conception of democracy (Gould, 1994). Liberalism promotes market relations at the expense of civil society 92

PAGE 103

and the unfettered pursuit of individual liberty at the expense of communal obligations (Evans and Boyte, 1986; Fowler, 1991; Nisbet, 1971; Sandel, 199Gb; Stone, 1988; Sullivan, 1982; Walzer, 1992b; Wolfe, 1989). Citizens understand and cherish freedom, but they are "confused when it comes to recognizing the social obligations that make ... freedom possible in the first place" (Wolfe, 1989, p. 2). There are no individuals or individual actions apart from social and communal practices (Hegel, 1944). It is as members of a community that individuals participate in the decisions affecting them. 36 Civil society is the domain of citizens, the social sphere of community, where responsibility is surrendered neither to government nor the private sector entirely. Civil society, which is based on the positive effects of association for democratic governance, serves as a means of contravening the centralizing instincts of the state (Foley and Edwards, 1996) and as one possible solution to the dissolution of a shared conception of social morality (Seem, 1996; Etzioni, 1993). Voluntary association also serves to mediate between social protest movements and the state (Siisiainen, 1 994). 37 Tocqueville (1848) describes three sectors of American society: civil society, government, and the markets. Government deals with formal political units with fixed boundaries, and employs set procedures 93

PAGE 104

to manage the discourse and participation of democracy; the civil society of community is an abstract concept that is characterized by fluidity and informality (Frederickson, 1996). Much of the nation's current political debate focuses only on the roles of government and the markets, creating a distorted set of extremes (Barber, 1984; Sandel, 1996a). While the state can effectively undermine civil society by uprooting neighborhoods, abolishing communities, and creating perverse incentives that destabilize two-parent families, it is much less able to promote strong bonds of social solidarity or the moral fabric that underlies community (Fukuyama, 1995). As rights become construed increasingly in individualistic terms, their civic dimensions begin to wither, citizens emphasize individual differences over communal commonalities, and this politics of difference promotes conflict rather than consensus (Derber, 1995; Dionne, 1991; Elshtain, 1995; Glendon, 1991; Lasch, 1995). The hierarchies inherent in most communities helped make the welfare state what it is today, so that "community" does not provide an easy alternative to the alienation of citizens who become "clients" (Tillotson, 1 994). "Till the Great Society is converted into a Great Community, the Public will remain in eclipse" (Dewey, 1927, p. 324). The relationship between democracy and community is paradoxical. Democratic participation is distinctly voluntary and not 94

PAGE 105

I exclusively governmental. Democracy means undertaking an experiment in participation that brings the collectivity and commonality of citizens into the process of governance (Fiuno, 1971). A participatory politics makes operative the moral consensus of the community, reached through face-to-face discussion (Bellah eta/., 1985). Most Americans do not think of this type of politics as politics (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995i. Community and Governance Liberalism's emphasis on individualism promotes private life at the expense of public life, undermines citizen participation (Barber, 1984; Mason, 1982; Mead, 1986) and builds communities without shared values (Etzioni, 1993; Sandel, 1982). 38 Rather than creating an inclusive "politics of community," liberal democracy breeds an exclusive "politics of interest" that reduces most citizens to spectators (Bellah et a/., 1 985). Participation can serve to mend the damage to legitimacy by creating a "self-governing community" (Barber, 1984). The loss of community figures prominently in political theory, and the most common theme underlying on the loss of community is a normative, spiritual one. 39 Society reflects a collection rather than a collectivity (Barber, 1984). The real problem of modernity is the problem 95

PAGE 106

of belief, a spiritual crisis {Bell, 1978). Individuality negates the common truths that underlie community (Bloom, 1987). The values of elitist capitalist democracy block the ideals of democracy and community (Cohen and Rogers, 1983). This spiritual crisis has implications for government and governance. People often feel lost, and pluralism is no substitute for community; people floating from group to group and acting on the basis of temporary self-interest do not equal community (Bellah eta/., 1985). Totalitarianism both arises from and creates a society where few ties bind people together, and for better or worse, the forming of associations is characteristic of societies in which increasing size, mobility, and other social forces have nullified community; in the absence of community forces, people form both gangs and neighborhood associations (Arendt, 1968). Fifteen years ago Frederickson ( 1 982) placed the challenge of restoring community squarely on public administration. "There has been a decided loss of sense of community in contemporary America. The single greatest conceptual and theoretical problem we face is the reconstruction of this sense of community" (p. 505). Themes of community are not especially prevalent in the public administration literature, given its emphasis on government and bureaucratic institutions. 96

PAGE 107

Government treats the city as a physical entity, but community is not physical, it is deliberative and social (Frederickson, 1996). Community governance requires collaboration, sharing power, forging partnerships, reciprocity in relationships with governing institutions, and accepting the legitimacy and importance of citizen participation in policy development (Kunde, 1994; Lampe, 1994; Lappe and Dubois, 1994a; Ostrom, 1993). Communitarian and refounding theory provide important exceptions to this lack of attention to community. The principal implication of communitarian philosophy for government is to demand that we focus on the collective needs of the community instead of the individual needs of citizens (Buchanan, 1994). An institutional model of governance can build process structures, but it cannot build trust; it has created more government but less governance, while citizens want more governance and less government (Frederickson, 1996). The goal of rational polio:y inquiry should be the generation of a community capable of taking action on a particular social problem (Kaufman-Osborn, 1985). Refounding theory argues that an agency perspective calls upon public administration to go beyond these issues with a concern for the public interest and the common good. "The ability to construct such community and sustain such a belief is what The Public Administration must be all about" (Wamsley, 1990, p. 155). 97

PAGE 108

Community participation requires citizenship skills, and participatory theorists argue for the administrative state to play a significant role in developing citizenship (Frederickson, 1982; Gawthrop, 1 984; Spicer, 1 995). Lowi ( 1 979) captures the significance of citizenship in developing a viable civic culture and in legitimating the administrative state when he writes: "In a democratic system citizenship is the only thing people absolutely, involuntarily, and perpetually have in common. And it is in regard to this public dimension of people and things that government has its really effective claim" (p. 261 ). This responsibility is often framed in normative and moral terms. Public administrators should demonstrate moral leadership by establishing a partnership in virtue among all citizens (Hart, 1989). One of the public administrator's ethical obligations is that of educating the citizenry, i.e., citizenship (McGregor, 1984). The ethical obligations of the public administrator derive from administrators' membership in the political community as "citizen-administrators" (Cooper, 1984). "The condition of one's character influences the quality of one's citizenship" (Bergen, 1994, pp. 11 l. This presumed moral and ethical connection between citizenship and administrative legitimacy troubles some theorists (Bader, 1995; Graebner, 1986; Rosenwein and Campbell, 1992). A number of theorists suggest that restoring community is the 98

PAGE 109

remedy for the moral and metaphysical drift that liberalism has bequeathed us and that participation can revitalize community organizations and institutions (Barber, 1 984; Boyte, Booth, and Max, 1 986; Gittell, 1980; Lappe and Dubois, 1994b; Pitts, 1993). Restoring community is no easy task; there is no simple solution, no single prescription. Our longing for community cannot be satisfied by attempting to restore the traditional model of community, and building community is not a finishable task, because community requires constant rebuilding (Gardner, 1995). Participatory Community There are a number of scholarly approaches to community in contemporary social and political thought, ranging from the relatively private search for community in the traditions and roots of family life to the emphasis on the global village and the encompassing world community. Critical theorists have formulated models of "democratic community" (Barber, 1984; Etzioni, 1993; Mansbridge, 1980; Nisbet, 1971), "republican community" (Bellah eta!., 1985; Sullivan, 1982), and "participatory community" (Fowler, 1991 ). Particularly relevant to this study is the ideal of participatory community that involves self-governance and civic virtue (Fowler, 99

PAGE 110

1991 ).40 Members of a community are shaped by their "constitutive attachments" to particular others, to particular ways of life, and these community attachments provide the moral space within which virtuous citizens operate (Bell, 1993). Despite the dominance of liberty over community, Americans sometimes prefer community over liberty, particularly in the private realm of life (Bellah eta/., 1985; Tocqueville, 1848). Participatory community and participatory democracy share several themes, including direct face-to-face self-governance; equality in the political, economic, and social spheres; individual self-determination; small group decision making featuring communal relationships between members; participation as a model for community and political education; and democratic discourse and deliberation (Bryan, 1989; Nisbet, 1971; Sandel, 1982). Community is central to the case for a participatory politics, featuring argument, participation in group decision making, facilitative leadership, and discussion (Barber, 1984; Gastil, 1993a, 1992a; Mansbridge, 1980); to the good life, featuring zealous beliefs in participation that imply the feasibility of a utopian community (Sale, 1 980; Sullivan, 1 982); and to the notion of populism, the small town participatory community as described by Tocqueville and others (Boyte, Booth, and Max, 1 986). 100

PAGE 111

The liberalism of the "procedural republic" does not afford the strong sense of citizenship that our modern welfare state requires, and the most promising basis for a democratic politics is a revitalized civic life nourished in the particular communities we inhabit (Sandel, 1996a, 1996b). Participation increases the value of an individual's freedom, ensures equal dependence among society's groups, and promotes a sense of community grounded in citizenship (Etzioni, 1988; Mason, 1982; Nisbet, 1971 ). Citizenship rests upon grass-roots participation, which in turn makes citizens out of self-interested individuals (Barber, 1984). Participatory community is not utopian; community is forged out of a struggle among people to determine how they can best live together (Douglass, 1994; Moore, 1991 ). Participatory community is criticized on the grounds that the ideals of strong community clash with personal liberty, invite prejudice and intolerance, and lead to totalitarianism (Kateb, 1981; Khilnani, 1991; Lasch, 1995; Simpson, 1992). Even proponents concede that the ideal of participatory community may in fact be only an ideal, and that participation and empowerment are not necessarily democratic or effective (Fowler, 1991; Gans, 1988; Walzer, 1983). Community theorists reply that moral community can exist without sacrificing individual freedoms (Etzioni, 1997), intolerance flourishes most 101

PAGE 112

where citizens feel dislocated and unsettled (Arendt, 1958), that diversity and inclusion are compatible (DeRienzo, 1995), and that totalitarian impulses are most likely to arise in a world where common meanings have lost their force (Arendt, 1 968). There is no evidence that community participation leads to an increase in social intolerance (Berry et a/., 1 993), and democracy in our time is more likely to die of indifference that of intolerance (Lasch, 1995). Citizenship must stand for something more than taxpaying and voting (Barber, 1984). Questions of citizenship have moved from the margins to the center of attention in political philosophy (Murdock, 1995). Liberal and participatory democracy give rise to two competing conceptions of citizenship. The liberal conception is based on a public sector market of goods and services that affirms the citizen as a customer of the state, while at the same time attempting to detach government from any responsibility for public service inadequacies (Barzelay, 1993; Cooper, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Liberal politics discourages a community of citizens and results in "a public world with many "l's" who form a "we" only with people like themselves" (Eishtain, 1994, p. 1 OJ. 41 The liberal description of citizens as passive recipients of benefits is inadequate because it tells us nothing about the political and moral dimensions of citizenship (Mead, 1986; Walzer, 1970). 102 I

PAGE 113

.j The participatory conception is based in efforts to revitalize civic society, focusing on citizenship as identity, the expression of difference within civil society, and participation in a shared political community of values (Mouffe, 1992); as the practice of participation in a democracy (Barber, 1984; Dahl, 1989a); as an attachment to justice, a willingness to serve beyond self-interest, an openness to all those who share the rank of citizen, and a perspective that reaches beyond the generation living to those unborn (O'Neil, 1987); as that education required of all people in a self-governing society (Ketcham, 1992; Pratte, 1988); and citizenship redefined as an instituted process rather than as a status (Somers, 1993).42 Participation and Sense of Community Communitarian and participatory theorists suggest that participation creates a sense of community that does not replace individuals' self-interest, but produces "enlightened" self-interest that enables individuals to take into account the interests of the larger community. Sense of community is a psychological concept that represents a sense of belonging and connectedness among members of a community. 43 Sense of community is based on concepts such as social action, locality, and empowerment (Pilisuk, McAllister, and Rothman, 103

PAGE 114

1 996) and perception of the environment, social relations, control and empowerment, and neighborhood participation (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Researchers find it meaningful to conceive of a collective of residents living within a neighborhood as having a certain degree of cohesion (Buckner, 1 988; Gilman, 1976). The number of years of neighborhood residence and home ownership are positively related to the degree of neighborhood cohesion (Robinson and Wilkinson, 1995). Citizens' satisfaction with participation in community affairs is more strongly related to an overall sense of community than to privacy, degree of urbanization, or demographic characteristics (Wilson and Baldassare, 1996). Political participation in social movements is characterized by commitment and sense of community (Lichterman, 1996). Concurrence between citizens and community leaders is significantly higher in communities with higher levels of citizen participation, contested elections, partisan ballots and active political parties (Hansen, 1975). Collaboration with others is positively related to a sense of community at work (Lambert and Hopkins, 1995), and workplace participation increases worker solidarity and unity rather than undermining them (Hodson, Creighton, and Walsh, 1994). 104

PAGE 115

Sense of community is related to environmental variables such as town design, architecture, and urban planning philosophy (Pias and Lewis, 1 996) and to citizens' intention to vote on specific issues (Davidson and Cotter, 1993). Sense of community has a significant effect on neighborhood participation (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990), although people who report greater community participation are not more likely to report themselves as more community oriented than are people who participate very little (Berry eta/., 1993). To determine whether participatory democracy is likely to give rise to an increase in community, we must try to determine whether "political" discourse between persons who would otherwise not have come together is likely to lead to a relationship that has social as well as political ties (Kramer, 1972). Social interaction is strongly related to both individual political participation and to collective political participation, and discussant conflict enhances both individual and social participation (Leighley, 1990).44 Rich networks of civic associations appear to contribute to effective democratic performance (Putnam et a/., 1 993). Members of associations evidence greater political sophistication, social trust, and political participation (Almond and Verba, 1963). Participation in civic associations develops skills of cooperation as well as a sense of shared responsibility, effects that do not require the association itself to 105

PAGE 116

be political (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). Community and Discourse Democracy is both a model and a discourse (Apter, 1992). Discourse plays a central role in democratic theory, connecting community to democracy. The public sphere serves as mediator between civil society and the state, and community is achieved through undistorted and uncontrolled communication, such that no community means no democracy (Habermas, 1989). But in contemporary discourse, the concept of community tends to denote a specific entity or geographical location rather than civil society (Stack, 1 994), and voting is the only form of discourse that democratic theorists universally recognize as essential, because without the vote, all other forms of deliberation become virtually meaningless (Dahl, 1989b). Political philosophers are much concerned with "deliberative democracy," in which public policy emerges from a civic conversation (Putnam, 1995c). Under discursively democratic conditions, decision making is based on consensus of those individuals affected by the matter under discussion (Dryzek, 1990, 1996; Habermas, 1975). Democratic discourses might be used as corrections to democratic theories, which stand little chance of ever being put into practice if they cannot find a 106

PAGE 117

discourse to support them (Dryzek, 1996).45 Civic discourse is decaying. A too restrictive liberal definition of citizenship has reduced citizen participation to the mere casting of ballots, and the political role of citizens to the consumption of campaign rhetoric (Boyte and Lappe, 1990). The tendency for elites to speak only to themselves results from the absence of institutions that promote general conversation across class lines, and the decay of civic institutions helps to make conversation almost as specialized as the production of knowledge (Lasch, 1995). Scholars suggest several prescriptions, including recommending civic pluralism through national popular discourse (Barry, 1989); discursive democracy for individuals, political institutions, public policy, and the social sciences that lay claim to rationality (Dryzek, 1990); increased discussion and deliberation, more communication with representatives, and the use of trustworthy surrogates to act on citizens' behalf in deliberating about technical and complex policy issues (Dahl, 1982); and encouraging deliberative persuasion and forestalling propaganda by developing citizen capability in persuasion skills, group participation skills. and self-efficacy (Pratkanis and Turner, 1996).46 Democratic deliberation and civic discourse can serve as a safeguard for democracy by creating a democratic community. The point 107

PAGE 118

of democracy is not just to reconcile conflicting interests, but to design institutions that encourage discourse (Warren, 1 992). Civic associations constitute an interdependent web that provides unparalleled resources for individuation while at the same time it links together more people than ever before in cooperative activities and common discourse (Antonio, 1992). Although many of society's complex problems can no longer be solved at the community level, civic discourse can go a long way towards successful community problem solving (Lewis, 1 994). Discourse serves not so much as a means of seeking compromise among competing groups and individuals, but rather as a means of promoting more rational and enlightened thought and action (Denhardt, 1981). Interacting individuals aim ultimately at mutual understanding and uncoerced consensus rather than at deception and domination (Habermas, 1 979). Discussion is a political method that can serve as a remedy for ruthless majorities and arrogant minorities (Follett, 1918). "It is ultimately the process of discourse, what I have named the moral-transformative experience, that establishes the truth and falsehood of our needs" (Benhabib, 1986, p. 338). The role of discourse in creating political community is attracting renewed attention within the discipline of public administration. Liberal public administration makes use of a framework of microeconomics and 108 I I

PAGE 119

employs a logic of choice, while the participatory model makes use of an analysis as argument framework borrowed from law, history, ethics, and rhetoric (Majone, 1 989). Postmodernist and constructivist theory argue for greater attention to the role of discourse in public administration (Fox and Miller, 1995). Administrators, like lawyers and judges, employ methods of discourse through reasoning by example to determine what ends should be sought and what actions should be taken (White, 1 990). Community values civil discourse, which means that the process is as important as the outcome, while government emphasizes outcomes at the expense of process (Frederickson, 1996). Public deliberation is a collective process that asks for patience, trust in self and others, respect for those whose ideas are different, ability to see a whole system and its interdependent parts, and suspension of self-interest for the common good (Roberts, 1 997). 47 Discursive democracy should not be dependent upon the state or a public institution; discursive democracy occurs in the sphere of community (Dryzek, 1 996). 48 Policy analysis can contribute to the process of public deliberation through a participatory model that seeks to find acceptable, i.e., common reasons for adopting a particular policy, and is consistent with an older and more phenomenological conception of rationality, with the goal of satisficing, with the principle of the public interest, and with participatory 109

PAGE 120

democracy (Majone, 1 988). Public discussion is a means of opening up policy-making to stakeholder participation: "Public deliberation, as a cornerstone of the generative approach to general management in the public sector, is an emerging form of social interaction used to set direction for government agencies" (Roberts, 1997, p. 1 30). Costs and Benefits of Participation The costs and benefits of collection action can be conceptualized as personal or community, as material or intangible, and as expressive rather than instrumental (Verba eta/., 1995). Material benefits are more effective for inducing rational individuals to join a collective effort than to work on its behalf once they are members, but intangible benefits are more useful for explaining the persistence of an ongoing organization than for explaining its inception (Wilson, 1973). Members who are attracted to an organization for normative or social inducements are more likely to be active participants in the organization, while those who are attracted to more selective benefits are less likely to be active (Knoke, 1986). Citizens whose activity is motivated by personal benefits differ from those whose gratification emanates from the feeling of having helped others or having made the community a better place to live (Verba et a/., 1 995). Members of voluntary organizations report receiving more social and community benefits than personal or material benefits; 110

PAGE 121

members rate social and community benefits significantly higher than do nonmembers; and members rate personal, family, and interpersonal costs lower than nonmembers (Prestby et a/., 1990). Higher levels of participation in block associations are significantly related to higher overall benefits and lower costs; individuals with greater block participation report more social/communal and personal benefits than individuals with less participation; and the least-active participants report more social/organizational costs {Perkins eta/., 1990). The principal reasons for nonparticipation in political activity include not enough time; a desire to take care of self/family before community; a belief that politics can not help with personal/family problems; a belief that politics is too complicated; and a belief that individuals can not have an impact {Verba eta!., 1995). The greatest reward is not necessarily achieved by the least cost, since bearing the cost of participation can become part of the benefit {Hirschman, 1 982). Notes 1. DeMartini { 1 992) argues that student activists of the 1 960s defined their behavior as consistent with American political traditions as understood by them and their families regarding participation in collective action. 2. During the 1968 presidential campaign, George Wallace was among the first to tap the growing discontent among Americans. While he offered little in the way of viable solutions, he did address in his own particular way the dual discontents of a sense of loss of control and the decaying moral fabric of neighborhood and community {Levinson, 1974). From 1968 1 1 1

PAGE 122

' J onward, every successful presidential candidate has managed somehow to identify himself with the frustrations that Wallace identified, including an anti-Washington, anti-government attitude (Sandel, 1996b). 3. Saul (1995) sides with participatory democrats when he argues that democracy is simply about the nature of legitimacy and whether the repository of that legitimacy, the citizens, are able to exercise the power its possession imposes upon them. 4. Citizens report feeling denied access to politics and the political process; the wrong priorities are on top of the political agenda; issues are framed so that the average citizen cannot see herself connected to them; issues are discussed so that the public cannot and does not understand; citizens often don't know how to participate and no one teaches them; the political system is dominated by special interests and is out of the control of citizens; campaigns are designed to turn more people off than to turn them on; media images and soundbites are negative and people are told what they think but seldom asked; a severed relationship between citizens and public officials, at which citizens are angry; a perception of political selfinterest and corruption; that politicians and public officials are out of touch with citizens and their concerns, such that it's almost impossible to talk to a policymaker face-to-face; and that people want representation, but that politicians don't care (Harwood, 1991 a). 5. These proposed reforms can be organized loosely under four general groups. The first group includes electronic democracy, teledemocracy, and electronic town meetings -what The Wall Street Journal refers to as a marriage of Tocqueville and technology (King, 1997). The second group includes proposals for promoting democratic deliberation and citizen participation that seek to overcome the modern barriers to face-to-face democracy (Barber, 1984; Fishkin, 1991 ). The third group of reforms seeks to complete the work of progressive reformers by extending to the federal level the state-level reforms that were introduced in that period especially the referendum, the initiative, and the recall (Cronin, 1989). The fourth group is represented by the idea of imposing term limits on both state and federal elected officials, particularly members of Congress, which reflects less a desire to make government work better than to deny its very legitimacy to function at all (Drucker, 1989). 6. Researchers should be careful not to presume a level of understanding of democracy among most Americans. In-depth interviews with citizens have revealed widely varying abilities to articulate the meaning of democracy 112

PAGE 123

(Binford, 1983; Rosenberg, Ward, and Chilton, 1988). Such results are less surprising when we consider the sizeable gaps between the rhetoric and reality of democracy. As Lasker (1949) observes, "There is a world of difference between accepting the democratic ideal for society at large and being willing to accept it as a guide for one's own everyday conduct" (p. 3). 7. This question derives from the philosophical separation of public administration from political science, and from the theoretical separation of politics from administration. The historical and intellectual relationship between political science and public administration relationship is relevant in several ways. First, political science and public administration share a common intellectual heritage. Waldo ( 1980) cogently discusses this nexus between political science and public administration {pp. 49-64). Second, the split between public administration and political science has been widened by the adoption of different theoretical perspectives. Whereas political science adopted a mainstream "behavioralist" perspective, Adams (1992) outlines how public administration became preoccupied with "technical rationality." Perez (1993) argues that public administration's ahistorical orientation led to a current state of "theoretical underdevelopment." Martin (1993) describes the two orientations of "public service" and "public management" as competing notions in the intellectual development of public administration. 8. A distinction should be made between legality and legitimacy. Certainly, the administrative state is legal (Warren, 1993). However, Rohr ( 1 986) argues that legality is insufficient for governance, and that the administrative state must be legitimated in order that public institutions may perform effectively. In support of the argument that these two "crises" are inextricably related, consider the following phenomena that Poggi ( 1978) identifies as some of the major legitimacy problems of the modern state: (1) political dissent aimed at rejection, subversion, and secession from the established political system; (2) the increasing failures of welfare systems; (3) repeated failures of statesmanship; (4} the increasing inability of law enforcement to guarantee public safety; (5) the decreasing capacity of the administrative apparatus to manage effectively; and (6) the inadequacy of national economic steering mechanisms. It takes but a small leap to connect these states of affairs with declining levels of social trust and political participation. 9. Participation as a public administration approach to democratic governance is addressed extensively in the main text. Public administration has adopted several other approaches to democratic governance. The 113

PAGE 124

principal ones are democratic administration (deleon, 1993; Follett, 1940; Levitan, 1943; Ostrom, 1989; Waldo, 1984), morality and ethics (Appleby, 1952; Dobel, 1990; Finer, 1941; Friedrich, 1940; Golembiewski, 1967; Mosher, 1982; Rawls, 1971; Rohr, 1986, 1989), representation (Cooper, 1982; Goodsell, 1985; Hindera, 1993; Kingsley, 1944; Kellough, 1990; Krislov and Rosenbloom, 1 981; Mann, 1976; Meier and England, 1 984; Meier and Nigro, 1 976; Meier and Stewart, 1 992; Meier, 1993a, 1993b; Mosher, 1982; Niskanen, 1971; Rehfuss, 1986; Rosenbloom & Featherstonhaugh, 1977; Saltzstein, 1979; Sisneros, 1993; Thompson, 1976), and responsiveness (Antunes and Plumlee, 1977; Boyle and Jacobs, 1982; Cook and Wood, 1989; Getter and Schumaker, 1978; Golden, 1992; Gormley eta/., 1983; Greene, 1982; Kearney & Sinha, 1988; Lewis, 1977; Lowi, 1979; Mladenka, 1981; Nelson, 1980; Rourke, 1992; Saltzstein, 1 992; Sharp, 1 981). 10. In 1948 Dwight Waldo argued that classical public administration defined by scientific management and the politics-administration dichotomy is itself a political theory, and that the uncritical acceptance of this rational administrative approach constitutes a rejection of democratic theory. Modern public administration theory has not moved far from its positivist and rationalist roots. As Overman (1984) notes, its major features include an "instrumental orientation favoring criteria of economy and efficiency" and a "strong philosophical link with the scientific management tradition" (p. 278). A current example is Moe's (1984) application of agency theory to public organizations. He argues that "Democratic politics is easily viewed in principal-agent terms. Citizens are principals, politicians are their agents. Politicians are principals, bureaucrats are their agents. Bureaucratic superiors are principals, bureaucratic subordinates are their agents." (p. 765). Moe's argument suggests once again a rationalist and hierarchical view of democracy more indicative of business organizations and scientific management than of the horizontal and messy structure of democratic politics. In reviewing the contemporary relevance of early works in public administration, Waldo (1984) notes that "in four decades, nothing has caused me to change my view of scientific management as a locus of political theory" (p. xxxi), and "the belief that principles can be discovered by scientific inquiry remains strong" (p. liii). Adams (1992), in reference to the New Public Administration and interpretive, phenomenological, and critical theories of PA, observes that although a number of new approaches afford an entirely new view of the fieid, the old images of technique and rationality continue to dominate. 114

PAGE 125

11 Like political science, public administration theory reflects the discipline's historical tensions, both theoretical and practical, with the liberal and participatory democratic views of participation. The liberal democratic view is reflected in concerns that citizen participation may sometimes increase the risk of exploitative policies by increasing the power that particular groups of citizens can exercise over others in administrative decision making, e.g., cooptation (Selznick, 1949). The participatory democratic view is reflected in The New Public Administration's arguments for using participation as the principal means to expand democracy and equality (Marini, 1971). And the tension between liberal and participatory democracy is reflected in the argument that citizen participation makes it more likely that the harmful effects of administrative decisions on citizens will be considered in the administrative process, but that the need to check undue influence by particular groups means that the process of citizen participation must itself be governed by rules and procedures (Spicer, 1995). 1 2. Public administration has developed three theoretical models of democratic administration. Democracy through administration emphasizes the use of internal and external controls to maximize democracy for the public and efficiency for the organization (Cook and Wood, 1989; Cook, 1992; Meier, 1975; Rourke, 1992). Democracy within administration places democracy within the framework of but subordinated to administration (deLeon, 1992; Hindera, 1993; Krislov and Rosenbloom, 1981; Meier, 1993a, 1993b; Meier and Stewart, 1992. Democracy in administration places democracy on an equal footing with administration (Appleby, 1 952; Garson and Smith, 1975; Golembiewski, 1977; Jun, 1986; Lee, 1986; Levitan, 1943; Waldo, 1952, 1984). 13. A number of scholars, in addressing the administrative state's legitimacy crisis, hypothesize a connection with civic culture by calling for a renewal of citizen participation and democratic values. Marini (1971) calls for a "new public administration" paradigm based on social and political equality and citizen participation. Ostrom (1989) suggests that public administration should be concerned with allocating decision making capabilities and how to enhance citizen participation. Wamsley et a/. ( 1 990) propose a new paradigm of governance that is chronologically and conceptually a successor to the New Public Administration, but that incorporates the notion of civic culture by addressing the relationship between citizens and the state. Along with others, Burke (1989), Cisneros (1991 ), Cisneros and Parr (1990), Dahl (1992), Horwitt (1990), Landy (1993), Neugarten (1992), Stivers (1990), and Valelly (1993) call for revitalizing citizen participation, citizenship, community, and democratic 11 5

PAGE 126

values. 14. The Progressive era saw the rise of scientific management coupled with democracy and administration (Allen, 1907; Bruere, 1913; Cleveland, 1913; Dahlberg, 1966; Follett, 1918; Hofstadter, 1955; Schachter, 1989; Waldo, 1984). The American World War II experience brought home the trade-offs between the successful use of autocracy and the values of democracy (Appleby, 1945, 1952; Levitan, 1943; Waldo, 1952, 1990). Minnowbrook I led to the formulation of the New Public Administration in the late 1 960s, in which increased democracy in the form of social and political equality was the principal goal, and participation was the primary value and means for achieving that goal (Frederickson, 1980; Marini, 1971). The 1970s saw the emergence of public choice theory (Niskanen, 1971) and its subsequent application to public administration in fashioning the architecture for a system of democratic administration (Ostrom, 19891. The 1 980s saw the application of agency theory to the concept of democratic admin istration (Moe, 1984). The 1990s saw the application of market theory (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) and the "post-bureaucratic paradigm" (Barzelay, 1992) to public administration, both of which advocated limited forms of participatory democracy. 1 5. Citizen participation has deep roots in public administration, dating back to the pioneering work of the Tennessee Valley Authority (Lilienthal, 1 944). Citizen participation emerged within the context of public organizations, was influenced by progressive era ideals, and was institutionalized in liberal form in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. Examples of public administration research in citizen participation include the influence of participation on public policy (Berry, Portney, and Thomson, 1993; Weissert, 1994), the electoral behavior of public employees (Johnson and Libecap, 1991), and the influence of bureaucracy on participation (Kweit and Kweit, 1 981). The legitimacy of citizen participation in local government affairs has come to be widely accepted if not enthusiastically embraced (Tulloss, 1995). 16. There is a substantial body of public administration literature that addresses this "crisis of legitimacy," although even a brief sampling reveals that descriptions and prescriptions vary widely. Barzelay ( 1 992) proposes a post-bureaucratic paradigm based on results citizens value. Campbell and Naulls ( 1 992) attribute the diminishment of legitimacy to the prevalence of a minimalist governance paradigm based on public choice theory. Etzioni ( 1 988) critiques the dominance of the economic paradigm and proposes a deontological approach based on an I&We paradigm. Farazmand (1989) 116

PAGE 127

suggests that legitimacy is threatened by a misguided focus on process to the detriment of the goals of government. Habermas (1 975) critiques the increasing hierarchical elitism of social institutions and its effect on distorting communication. Lowi (1 979) critiques the unintended consequences of the rise of liberalism and proposes a new paradigm based on juridical democracy. NAPA (1992) indirectly addresses the issue of legitimacy by outlining a new paradigm of governance that places government in an institutional context and governance in a process context. Ostrom ( 1 989) proposes a democratic administration paradigm within a framework of multi-jurisdictional federalism. O'Toole (1987) argues that the apparent but not genuine congruence between the politics-administration dichotomy and the notion of separation of powers facilitated not only the rise of the administrative state but also some of its legitimacy problems. Rohr (1986) and Spicer (1 995) argue for legitimacy based on constitutional theories of public administration, while Caldwell (1976) critiques the view that the Constitution alone can remedy the crisis of legitimacy; he argues that it has not been excess of power but defect of responsibility that has most threatened the national welfare. Stillman ( 1 991 ) identifies four different but concurrently active paradigms of administrative legitimacy: minimalist, activist, temporary, and professional technocracy. Stivers ( 1 993) finds the legitimacy of the administrative state lacking due to its failure to incorporate a feminist theory of public administration. Van Riper ( 1 983) identifies the evolution and passing of four different administrative states, each with its own basis for legitimacy and its own challenges to that legitimacy. 1 7. The separation of democracy from administration results from the legacy of the false politics-administration dichotomy, and the emergence of a theory of democratic administration can be seen as a response to this dichotomy (Waldo, 1952). But the persistent practical influence of the politics-administration dichotomy on the administrative state limits public administration's ability to develop an acceptable theory of democratic governance that integrates democratic, organizational, and administrative theory. Waldo (1 990) observes that the dichotomy is connected to the estranged relationship between public administration and political science. Without efforts to bridge the conceptual gap between political science and public administration, the theoretical gap between democratic theory and administrative theory is likely to remain. Waldo (1 990) sums up this challenge by arguing that we cannot have a theory of public administration without a theory of politics also. 117

PAGE 128

18. Most respondents also believe that people try to be helpful most of the time, that their community is a good place to live in, and that they can make an impact on making their community better (Woodward, 1997). 19. For works on coproduction in the public sector see Brudney and England ( 1 983), Ferris ( 1984), Mattson ( 1 986), Milbrath ( 1 981), Percy (1984), Thomas (1987), and Whitaker (1980). 20. Because of the difficulty and expense of large-scale social survey research, most political scientists wishing to study the relationship between participation and efficacy have relied on the Michigan Survey Research Center's periodic polls of the national electorate. More specifically, they have relied on a series of questions that tap respondents' sense of personal political efficacy. Early studies conducted in the 1 960s were based on these questions and consistently confirmed the work of Almond and Verba, revealing a positive relationship between efficacy and participation. These questions and their subsequent analyses became a standard measuring tool in political science. 21 It is both interesting and relevant to this proposal that Almond and Verba found political efficacy to be higher at the local level than at the national level. They also found efficacy to be higher in those countries, the U.S.A. and Britain, where the most institutional opportunities existed for local political participation. 22. Researchers identified several methodological problems with the measure of political efficacy. The original efficacy items, frequently retained in social surveys, register relatively low reliability (Asher, 1 974). The personal component of internal efficacy proved more stable than the system component of responsiveness or external efficacy (Aish and Joreskog, 1990). Tests of the hypothesis that political participation reaches optimum levels among groups where political trust is low and political efficacy is high proved inconclusive, based on an inadequate conceptualization of political efficacy and a lack of clear distinction between internal and external efficacy (Watts, 1973). 23. Researchers succeeded in separating internal from external efficacy (Acock and Clarke, 1990; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982). Four new questions tapping internal efficacy were tested and added to the 1 988 National Election Study (Craig, Niemi, and Silver, 1990). The new internal efficacy items are moderately correlated with external efficacy but weakly or not at all with political trust, and are associated with higher 118

PAGE 129

levels of political involvement (Balch, 1974; Craig and Maggioto, 1982). The new items are internally consistent and measure a single concept distinct from external efficacy and political trust (Niemi, Craig, and Mattei, 1991). The response options (agree, disagree) are the same for the new items as for the original items. The three original items, which are used in this study, all tap some combination of internal efficacy, external efficacy, and political trust. 24. The one exception in the literature is Syme ( 1 991 ) 25. Some participatory theorists propose a "participation hypothesis" that suggests that an individual's participation experiences makes it more likely that the individual will seek further opportunities to participate (Almond and Verba, 1965; Pateman, 1970). Mason (1982) extends this argument in the form of his "proximity hypothesis" that suggests that the closer an individual's participatory experience is to the model of strong democracy, the more likely it is that the individual's participation will "spill over" and thus lead to even more participation. 26. The argument that participatory democracy will produce better decisions is at least as old as Aristotle, who writes: "There is this to be said for the Many. Each of them by himself may not be of good quality; but when they all come together it is possible that they may surpass collectively and as a body although not individually the quality of the few best. Feasts to which many contribute may excel those provided at one man's expense. In the same way, when there are many who contribute to the process of deliberation each can bring his share of goodness and moral prudence; and when all meet together the people may thus become something in the nature of a single person who as he has many feet, many hands, and many senses -may also have many qualities of character and intelligence" (Barker, 1962, p. 123). 27. The origins of American workplace democracy stem from a genre of European socialist writings that are concerned with issues such as centralized decision making and the intrinsic value of work. The Americanized version of workplace democracy was first expressed in terms of "industrial democracy" because of the strong American association with industrial labor unions (Brooks, 1971; Zwerdling, 1984), and later in terms of participatory management as the white-collar 119

PAGE 130

proportion of the work force began to grow (Lewin, 1947a, 1947b). The American experience of workplace democracy, both in theory and in application, is very much a reflection of the European experience, and is evident in the experiences of early American religious and secular utopian experiments (Richter, 1971 ). Unlike their European counterparts, American theorists have focused less on the goals of socialism than on the dynamics of capitalism that promote or inhibit democracy (Bowles and Gintis, 1986; Dahl, 1985). 28. The theoretical linkage between democracy and the workplace is beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say that the separation of the public and the private spheres of society has also led to a separation in our thinking about the economic system of capitalism and the political system of democracy. Some writers incorporate workplace democracy within the broader framework of economic democracy. Elden ( 1 981) considers workplace democracy a part of organizational or industrial democracy and argues that it is to the democratization of the state as direct/participative democracy is to indirect/representative democracy. While theoretically distinct, the lines of demarcation are often unclear (Dahl, 1985; Greenberg, 1986; Lane, 1985). The works of critical theorists in this area are relevant to public administration because of its adoption of business management and economic policy analysis (Derber and Schwartz, 1983; Fleurbaey, 1993; Griffiths, 1990; Heilbroner, 1985; Lindblom, 1 977). 29. This highlights a connection between participatory democracy and public administration's search for legitimacy. Horvat (1982) identifies four elites that comprise the "ruling class" in modern capitalist states: business executives, politicians, public administrators, and military leaders. In general, public administration theory does not challenge the underlying "elitism" of either the political system or the economic system. 30. Arrighi and Maume ( 1 994) use a large, nationally representative sample that contains detailed measures of workplace control and information on political behavior as of 1 980. 31. Greenberg (1981 b) notes that cooperative workers selected the cooperative environment over the traditional plywood plant primarily for economic and security reasons. He acknowledges that this makes interpreting the results as support for or against the tenets of participatory democracy an ambiguous task at best. Woodward (1977) notes that self-managing groups and enterprises are characterized by 120

PAGE 131

J group solidarity, and that their goal is to achieve as much political autonomy as possible. This may help to explain Greenberg's lack of findings. The question is whether such political autonomy leads groups to make decisions based on their perceived self-interests. 32. Although not statistically significant, it is significant in that it is contrary to theoretical expectations. 33. Greenberg uses a single Likert-style item, in which respondents are asked to agree or disagree with the statement "there is almost no way people like me can have an influence on the government." Although not unique to Greenberg's survey, this question is negatively worded and focuses on government in the abstract. Despite Almond and Verba's (1965) finding that the strength of efficacy is inversely related to the level of government, researchers, including this researcher, continue to use this uniform but abstract approach. 34. Greenberg, Grunberg, and Kelley (1996) differentiate workplace participation along direct and representative dimensions, an approach suggested by Schweizer ( 1995) as part of his critique of participation spillover research. 35. As liberal theorists, Almond and Verba consider this type of participation to be "nonpolitical." 36. Mason's (1982) conception of participation in decision making constitutes a form of community rule. 37. In a time series analysis of Finland between 1919 and 1989, Siisiainen ( 1 994) finds that cycles of social protest correspond to an increase in the number of new voluntary associations. He concludes that the Finnish welfare state has developed through the interaction between social movements, voluntary associations and the state. 38. But communitarians themselves have come under attack. Not everyone is convinced that liberalism is to blame for the decline in community or that community cannot exist under liberalism (Gutmann, 1985; Walzer, 1990). 39. Concern for the loss of community has ignited a scholarly debate about whether the formation of American political culture was about liberalism or republicanism. This debate stems from the contemporary assumption that somehow we lost a vision of and the chance for 121

PAGE 132

community during our historical evolution; republican theorists, for example, see the Founding era as the moment when a more communitarian ethic became the path not chosen (Fowler, 1991 ). The early consensus among historians and political theorists was that American political culture was about liberalism. Drukman (1 971), a notable critic of the lack of community in the American political tradition, argues that Madison is no supporter of a serious public community, that Jefferson offers only a tepid assertion of community, and that Hamilton offers virtually none. However, the claim that republican community in one form or another was the dominant political idea in late eighteenthcentury America is now the ascendant view among intellectuals and scholars concerned with this question (Bailyn, 1 992; Bellah eta!., 1 985; Carter and Kobylka, 1 990; Kemmis, 1 990; Sullivan, 1 982). Fowler writes that to participate in the study of lost community "is not just to enter another boring scholarly dispute heavy with competing sources and footnotes, but to ask who can claim title to the American Dream, to America itself? (p. 26). 40. This notion of community is built upon the ideals of Athens and Rousseau, populism, the 1960s new left, and upon the work of participatory and communitarian theorists. 41 Clark ( 1 990) reports that young Americans today are less interested in public life than were previous generations. They feel that the institutions with the best opportunity to teach citizenship, such as family, school, and government, have let them down. But they claim to want to be involved and are only waiting to be asked: 51 percent support a high school community participation requirement, and 58 percent reject the notion that people should take care of themselves first. 42. Somers (1993) shows that the development of citizenship rights in England depended on the nexus of the nation's legal infrastructure and the varying community capacities for participatory association. She recommends that future research on citizenship and democratization should expand beyond a focus on states and capitalism to include a sociology of relationships among public spheres, community associational life, and patterns of political culture. 43. The principal research on the psychological components of neighborhood participation has been conducted within the discipline of community psychology, based largely on the Neighborhood Participation Project conducted in Nashville, TN, and the Block Booster Project carried 122

PAGE 133

out in New York City. Both of these studies were conducted during the 1980s. 44. Discussion has several positive effects on participants. Discussion promotes a general willingness to break a decision down along its several dimensions (Miller, 1992). Students participating in competitive debate evidence significantly lower levels of verbal aggression and argumentativeness that those without such experience (Colbert, 1993). Individuals with the highest level of verbal participation are likely to be chosen leaders, although this varies with the individual's salience and group members' views about leadership (Mullen, Salas, and Driskell, 1 989). Search conferences can serve as a way of bringing multiple interest groups together to work on participatory, strategic action (Tandy and Tandy, 1990). 45. Dryzek (1996) identifies four discourses of democracy through a factor analysis of the Q sorts of 37 subjects, using responses to 64 statements based on four key concepts of ontology, agency, motives, and natural relationships. He divides these four discourses, which include contented republicanism, deferential conservatism, disaffected populism, and private liberalism, on the basis of who or what constitutes a recognizable political entity, which of these entities can act, their reasons for action, and the kind of relationships that can exist between entities. 46. Many writers express faith in an electronic revolution in discourse and democracy. Although every new development of communication technology points to a greater democratization of electronic communication, the democratization of media may result in a greater separation and segregation of individuals, with more channels but less discourse (Brown, 1992). 47. Institutions cannot conduct all of their affairs through discourse any more than individuals can. Since discourse is a matter of creating understandings that orient actions in common directions, public institutions should resort to discourse only when there is a disruption of everyday understandings (Habermas, 1 990). 48. In contrast, for example, to public administrative hearings, which are dependent upon the state and public institutions. 123

PAGE 134

CHAPTER 4 METHODS AND RESULTS This study is based on a secondary analysis of data collected as part of the National Citizen Participation Development Project (NCPDP}, which was conducted during 1987-88.1 The purpose of the NCPDP was to examine how citizen participation influences municipal policymaking. The NCPDP was particularly concerned with the influence of socioeconomic status on citizen participation. Since several studies, including the NCPDP, have found socioeconomic status to be related to political participation (Berry eta/., 1993; Guterbock, 1 983; Olsen eta/., 1989}, it is included in this study as a control variable. 2 The NCPDP data set lends itself well to this study. The NCPDP was designed as a panel study, and it examined citizen participation in five medium-sized U.S. cities. It collected a variety of data on individuals, including such factors as socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics (gender, age, housing status, length of residence, race/ethnicity}, attitudes towards local and national government and local government spending, neighborhood problems, sense of community, social tolerance, political efficacy, reasons for community participation, 124

PAGE 135

and participation in selected social and political activities. Methods Social scientists studying participation often deal with the issue of what leads a person to engage in some activity in terms of a statistical relationship between various characteristics of the individual and the conduct in question. Survey research statistically tests for associations or patterns. Cross-sectional studies are normally analyzed through techniques of statistical association, but this may provide insufficient evidence that an independent variable leads to a certain outcome. 3 While explanation requires association, association is not explanation. Associations are merely the beginning of explanation. Cross-sectional studies cannot demonstrate causal relationships, but they can be used to infer causality. Cross-sectional studies are vulnerable to possible threats to internal validity. The major internal threat is the inability to control subject selection Threats due to the influence of variables other than the independent variable can be assessed by using statistical control. Control is the key feature of multivariate analysis, and multivariate analysis is the characteristic type of analysis engaged in by survey researchers in order to investigate and test fo!' hypothesized patterns and causal connections. 125

PAGE 136

Because this is not an experimental design, controlling for an intervening variable may well simultaneously control for other variables (Goldenberg, 1992). Research Design This is a cross-sectional study utilizing secondary analysis of a questionnaire survey with a standardized interview protocol. Cross sectional studies usually investigate the relationships among several variables. Cases are then divided into different groups based on values of the independent variables. Cross-sectional research designs are particularly suited for studies such as this one that involve collecting data on many variables, from a large group of subjects, and who are geographically dispersed. They are the design of choice to gather information on people's attitudes and behavior, to answer questions of who, how much, and how many, to begin exploratory research, and to identify hypotheses for further research. Well-designed, documented, and implemented cross-sectional studies can be readily used for secondary data analysis. Secondary research has both advantages and disadvantages. The most significant advantages of secondary research over primary data collection are related to time and cost. Disadvantages include category 126

PAGE 137

definitions that may not be appropriate, data that are aggregated above the individual unit of observation, and secondary data, by definition, are old data. The appropriateness of this data set for the purposes of this study was assessed using a process recommended by Stewart and Kamins (1993). This process includes examining the purpose of the study, who was responsible for collecting the information, what information was actually collected, when it was collected, how it was obtained, and how consistent it is with other available information.4 Sampling This study uses a representative, stratified sample (N = 541 9) of respondents in five cities in the United States: Birmingham, Alabama; Dayton, Ohio; Portland, Oregon; San Antonio, Texas; and St. Paul, Minnesota. 5 These cities were selected because they met three major criteria established for the NCPDP study. These criteria included: (1) structured city-wide citizen participation systems organized at the neighborhood level that made an effort to contact each and every resident or household and offered an equal footing to all those who choose to participate; (2) social, political, and geographic diversity; and (3) a minimum population of 100,000 residents. The NCPDP identified potential citizen participation efforts by 127

PAGE 138

sending an inquiry to 7,500 known leaders of citizen participation efforts around the country. These leaders were identified through a citizen participation data bank maintained by the Lincoln Filene Center at Tufts University. This initial inquiry yielded more than 900 recommendations. Subjecting this pool to the selection criteria described above winnowed the nominations down to 41 5. Each organization responsible for these efforts was then mailed a one-page screening survey. About 25 percent of these organizations did not respond or had ceased to exist, and another 30 percent were eliminated because their survey information revealed that they no longer met the selection criteria or had also ceased to exist. About 1 50 of the remaining programs were selected for follow up telephone interviews, which reduced the pool to 70 models. Applying the selection criteria stringently led to the initial selection of five cities: St. Paul, Birmingham, Portland (OR), Kansas City (KS), and San Antonio. Because the Kansas City program was undergoing a major reorganization, it was dropped from the short list of eligible cities. The next midwestern city on the list, Dayton, was substituted. These five cities then became the cities included in the study. Telephone surveys were conducted to achieve a representative sample that was stratified at the neighborhood level. Telephone prefix sampling frames were created for each city. 6 Due to differences in the 128

PAGE 139

way local telephone companies assigned telephone prefixes and numbers, a slightly different sampling framework was used in each city. Generally, sampling was accomplished by obtaining a list of the working residential telephone prefixes from the local phone company, along with a map showing the geographic areas covered by each prefix. This map was superimposed on a city map showing the outlines of each neighborhood. Although telephone prefix areas did not correspond perfectly to the neighborhood boundaries, any given prefix generally covered not more than two neighborhoods. Thus the prefixes were used to maximize the probability that a given number would yield a resident from a specific neighborhood. Each neighborhood was assigned a quota of respondents to be interviewed based on the relative size of the population aged eighteen and over. Random telephone numbers were then drawn through the following method: each city's telephone directory was used to extract an actual residential telephone number with a given prefix. To accomplish this, a page of the directory was selected at random, then a column of the page was selected at random, and a position within the column of telephone numbers was selected at random. Then the residential telephone number with a given prefix closest to this random position was selected. This number was not called. Instead, three telephone numbers 129

PAGE 140

were generated by substituting random numbers for the last two digits. These telephone numbers were then called. Because of the lack of perfect correspondence between the telephone prefix areas and the neighborhood boundaries, the questionnaire included two screening questions asking each respondent whether he or she lived in the city proper, and if so, what street intersection was closest to his or her house. Using a detailed street map of the city, the street intersection information was used to determine in which neighborhood the respondent resided. Completed interviews were tallied by neighborhood. Interviews proceeded in a given neighborhood until that neighborhood's quota had been achieved. Since most comparably sized cities lack city-wide citizen participation structures, the question arises as to whether cities with structured participation differ from cities without structured participation. Structured participation m ight result in differences in the extent of participation, in the level of participation, or in the degree of SES bias related to participation. This question of differences was examined in two ways. First, each core city was compared to two control cities that were matched for similar population size and demographics, but that lacked structured citywide participation. The matched cities resemble the core cities in 130

PAGE 141

population characteristics and differ only in the existence of citywide citizen participation efforts. The five core cities with structured participation did not exhibit more widespread participation, greater levels of citizen participation, or a greater degree of SES bias than did cities with unstructured participation. 7 Second, responses to questions used to measure participation scores for the fifteen city sample were compared to responses to similar questions from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey (1987). Controlling for SES and city size, the fifteen city sample and the national sample did not differ statistically in their responses on items pertaining to political participation (Berry et a/., 1993). Table 7-1 shows the core and control cities. Table 7-1 NCPDP Core and Control Cities Core Cities Control Cities San Antonio, Texas El Paso, Texas Tucson, Arizona Birmingham, Alabama Savannah, Georgia Louisville, Kentucky Dayton, Ohio Buffalo, New York Norfolk, Virginia Portland, Oregon Minneapolis, Minnesota Colorado Springs, Colorado St. Paul, Minnesota Omaha, Nebraska Wichita, Kansas 131

PAGE 142

Data Collection Public opinion surveys were conducted in each of the five core cities.8 The survey instrument was developed based on empirical social science literature and existing public opinion surveys underlying each conceptual variable, such as the American National Election Study and the General Social Survey. 9 For example, questions related to political efficacy or trust in government were based on the same questions used to inform the broader literature on efficacy and trust (Berry eta/., 1993). This approach provided direct measures in each of the five cities, allowed for comparison of results, and minimized the time needed for questionnaire pretest and analysis. The questionnaire contains a few open-ended questions, but uses mostly closed-ended questions. 10 Contingency and filter questions are also used. The purpose of this survey is to produce a statistical description of certain aspects related to participation of the study population.11 A copy of the survey instrument as it would appear for purposes of this study is included at Appendix A. Sources of questions for the survey include the American National Election Study conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan; the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center; the 132

PAGE 143

National Survey of Black Americans, 1979-1980, conducted by James S. Jackson and Gerald Gurin of the University of Michigan; surveys on community psychology conducted by Abraham Wandersman of the University of South Carolina; citizen participation surveys conducted by Richard Rich of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; and questions modified or formulated expressly for this project. A list of the questions used for this survey that were adapted from other surveys and their sources is included at Appendix B. Structured interviews were conducted using a standardized interview protocol in accordance with current survey techniques (Rea and Parker, 1 997) The interviewing protocol was identical in each city. Every effort was made to interview the targeted respondent, including calling back a maximum of three times.12 The interviews were conducted between 6:30 and 9:30 P .M. local time Sundays through Thursdays, unless it was determined that the targeted respondent could only be reached at a different time. If the targeted respondent could not be interviewed during the time frame of this study, a new telephone number and respondent were chosen as a replacement using the same process that yielded the initial number and respondent. The basic steps of the telephone survey process were followed in each city.13 133

PAGE 144

Measurement This study is concerned with whether participetion in neighborhood associations influences citizens' political attitudes towards community, capacity, and legitimacy. It uses participation in neighborhood associations as an independent variable, with variables representing the concepts of community, capacity, and legitimacy serving as dependent variables. Socioeconomic status is included for control purposes. This study includes categorical variables that are both dichotomous and polytomous. Categorical variables are often referred to as qualitative variables to distinguish them from quantitative variables, but it is often advantageous to treat ordinal data quantitatively, for example by assigning numerical scores to the categories. All data, however, can be considered categorical, in that even continuous variables are measured categorically due to the limitations of their measurement instruments (Agresti, 1990; Van de Geer, 1993). Dichotomous variables are binary variables, and feature responses such as yes/no or more/less. Polytomous variables have three or more categories, such as high/medium/low or most/some/few. Table 7-2 displays the categorical variables used in this study and their measurement. 134

PAGE 145

Table 7-2 Measurement of Categorical Variables Measurement Categorical Concept Variables Level Level Strong Neighborhood Democracy Participation Nominal Dichotomous Legitimacy Representation Nominal Dichotomous Trust Ordinal Polytomous Confidence Ordinal Polytomous Responsiveness Ordinal Polytomous Capacity Political Nominal and Dichotomous and Efficacy Ordinal Polytomous Participation Nominal and Dichotomous and Spillover Ordinal Polytomous Community Sense of Community Ordinal Polytomous Public Discussion Nominal Dichotomous Benefits Ordinal Polytomous Costs Nominal and Dichotomous and Ordinal Polytomous There are two primary types of measurement scales for categorical variables: (1) nominal, where people or events are sorted into unordered categories, such as male and female; and (2) ordinal, where people or events are sorted into ordered categories along a single dimension, such as good, fair, and poor. This study uses several variations on basic rating scales to measure variables primarily at the ordinal level.14 For survey 135

PAGE 146

I questions, ordinal data requires that categories be provided to respondents. The response categories must deal with only one issue and be presented in order, without inversion. Neighborhood Participation. Participation in neighborhood associations is characterized by face-to-face, unitary participation as described in participatory democratic theory. Neighborhood association participation has three measures: incidence, frequency and level.15 Incidence of participation refers to whether or not respondents participate in their neighborhood association, and is measured nominally as a dichotomous variable (yes/no). Frequency of participation refers to how often an individual participates, and is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (more than once a month, once a month, less than once a month). Level of participation refers to the degree to which participation involves face-to-face interaction, and is measured nominally as a polytomous variable in terms of participation in formal projects and committees, participation in general meetings, and membership. Legitimacy. The concept of legitimacy is represented by the variables of representation, trust, confidence, and responsiveness Representation refers to whether individuals think that government is run for the benefit of all the people or by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and it is measured nominally as a dichotomous variable for 136

PAGE 147

both national and local government. Trust refers to how often people think that they can trust government to do what is right, and it is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (always, most, some, none) for both national and local government. Confidence refers to how well people think their city is run, and it is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (very good/excellent, good, fair/poor) for local government. Responsiveness refers to how much attention people think government pays to them when it decides what to do, and it is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (a good deal, some, not much) for both national and local government. Capacity. The concept of capacity is represented by the variables of political efficacy and participation spillover. Political efficacy is measured along internal and external dimensions. Internal efficacy refers to whether people think they have any say about what government does and whether people think politics and government are too complicated to understand. Both internal efficacy items are measured nominally as dichotomous variables (agree/disagree). External efficacy refers to the degree to which people think that local government would consider their point of view if they did participate, and is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (serious consideration, some attention, ignore). Participation spillover refers to social and political participation 137

PAGE 148

other than in neighborhood associations, such as in electoral campaigns, state and national organizations, and community activities. Spillover has four measures: internal, external, frequency, and level. Internal spillover refers to whether or not people are asked to participate in their communities, and is measured nominally as a dichotomous variable (yes/no). External spillover refers to the number of activities respondents participate in beyond neighborhood associations, and is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (number of participation activities). Spillover frequency refers to how often an individual participates, and is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (once a month, more than once a month, less than once a month). Spillover level refers to the degree to which participation involves face-to-face interaction, and is measured nominally as a polytomous variable in terms of participation in formal projects and committees, general meetings, and membership. CommunitY. The concept of community is represented by the variables of sense of community, public discussion, and costs and benefits of participation. Sense of community refers to how strong a sense of community individuals feel with others in their neighborhood, and is measured ordinally as a polytomous variable (strong, moderate, weak). Public discussion refers to whether respondents think that public discussion of neighborhood issues increases or decreases bad feelings 138

PAGE 149

between people, and is measured nominally as a dichotomous variable (increases/decreases). Costs and benefits refer to reasons why respondents choose to participate or not participate in neighborhood associations. Benefits are measured in terms of personal and community benefits, and both are measured ordinally as polytomous variables {quantity). Costs are also measured in terms of personal and community costs, with personal costs measured nominally and dichotomously {yes/no), while community costs are measured ordinally and polytomously (quantity). Hypotheses Using the theoretical frames of participatory democracy and democratic governance, this study hypothesizes a set of relationships between participation in neighborhood associations and citizens' political attitudes related to legitimacy and trust in government, community, and political capacity. These hypotheses are framed below as null hypotheses. H 1 : Individuals who participate in neighborhood associations are no more likely to believe that they are represented by government, to trust government, to believe that government is responsive to them, or to have confidence in government than individuals who do not participate in 139

PAGE 150

neighborhood associations. H2 : Individuals who participate in neighborhood associations are no more likely to believe that public discussion is positive rather than negative, to believe that the benefits of participation are greater and the costs less, or to have a stronger overall sense of community than individuals who do not participate in neighborhood associations. H3 : Individuals who participate in neighborhood associations are no more likely to have a greater sense of political efficacy or to participate more in social and political activities than individuals who do not participate in neighborhood associations. Data Analysis While cross-sectional studies cannot demonstrate causal relationships, statisticians and methodologists have created techniques designed to obtain evidence of causality, or "causal inference," from cross-sectional data (O'Sullivan and Rassel, 1995) .16 Social scientists often employ multiple regression to produce statistical evidence of causality, and often include qualitative variables in regression analyses, showing a willingness to sacrifice statistical purity for the precision and power of regression.17 Many behaviors, as well as the attitudes and preferences underlying them, are qualitative, or at least are observed 140

PAGE 151

qualitatively. Behaviors like voting or participating are qualitative, and may represent dichotomous decisions, or are measurable in only a small number of categories. 18 This study employs variables that are qualitative, categorical, and are measured at the nominal and ordinal levels. Multivariate regression with a categorical dependent variable is particularly troubling in social research. When the dependent variable is qualitative and categorical rather than a continuous interval measure, regression estimates can lead to serious errors in inference Regression estimates with a qualitative dependent variable may seriously misestimate the magnitude of the effects of independent variables; may make unjustified the standard statistical inferences such as hypothesis tests or the construction of confidence intervals; and will be highly sensitive to the range of particular values observed for the independent variables, thus making extrapolations beyond the range of the data unjustified (Aldrich and Nelson, 1 984). This means that some of the assumptions of multiple regression may not be met, in which case alternative methods of multivariate analysis should be used. 19 Qualitative data, also known as categorical data, are cross tabulations within the context of contingency tables. 2 Categorical data result in the violation of several fundamental assumptions of multiple 141

PAGE 152

regression. One assumption that is violated is that variables are measured at the interval level. In most surveys the behavioral responses are qualitative, e.g., yes or no, in or out, or car, train, or bus. When one or more independent or explanatory variables are binary, they can be represented as dummy variables in a regression analysis. Interpreting dichotomous variables as interval measures is acceptable; however, dichotomous variables should only be independent variables. If the dependent variable is dichotomous, a statistical analogue to regression should be used (O'Sullivan and Rassel, 1995). Also violated are the assumptions of normality and constant variance of errors. Because the Y variable is dichotomous, we cannot assume that errors are normally distributed for each X variable, making the assumption of homoscedasticity untenable. And standard error estimates are biased, which invalidates hypothesis tests and confidence intervals. Eventually, impossible predictions derive from reasonable X values, i.e., probabilities > 1 or < 0 are predicted. To more realistically model probabilities requires a function that approaches but never exceeds the [0, 1] boundaries ((Hamilton, 1992). What is needed is a set of statistical techniques that can do the work of multivariate regression but that is not subject to its liabilities in the presence of qualitative dependent variables, such as models of 142

PAGE 153

qualitative choice or multiway frequency analysis. Models of qualitative choice involve dependent variables with two or more qualitative choices (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1991). Multiway frequency analysis, and its derivative log-linear analysis, examine relationships among three or more categorical, qualitative variables. Multiway frequency analysis develops a linear model of the logarithm of expected cell frequencies. These models are valuable for the analysis of survey data. Qualitative choice and multiway frequency models attempt to find a relationship between a set of attributes that describe an individual and the probability that the individual will make a given choice on the dependent variable (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1991). 21 These models offer several nonlinear statistical alternatives to the linear probability model (LPM) of least squares regression, including legit, pro bit, logistic regression, and log-linear analysis. 22 Two of the most common are probit and legit, which are useful when the dependent variable is ordinal rather than interval. Probit, legit, and the linear probability model all yield estimates with quite similar properties. Probit has been extended to cover the case of an ordinal dependent variable (McKelvey and Zavoina, 1976) and to cover dependent variables that are interval but limited in range (Tobin, 1958). 23 Pro bit is most useful when the dependent variable is dichotomous and is not interval (Welch and 143

PAGE 154

Comer, 1988), while legit is most useful when the dependent variable is polytomous (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). 24 There are two principal models for categorical responses that resemble regression models for continuous response variables -logistic regression and loglinear models. Logistic regression is a regression-based technique that also uses maximum likelihood estimation rather than ordinary least squares. But logistic regression is designed for use with a dichotomous response variable, which is re-expressed as a quantity termed a logit (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989). The more flexible log it transformation is regressed on two or more explanatory variables, as in multiple regression, except that maximum-likelihood estimation procedures are employed to estimate the coefficients in the regression equation. And unlike weighted least-squares regression, the explanatory variables on which response measures are regressed do not have to be exclusively categorical. These differences mean that logistic regression is not confined to the analysis of cross-tabulations in contingency tables. When logistic regression is used to analyze contingency table data, the results are comparable to those produced by the asymetrical application of log-linear models. 25 Log-linear models have two distinct features. First, they estimate parameters using the method of maximum likelihood rather than ordinary 144

PAGE 155

least squares. And second, log-linear models can be used either to investigate relationships between or among variables (symmetrical analysis using hierarchical models) or to determine the effects of selected categorical variables on a designated response variable (asymmetrical analysis using nonhierarchical models). Log linear models may be used when the dependent variable is not interval, e.g., ordinal, but the independent variables include a combination of nominal, ordinal, and interval variables. Log-linear models come in two flavors: hierarchical and nonhierarchical. A model is hierarchical if it includes all the lower effects contained in the highest-order association that is retained in the model. The major advantage of hierarchical models is the availability of a significance test for the difference between models, so that the most parsimonious adequately fitting model can be identified using inferential procedures. Non-hierarchical models are most useful if the research purpose is to find and interpret associations that are statistically significant, as is true for this study. When loglinear analysis is used with one categorical variable considered a dependent variable and the others independent variables, it is called legit analysis. The legit function of loglinear analysis reveals the odds of being in various dependent variable categories as a function of the levels of the independent variables, e.g., what are the odds of 145 i ,j

PAGE 156

success if a student takes two or fewer versus more than two statistics courses. Logit is related to log linear models, but the difference is that log-linear models focus on the joint outcome probabilities of a set of qualitative variables, while logit examines the conditional probability of a single qualitative variable, given a set of other variables, which may be qualitative or cardinal. The choice of estimation procedure should be based on the theoretical assumptions of the research questions, assumptions about the way the data were generated, and the ability of the technique to make possible and useful inferences (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Table 7-3 summarizes the statistical techniques for analyzing qualitative data. Table 7-3 Taxonomy of Statistical Techniques for Qualitative Data26 Statistical Response Explanatory Techniques Applications Variable Variables General Log-Symmetrical Categorical Not Linear Models Inquiry (two or more) applicable Logistic Asymetrical Dichotomous Metric and/or Regression Inquiry categorical Weighted Least-Asymetrical Dichotomous Categorical Squares Inquiry or polytomous Regression Logit-Model Log-Asymetrical Dichotomous Categorical Linear Analysis Inquiry or polytomous Configura! Description/ Categorical Not Frequency Classification (three or applicable Analysis more) 146

PAGE 157

The initial steps in log-linear analysis include defining two or more qualitative variables and structuring their constituent categories so that they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive; determining the nature of the inquiry, i.e., whether is it symmetrical or asymmetrical; specifying the target populations and sampling frames; obtaining a representative sample; and cross-classifying members of the sample on the basis of the qualitative/categorical variables, while observing the requisite condition of response independence. The term "logit" refers to interpretation of the parameters as the log of the odds ratios. Logit uses the natural logarithm of the probabilities or odds that an event will happen. 27 Log it models feature maximum likelihood estimation in contrast to ordinary regression models which are often estimated by ordinary least squares. 28 Maximum likelihood estimation is the most statistically efficient method for estimating proportional response (frequency of response), and it is the method most compatible with sampling distributions that govern dichotomous and polytomous outcomes (Kennedy, 1992). The least squares estimator of regression is linear, whereas the logit estimator is nonlinear due to the logistic transformation on the probability {Li, 1975). Logits range from minus infinity when P = 0, to infinity when P = 1 If the logit (l) is a linear function of X variables, 147

PAGE 158

then probability (P) is a nonlinear S-shaped function. Predicted probabilities approach but never reach or exceed the boundaries of 0 and 1 Thus legit regression provides a more realistic model for probabilities than does linear regression. Unless the relationship between Y and X is very strong, legit and linear regression produce similar predictions, but become increasingly different as probabilities near 0 or 1 Legit can easily test whether the impact of X, on Y is statistically significant; however, assessing the magnitude of the impact is more complicated than in linear regression. With a linear relationship, the impact of a unit change is a constant equal to the slope parameter. In a nonlinear relationship, it matters just where you are on the curve. As an example of interpreting legit, a slope coefficient of 0.0786 gives the change in the log of the odds ratio of owning a house per unit increase in income (Gujarti, 1988). If there is more than one X variable in the model, the computed probability will depend on the values taken by all the X variables, which means the change in probability will take into consideration the values of all the Xs simultaneously, thereby bringing into play the interaction effects of the other Xs when a given X changes by a unit. In linear regression, b1c measures the effect of exogenous variable k on the average values of Y. The average value of a dichotomous variable 148

PAGE 159

is equal to the probability that it assumes the value one. Thus in the linear probability model, b* measures the effect on P(Y = 1) of a unit change in X*, and this effect is the same for all values of X* (and all values of other Xks) since the model is linear. In log it, the nonlinearity of the relationship between P(Y = 1) and each Xk means that the interpretation of the impact of a change in Xk is less straightforward. The conceptual difference is that ordinary least squares is concerned with picking parameter estimates that yield the smallest sum of squared errors in the fit between the model and the data, while maximum likelihood estimation is concerned with picking parameter estimates that imply the highest probability or likelihood of having obtained the observed sample (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989). The set of inferences about parameter estimates that can be made with logit is similar to that of regression, but with some differences in estimation and interpretation. Parameter estimates in legit are only approximations in large samples; while this is also true for OLS regression, it appears that legit requires a larger sample than OLS regression (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). The exception is that there is no ready equivalent to the coefficient of determination (R2), and none of the possible alternatives has an interpretation as simple as R2 in linear regression. 29 149

PAGE 160

Logit analysis with a dichotomous dependent variable can also be performed through logistic regression, which is the more general procedure because it allows continuous as well as categorical independent variables. However, this study employed SPSS 6.0 for Windows, which limits logistic regression to dichotomous dependent variables. 30 SPSS allows for categorical independent variables, although one must be measured at the interval level of measurement (Norusis, 1 985). Since this study employs a combination of dichotomous and polytomous dependent variables, logit analysis is a more appropriate analytical tool for this study than logistic regression because it can be used with a combination of dichotomous and polytomous variables, as well as a combination of ordinal and nominal variables. 31 Results This section presents the results of a nonhierarchical multinomial logit analysis of the effect of strong democracy in the form of neighborhood participation on a set of measures representing the variables of legitimacy, capacity, and community. Strong democracy is represented by the dichotomous variable of participation in neighborhood associations. For each logit analysis in which neighborhood participation is employed as an independent variable, measures on the particular 150

PAGE 161

dependent variable for participants were compared to those for nonparticipants. The parameter estimates indicate the directionality and relative magnitude of the effect of participation. Socioeconomic status (SES), measured ordinally as a polytomous variable, was included in each analysis as a control variable. SES was used as an independent variable rather than as a covariate because logit requires a minimum of three variables in order to produce a non-saturated model. Because this study is principally concerned with the effects of participation on the response variables, only main and first-order effects were modeled in the logit analyses. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. Interpretation of the General Logit Model General loglinear analysis specifies two models: hierarchical and nonhierarchical. A model is hierarchical if it includes all the lower effects contained in the highest-order association that is retained in the model. If all possible effects are included, the model is saturated. A saturated model always provides a perfect fit to the data so that expected frequencies exactly equal observed frequencies. For example, a loglinear analysis with only two variables produces a saturated model. The main effects model, which is nonsaturated, tests the null 151

PAGE 162

hypothesis or hypothesis of no association. This is the model used in this study. Typically the first step in log it is to use a saturated model and remove any nonsignificant effects. This step allows only the significant effects to be fit in the interest of parsimony. The second step is to then specify a design which is not a saturated model. The purpose of modeling is to find the unsaturated model with the fewest effects that still closely mimics the observed frequencies. Model fitting is accomplished by finding G2 (the likelihood ratio statistic) for a particular unsaturated model and evaluating its significance. Because G2 is a test of fit between observed and expected frequencies, a good model is one with a nonsignificant G2 so that the difference between observed and expected frequencies is not significant. Once the optimal model is chosen, it is evaluated for its degree of fit to the overall data matrix and the amount of deviation from fit in each cell. Legit analysis reveals the odds of being in various categories of the dependent variable as a function of the levels of the independent variables; e.g., what are the odds of success if a student takes two or fewer versus more than two statistics courses. A loglinear model is developed in which an additive regression-type equation is written for (the log of) expected frequency as a function of the effects in the design. For each cell (the natural logarithm of) the expected frequency is an 152

PAGE 163

I additive sum of the effect parameters and a constant. Once the parameters for each cell are computed, they can be converted to odds. The term "logit" refers to interpretation of the parameters as the log of the odds ratios. For example, if the odds ratio = 9.97, then the odds are approximately 10 to 1, or an odds ratio of 10.32 Because the sampling distribution of the odds ratio can be highly skewed in small to moderate size samples, loglinear uses the log odds ratio, or the ratio of the natural logs of the odds; e.g., an odds ratio of 1 .0 equals a log odds ratio of 0.0, while 2.0 = 0. 7 (the log odds ratio is symmetric about 0). For dummy X variables, the odds ratio equals the antilog (e to the power) of the logit coefficient. The parameter estimates in this study are reported in terms of log odds. Loglinear analysis produces three sets of information. The first set includes observed frequencies, expected frequencies, and three types of residuals. Expected frequencies for each cell are computed and then the deviation between the expected and observed frequencies in each cell (the residual) is used to assess the adequacy of the model for fitting the observed frequency in that cell. 33 Residuals are usually standardized by dividing the difference between observed and expected frequencies by the square root of the expected frequency to produce a z value. Large adjusted residuals suggest a greater difference than we would expect if 153

PAGE 164

the null hypothesis was true, i.e., the variables were truly independent. 34 The second set of information includes goodness-of-fit statistics. In legit, chi-square procedures can be used to determine the extent to which expected frequencies correspond to observed frequencies. Legit calculates two chi square tests of independence: the Pearson chi square and the likelihood ratio chi square, referred to as G2 Small values (close to Ol for these tests support the null hypothesis; larger values provide support for rejecting the null hypothesis. While these two measures are separate tests, they share many properties and commonly yield the same or similar results if the model fits the data reasonably well. 35 When the null hypothesis is true and the sample cell counts are large, the two statistics have similar numerical values; e.g., a chi square value of 7.0 with 2 df has a p value of .03, meaning that we would expect this strong of an association only 3 times out of 1 00 if the null hypothesis was true, and the variables were truly independent. The reported p value simply summarizes the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis. 36 The third set of information provided by legit includes the parameter estimates: coefficient values, standard errors, standardized coefficient values (Z-values), and confidence intervals for coefficients. 154

PAGE 165

Loglinear analysis models cell frequencies using a multinomial response model and produces maximum likelihood estimates of parameters by means of the Newton-Raphson algorithm. Loglinear means that to transform a multiplicative model into a linear model, the numerical value of each parameter is expressed in terms of its natural log. Confidence intervals indicate how much the independent variable increases or decreases the log odds of the dependent variable. Confidence intervals multiply the odds associated with the dependent variable by calculating the natural log raised to the power of the confidence interval. For example, if the confidence interval equals a lower limit of 0.90 and an upper limit of 1.80, then each value is added to the log odds, and the odds are multiplied by e 90 and e1 8 A 95 percent confidence interval that does not include the value of 0 indicates statistical significance at the .05 level. For logit models, SPSS LOGLINEAR offers two additional tests; entropy and concentration, both of which are analyses of dispersion. 37 Both measures are used to construct an analysis of dispersion for cases in which one or more independent variables are used to predict a categorical dependent variable A statistically significant result indicates that the model fits the observed frequencies better than expected by chance; i.e., if p = .05, we expect this good a fit by chance only 5% of 155

PAGE 166

the time. Significant dispersion tests correspond to nonsignificant chi square tests in evaluating a model. If dispersion due to fit is significant, measures of association for entropy and concentration indicate how good the fit is. Both of these measures of association are proportional reduction in error measures. For this study, the major steps of log it analysis included generation of expected cell frequencies; comparison of expected and observed frequencies; identification of significant terms; and interpretation of the significant effects. The linear models that can be used to explain cell frequencies are simply the multiplicative models that become linear in their logarithms. To transform a multiplicative model into the linear, the numerical value of each constituent factor is expressed in terms of its natural logarithm (In), a logarithm to the base e. This explains the term log-linear as a description of these models. Instead of multiplying parameter estimates to obtain a product, log estimates are placed in linear combination, yielding a sum. The purpose of logit analysis is to discover associations among discrete variables. In legit, cell frequency is the dependent variable that is influenced by one or more categorical variables and their associations. Once a preliminary search for associations is complete, a model is fit that includes only the associations that are necessary to reproduce the 156

PAGE 167

observed frequencies. Logit develops a linear model of the logarithm of expected cell frequencies, forming tables of one, two, three, and higherway associations. The log-linear model then eliminates as many associations as possible while still maintaining an adequate fit between expected and observed cell frequencies. Logit treats one of the variables as a dependent variable, and associations are translated into tests of main effects and associations between the dependent variable and the joint effects of two or more independent variables. Since socioeconomic status (SES) was used as a control variable, associations between SES and the dependent variables were not modeled. Only the main effects for the dependent variables and the first order effects for the association between the independent variable of neighborhood participation and the dependent variables were modeled. This study includes a total of twenty logit analyses. Since each analysis is interpreted similarly, the log it model for the effect of participation on national representation will be presented in some detail, with the remaining models presented in more condensed form. Participation and Legitimacy This study examined the effect of neighborhood participation on legitimacy, which was measured in terms of representation by 157

PAGE 168

government, responsiveness of government, and trust and confidence in government. The effects of participation (NAPartic1 ) on legitimacy were examined for both national and local government for each measure except confidence, which was measured only for local government. The correlation coefficients for the three measures of legitimacy for national government indicate a moderate degree of association, falling between .35 and .44. The correlation coefficients for the four measures of legitimacy for local government indicate a moderate to strong degree of association, falling between .46 and .54. Representation by Government. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop legit models of national and local representation Predictor variables included neighborhood participation and socioeconomic status. A total of 1, 783 respondents provided usable data for the national model and 1 ,828 respondents provided usable data for the local model. All twelve cells in the three-way contingency tables for both models showed frequencies of five or greater. The degree to which respondents feel represented by government was measured dichotomously for both national and local government. In the legit analysis the degree to which respondents believe government is run for the benefit of all of the people (NatRep1 LocRep1 ) was compared to the degree to which respondents believe government is run by a few 158

PAGE 169

big interests looking out for themselves (NatRep2 LocRep2). Both chi square statistics were nonsignificant, indicating that the model fit the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 3.45, df = 2, p = .18; and X2 = 3.13, df = 2, p = .21. The largest adjusted residual of 1. 77 is less than two standard deviations, indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with no outlying cells. However, the association between the independent variables and the response variable is weak. The entropy (.0045) and concentration (.0058) measures indicate that there is less than a 1 percent reduction in classification errors on the response variable of national government representation with knowledge of neighborhood participation and socioeconomic status. Table 7-4 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on national government representation, controlling for the effects of socioeconomic status (SESJ. Table 7-4 Neighborhood Participation and Representation by National Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval NatRep1/NatRep2 Constant -.4879* .1331 -.75 --.23 NAPartic, -.2627* .1263 -.51 -.02 Significant at .05 level. The logit analysis produced a model with a main effect for national 159

PAGE 170

representation, and a first-order effect for the two-way association between national representation and neighborhood participation. The negative parameter estimate of -.4879 for national representation indicates that overall, respondents were more likely to believe that national government represented a few big interests than to believe that it represented all of the people. This estimate for the constant of representation is statistically significant at the .05 level, since the confidence interval of -.75 to -.23 does not include the value of 0. Since respondents on average held a negative view of representation by national government, the parameter estimate for the independent variable indicates the degree to which participation ameliorated or exacerbated this negative view. The negative parameter estimate of -.2627 for neighborhood participation shows that neighborhood participation had a negative effect on respondents' sense of representation by national government. This effect is statistically significant at the .05 level, since the 95 percent confidence interval of .51 to -.02 does not include the value of 0. This finding can be interpreted as follows. Compared to respondents who believe that national government represents only a few big interests, and controlling for the influence of SES, neighborhood participation decreased the log odds of believing that national government 160

PAGE 171

represents all of the people by 0.51 to 0.02, and decreased the odds of believing that national government represents all of the people by a factor of from 0.60 to 0.98. The null hypothesis was rejected, but not in the direction predicted by participatory theory. While respondents on average held a negative view of representation by national government, neighborhood participants were less likely than nonparticipants to feel represented by national government. The results for representation by local government, as well as the remaining results, are presented in more condensed form, but they can be interpreted similarly to the results for national representation. Table 7-5 shows the results of the legit analysis of the effects of neighborhood participation on local government representation, controlling for the effects of socioeconomic status. Table 7-5 Neighborhood Participation and Representation by Local Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval LocRep1/LocRep2 Constant .4406* .1328 .18 .70 NAPartic1 -.0030 .1241 -.25 -.24 Significant at .05 level. The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 1.01, df = 2, p = .60; and X2 = 1.03, df = 2, p = .60. The largest adjusted 161

PAGE 172

residual is .92, indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0072) and concentration (.0090) measures indicate a weak association. Overall, respondents were significantly more likely to believe that local government represented all of the people that to believe that it represented only a few big interests. The logit analysis found no significant effect for the two-way association between representation by local government and neighborhood participation. Neighborhood participation had a slight negative effect on respondents' sense of representation by local government, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was supported. Neighborhood participants were not more likely to feel represented by local government than were nonparticipants. Responsiveness of Government. Responsiveness measures the degree to which respondents feel that government pays attention to them when it decides what to do. In the logit analysis, the degree to which respondents feel that government pays a good deal of attention (NatResp1 LocResp1 ) or some attention (NatResp2 LocResp2 ) to what people think when it decides what to do was compared to the degree to which they feel that government does not pay much attention (NatResp3 LocResp3 ) to what people think when it decides what to do. 162 I

PAGE 173

A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of national (n = 1,967) and local {n = 1,974) government responsiveness The model for national responsiveness fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 0.86, df = 4, p = .93; and X2 = 0.86, df = 4, p == .93. All but one of the eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is .85, indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0157) and concentration {.0152) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-6 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on national government responsiveness, controlling for SES. Table 7-6 Neighborhood Participation and Responsiveness of National Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval NatResp,/NatResp3 Constant -.7574* .1721 -1.09 --.42 NAPartic, -.0353 .1684 -.37 -.29 NatResp2/NatResp3 Constant .0413 .1364 -.23 -.31 NAPartic, -.1467 .1330 .41 -.11 Significant at .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that national government was somewhat responsive or unresponsive than very responsive. Neighborhood participation had a slight negative effect on 163 I

PAGE 174

participants' sense of national responsiveness, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was supported. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to believe that national government is more responsive. The logit model for local government responsiveness also fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 0. 77, df = 4, p = 94; and X2 = 0 78, df = 4, p = .94. All eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 76, indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0123) and concentration ( .0120) measures indicate a weak association Table 7-7 Neighborhood Participation and Responsiveness of Local Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval LocResp1/LocResp3 Constant .4357* .1695 .10 -.77 NAPartic1 -.0778 .1659 -.40 -.25 LocResp2/LocResp3 Constant .7267* .1609 .41 1.04 NAPartic1 -.0835 .1649 -.41 -.24 Significant at the 05 level. Table 7-7 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on local government responsiveness, controlling for SES. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that 164

PAGE 175

local government was very responsive or somewhat responsive than unresponsive. Neighborhood participation had a slight negative effect on respondents' sense of local government responsiveness, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was supported. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to feel that local government is more responsive to them. Trust and Confidence in Government. Trust measures the degree to which respondents believe that they can trust government to do what is right. In the logit analysis, the degree to which respondents feel they can trust government to do what is right all of the time (NatTrust1 LocTrust1), most of the time {NatTrust2 LocTrust2), or some of the time {NatTrust3 LocTrust3 ) was compared to the degree to which respondents feel they can trust government to do what is right none of the time (NatTrust4 LocTrust4). Confidence in government measures how well respondents think their city is run. In the logit analysis, the degree to which respondents feel their city is run excellent/very good (CityConf1 ) or good (CityConf2 ) was compared to the degree to which respondents feel their city is run fair/poor (CityConf3). A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of trust in national (n = 1 ,973) and local {n = 1 ,978) government. The model for national trust fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 6.04, 165

PAGE 176

df = 6, p = .42; and X2 = 4.82, df = 6, p = .57. Three of the 24 cells show frequencies of fewer than five. The largest adjusted residual is 1 .41 indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with no outlying cells The entropy (.01 02) and concentration (.0054) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-8 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on respondents' sense of trust in nat i onal government, controlling for SES. Table 7-8 Neighborhood Participation and Sense of Trust in National Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval NatTrust1/NatTrust4 Constant .9771 .3586 .27 -1.68 NAPartic1 -.4402 .4322 -1.29 .41 NatTrust2/NatTrust4 Constant 1 .891 0* .3262 1.25 -2.53 NAPartic1 -.2488 .3237 -.88 -.39 NatTrust3/NatTrust4 Constant 2.6412 .3144 2 .02 -3.26 NAPartic1 -.1371 .3169 -.76 -.48 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that national government could be trusted only some or none of the time compared to all or most of the time. Neighborhood participation had a slight negative effect on all levels of trust in national government, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was 166

PAGE 177

supported. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to trust national government. The logit model for trust in local government also fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 8.80, df = 6, p = .19; and X2 = 8.52, df = 6, p = .20. Three of the 24 cells show frequencies of fewer than five. Only one adjusted residual is greater than 1.96, indicating that the data are adequately modeled, with virtually no outlying cells. The entropy (.0119) and concentration (.0151) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-9 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on respondents' sense of trust in local government, controlling for SES. Table 7-9 Neighborhood Participation and Sense of Trust in Local Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval LocTrust,/LocTrust4 Constant 1.8500* .4391 .99 -2.71 NAPartic, .5054 .4155 -.31 -1.32 LocTrust2/Loc Trust4 Constant 2.8519* .4207 2.03 -3.68 NAPartic, .2406 .3979 -.54 1.02 Lac T rust3/Loc Trust4 Constant 2.9268* .4199 2.103.75 NAPartic, .3110 .4018 -.48 1.10 Significant at the .05 level. In contrast to their attitudes toward national government, 167

PAGE 178

respondents were more likely to believe that local government could be trusted always or most of the time compared to some or none of the time. And unlike national government, neighborhood participation had a slight positive effect on all levels of trust in local government, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was supported. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to trust local government. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a logit model of confidence in local government (n = 1 ,939). The data are adequately modeled, with likelihood ratio G2 = 6.46, df = 4, p = .17; and X2 = 6.51, df = 4, p = .16. All eighteen cells in the analysis showed frequencies of five or greater. Six adjusted residuals are greater than 1. 96, indicating several outlying cells. The entropy (.0134) and concentration (.0163) measures indicate a weak association. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that their city was run very well or excellent compared to run well, and more likely to believe their city was run well than fair or poor. Neighborhood participation had a slight but nonsignificant positive effect on respondents who believe their city is run excellent/very well (CityConf1), but a significant negative effect on respondents who believe their city is run well (CityConf2). Compared to believing that local government is run fair/poor (CityConf3), 168

PAGE 179

and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation decreased the log odds of believing that local government is run well by -0.69 to -0.05, and decreased the odds by a factor of from 0.50 to 0.95. The null hypothesis was partially rejected, but not in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were somewhat less likely than nonparticipants to believe their city is run well. Table 7-10 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on respondents' sense of confidence in local government, controlling for SES. Table 7-10 Neighborhood Participation and Confidence in Local Government Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval CityConf, /CityConf 3 Constant .5254* .1609 .21 -.84 NAPartic, .0136 .1510 -.28 .31 CityConf 2/CityConf 3 Constant .3828* .1666 .06.71 NAPartic, -.3691 .1613 -.69 -.05 Significant at the .05 level. Participation and Capacity Political capacity examines the effect of neighborhood participation on political efficacy and participation spillover. Political efficacy consists of two measures of internal efficacy and one measure of external 169 ; ,j L

PAGE 180

efficacy. The correlation coefficient for the two measures of internal efficacy was .26, indicating a mild degree of association. The correlation coefficients between the two internal measures and the measure of external efficacy were .23 and .09, indicating a mild and a weak degree of association. Participation spillover consists of four measures of respondents' political participation beyond neighborhood associations: internal spillover, external spillover, spillover frequency, and spillover level. Five of the six correlation coefficients for these measures range from .16 to .37, indicating a mild to moderate degree of association. The one exception was for external spillover and spillover frequency, which had a correlation coefficient of .65, indicating a strong degree of association. Internal Efficacy. Internal efficacyA measures whether or not respondents believe they have a say about what government does, and internal efficacy8 measures whether or not respondents believe politics and government are too complicated to understand. In the logit analysis, the degree to which respondents feel more politically efficacious (lntEffic1 ) was compared to the degree to which respondents feel less politically efficacious (lntEffic2 ) for both measures of internal efficacy. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model for internal efficacyA (n = 1 ,944) and internal efficacy8 (n = 1 ,953). The 170

PAGE 181

model for internal efficacyA fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = .88, df = 2, p = .65; and X2 = .88, df = 2, p = .64. All twelve cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is .91, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0447) and concentration (.0554) measures indicate a very mild association. Table 7-11 shows the results of the log it analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on internal efficacyA, controlling for SES. Table 7-11 Neighborhood Participation and Internal Political EfficacyA Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval lntEffic1/lntEffic2 Constant -.1832 .1269 -.43 .07 NAPartic1 .3297* .1293 .08 -.58 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were slightly more likely to believe that they do not have a say about what government does. Neighborhood participation had a positive and statistically significant effect on respondents' sense of internal political efficacy. Compared to respondents who believe that they do not have much say about what government does, and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of respondents believing that they 171

PAGE 182

have a say in what government does by 0.08 to 0.58, and increased the odds of respondents believing that they have a say in what government does by a factor of from 1.08 to 1. 79. The null hypothesis was rejected. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to believe that they have a say in what government does. The legit model for internal efficacy8 also fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = .96, df = 2, p = .62; and X2 = .94, df = 2, p = .62. All twelve cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is .94, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0532) and concentration (.0707) measures indicate a mild association. Table 7-12 shows the results of the logit analysis of the influence of neighborhood participation on internal efficacy8 controlling for SES. Table 7-12 Neighborhood Participation and Internal Political Efficacy8 Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval lntEffic1/lntEffic2 Constant -1.2867* .1475 -1.58 -1.00 NAPartic1 .4475* .1164 .22-.68 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that politics and government are too complicated to understand. Neighborhood 172 I

PAGE 183

participation had a positive and statistically significant effect on respondents' sense of internal political efficacy8 Compared to respondents who believe that politics and government are too complicated to understand, and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of respondents believing that they can understand politics and government by 0.22 to 0.68, and increased the odds of respondents believing that they can understand politics and government by a factor of from 1 .25 to 1 .97. The null hypothesis was rejected in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to believe that they can understand politics and government. External Efficacy. External efficacy measures the degree to which respondents believe that city officials would consider their opinions if they explained their point of view. In the logit analysis, the degree to which respondents feel more or somewhat politically efficacious (ExtEffic,, ExtEffic2 ) was compared to the degree to which they feel less politically efficacious ( ExtEffic3). A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a logit model of external efficacy (n = 1 ,875). The model fits the data reasonably well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 7 .45, df == 4, p = .11; and X2 = 8.05, df = 4, p = .09. All but one of the eighteen cells in the 173

PAGE 184

analysis show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 2.54 and there are two outlying cells. The entropy (.0216) and concentration (.02261 measures indicate a weak association. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that local government would consider their point of view a lot or a little compared to not at all. Neighborhood participation had a positive effect on respondents' sense of external political efficacy, although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was accepted. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to believe that local government would consider their point of view. Table 7-13 shows the results of the logit analysis of the influence of neighborhood participation on external efficacy, controlling for SES. Table 7-13 Neighborhood Participation and External Efficacy Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval ExtEffic, /ExtEffic3 Constant .9360* .2027 .54 -1.33 NAPartic1 .3339 .2225 -.10 -. 77 ExtEffic2/ExtEffic3 Constant 1.2090* .1968 .82 -1 .59 NAPartic1 -.0863 .2258 -.53 .36 Significant at the .05 level. Internal Spillover. Internal spillover measures the degree to which 174

PAGE 185

respondents have been asked by others in their community to participate in community organizations. In the logit analysis, respondents who have been asked by members of their community to participate in community organizations (Spillln1 ) were compared to those who have not been asked A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of internal spillover (n = 1 ,955). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = .46, df = 2, p = .80; and X2 = .46, df = 2, p = 79. All twelve cells in the analysis showed frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is .68, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (. 1 050) and concentration (.1324) measures indicate a moderate association. Table 7-14 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on internal spillover, controlling for SES. Table 7-14 Neighborhood Participation and Internal Spillover Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval Spillln1/Spillln2 Constant -.6706* .1330 -.93 -.41 NAPartic1 1.9832* .1516 1.69 -2.28 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to have not been asked to 175

PAGE 186

I participate in community organizations. Neighborhood participation had a positive and statistically significant effect on respondents having been asked to participate in community organizations. Compared to respondents who have not been asked to participate, and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of respondents being asked to participate by 1.69 to 2.28, and increased the odds of respondents being asked to participate by a factor of from 5.42 to 9. 78. The null hypothesis was rejected in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to have been asked to participate in community organizations. External Spillover. External spillover measures the extent to which respondents participate in political activities beyond neighborhood associations. In the logit analysis, respondents with more than three (SpiiiOut,) and between one and three (Spi110ut2 ) participation activities beyond neighborhood associations were compared to those with no activities (Spill0ut3 ) beyond neighborhood associations. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a logit model of external spillover (n = 1 ,038). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 3.32, df = 4, p = .51; and X2 = 3.41, df = 4, p = .49. Four of the eighteen cells in the analysis showed frequencies of less than five. The largest adjusted residual is 1 .50, indicating that the 176

PAGE 187

data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0796) and concentration (.0580) measures indicate a mild association. Table 7-15 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on external spillover, controlling for SES. Table 7-15 Neighborhood Participation and External Spillover Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval Spill0ut1/Spill0ut3 Constant -3.1073* .4115 -3.91 -2.30 NAPartic1 3.1048* .3579 2.40 3.81 Spill0ut2/Spillout3 Constant -.2821 .1507 .58 .01 NAPartic1 1.3775* .3249 .74-2.01 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to participate in no political activities than they were to participate in more than three political activities, while there was no statistical difference between respondents who participated in no activities and those who participated in one to three activities. Neighborhood participation had a significant positive effect on respondents' external political activities. Compared to respondents with no other political activities, and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of participating in more than three political activities (Spill0ut1 ) by 2.40 to 177 i

PAGE 188

3 .81, and increased the odds of participating in more than three political activities by a factor of from 11.12 to 45.15. Compared to respondents with no other political activities, and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of participating in from one to three political activities (Spi110ut2 ) by 74 to 2.01, and increased the odds of participating in from one to three political activities by a factor of from 2.10 to 7 .46. The null hypothesis was rejected in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to participate in political activities beyond neighborhood associations. Soillover Frequency. Spillover frequency measures how often respondents participate in political activities beyond neighborhood associations. In the legit analysis, respondents who participate more than once a month (Spi1Freq1 ) or once a month (Spi1Freq2 ) were compared with those who participate less than once a month (Spi1Freq3 ) A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a logit model of spillover frequency (n = 1 ,007). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 4.34, d f = 4, p = .36; and X2 = 4 1 0, df = 4, p = .39. All but one of the eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 1 .84, indicating that the data are w e ll modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy ( .0170) and 178 t j

PAGE 189

concentration (.0193) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-16 shows the results of the legit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on spillover frequency, controlling for SES. Table 7-16 Neighborhood Participation and Spillover Frequency Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval Spi1Freq1/Spi1Freq3 Constant .3815 .2979 -.97 .20 NAPartic1 .7865* .1634 .47 1.11 Spi1Freq2/Spi1Freq3 Constant -.3885 .2984 -.97 .20 NAPartic1 .8111 .1724 .47 -1.15 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were slightly more likely to participate less than once a month than to participate once a month or more than once a month. Neighborhood participation had a significant positive effect on the frequency of respondents' participation in political activities. Compared to respondents who participate less than once a month {Spi1Freq3), and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the Jog odds of participating more than once a month {Spi1Freq1 ) by .47 to 1 .11, and increased the odds of participating more than once a month by a factor of from 1.60 to 3 .03. Compared to respondents who participate less than once a month (Spi1Freq3), and 179

PAGE 190

controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of participating once a month (Spi1Freq2 ) by .47 to 1 .15, and increased the odds of participating once a month by a factor of from 1.60 to 3.16. The null hypothesis was rejected in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to participate more often in political activities beyond neighborhood associations. Spillover Level. Spillover level measures the degree to which respondents' political activities beyond neighborhood associations involve face-to-face participation. In the logit analysis, respondents who participate in projects (Spillevl,) or meetings (Spillevl2 ) were compared to those who participate only through membership (Spillevl3). A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of spillover level (n = 678). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 5.22, df = 4, p = .27; and X2 = 5.56, df = 4, p = .23. Four of the eighteen cells show frequencies less than five. The largest adjusted residual is 1. 73, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0825) and concentration (.0922) measures indicate a moderate association. Table 7-17 shows the results of the logit analysis of the influence of neighborhood participation on spillover level, controlling for SES. 180

PAGE 191

Table 7-17 Neighborhood Participation and Spillover Level Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval Spillevi1/Spillevl3 Constant -2.0175 .4729 -2.94 -1.09 NAPartic1 2.0294* .2325 1.57 -2.49 Spillev12/Spillevl3 Constant -1.1699* .3674 -1.89 --.45 NAPartic, .6773* .2485 .19-1.16 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to engage in lower rather than higher levels of face-to-face participation. Neighborhood participation had a significant positive effect on the degree of respondents' face-to-face participation in political activities. Compared to respondents whose participation is limited to organization membership (Spillevl3), and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of participating in projects and committees (Spillevl1 ) by 1.57 to 2.49, and increased the odds of participating in projects and committees by a factor of from 4.81 to 12.06. Compared to respondents whose participation is limited to organization membership (Spillevl3), and controlling for the effects of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of participating in general membership meetings (Spillevl2 ) by .1 9 to 1 1 6, and increased 181

PAGE 192

the odds of participating in general membership meetings by a factor of from 1.21 to 3.19. The null hypothesis was rejected in the expected direction. Neighborhood participants were more likely than nonparticipants to participate in face-to-face activities beyond neighborhood associations. Participation and Community Community examines the effect of neighborhood participation on respondents' sense of community, perception of the role of public discussion in reducing conflict, the personal benefits and costs of neighborhood participation, and the community benefits and costs of neighborhood participation. Sense of community and public discussion have a correlation coefficient of .08, indicating a weak degree of association. Personal and community benefits are moderately correlated: .33 for participants and .38 for nonparticipants. Personal and community costs are more strongly correlated: .42 for participants and .52 for nonparticipants. Sense of Community. Sense of community measures the degree to which respondents feel a sense of community with the people in their neighborhood. In the legit analysis, respondents with a strong sense of community (SensComm1 ) or a moderate sense of community 182

PAGE 193

(SensComm2 ) were compared to respondents with a weak sense of community (SensComm3). A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of sense of community (n = 1 ,951). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 1.66, df = 4, p = .80; and X2 = 1.64, df = 4, p = .80. All but one of the eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 1 1 2, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0214) and concentration (.0248) measures indicate a weak association. Overall, respondents were more likely to feel a strong or moderate sense of community than a weak sense of community. Neighborhood participation had a significant positive effect on respondents' sense of community. Compared to respondents with a weak sense of community, and controlling for the influence of SES, neighborhood participation increased the log odds of respondents feeling a strong sense of community (SensComm,) with people in their neighborhood by 0.86 to 1.59, and increased the odds of respondents feeling a strong sense of community by a factor of from 2.36 to 4.90. Neighborhood participation also increased respondents' moderate sense of community (SensComm2), but this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis is partially rejected. Neighborhood participants were more likely than 183

PAGE 194

nonparticipants to feel a strong sense of community, but were not more likely to feel a moderate sense of community. Table 7-18 shows the results of the legit analysis of the influence of neighborhood participation on sense of community, controlling for SES. Table 7-18 Neighborhood Participation and Sense of Community Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval SensComm 1/SensComm3 Constant .4748* .1732 .14-.81 NAPartic1 1.2269* .1867 .86 -1.59 SensComm 2/SensComm3 Constant .6169* .1703 .28 -.95 NAPartic, .2971 .1950 -.09 -.68 Significant at the .05 level. Public Discussion. Public discussion measures the degree to which respondents feel that public discussion of neighborhood issues increases or decreases bad feelings between people. In the legit analysis, respondents who feel that public discussion decreases bad feelings between people (Discuss,) were compared to those who feel public discussion increases bad feelings between people (Discuss2). A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a legit model of public discussion (n = 1,299). The model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 3.28, df = 2, p = 19; and X2 = 3.34, df = 2, p 184

PAGE 195

= .19. The largest adjusted residual is 1. 77, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0156) and concentration (.0146) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-19 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of neighborhood participation on the effect of public discussion, controlling for SES. Table 9-19 Neighborhood Participation and Public Discussion Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval Discuss1/Discuss2 Constant .9985* .1748 .66 -1.34 NAPartic, .3447 .1872 -.02.71 Significant at the .05 level. Overall, respondents were more likely to believe that public discussion decreased rather than increased bad feelings between people. Neighborhood participation had a positive effect on respondents' belief that public discussion decreases bad feelings between people, but this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was accepted. Neighborhood participants were not more likely than nonparticipants to believe that public discussion of issues decreases bad feelings between people. Personal Benefits of Participation. This section examines the effect of the costs of neighborhood participation on respondents' perception of 185

PAGE 196

the personal benefits of neighborhood participation. Because cost and benefit data were collected separately for participants and nonparticipants, they are compared using separate but identical legit analyses. The effect of the costs of participation on the perceived personal benefits of participation are examined for neighborhood participants and nonparticipants, followed by the effect of costs on the perceived commmunity benefits of participation. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of personal benefits for participants and nonparticipants. Predictor variables included personal costs and community costs. A total of 349 participants and 1 ,242 nonparticipants provided usable data for this analysis. Participants and nonparticipants identifying four to five personal benefits (PPersBen,, NPersBen1 ) and identifying two to three personal benefits (PPersBen2 NPersBen2 ) were compared to participants identifying none or one benefit (PPersBen3 NPersBen3). The model for participants fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 2.97, df = 4, p = .56; and X2 = 2.87, df = 4, p = .58. Fifteen of the eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 1 58, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0156) and concentration (.0170) measures indicate a weak association. Table 7-20 shows the results of 186

PAGE 197

the logit analysis of the effect of personal and community costs on participants' perception of personal benefits. Table 7-20 Costs of Participation and Participant Personal Benefits Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval PPersBen1/PPersBen3 Constant -.0458 .3649 -.76 -.67 PComCost, -.6092 .4388 -1.47 -.25 PComCost2 .8879* .4307 -1.73 -.04 PPerCost1 .6276* .3021 .041.22 PPersBen2/PPersBen3 Constant .1156 .3501 -.57 -.67 PComCost, -.3679 .4116 -1.17 -.44 PComCost2 -.2974 .3953 -1.07-.48 PPerCost1 .6733* .2607 .16-1.18 Significant at the .05 level. For participants, the logit analysis produced an effect for the association between personal benefits and personal costs, and a partial effect for the association between personal benefits and community costs. Personal costs reduced the likelihood that participants identified personal benefits of neighborhood participation. Compared to respondents who identified personal costs (PPerCost2), and controlling for the effects of community costs, identifying no personal costs (PPerCost1 ) increased the log odds of participants identifying a high number of personal benefits (PPers8en1 ) by .04 to 1.22, and increased the odds of 187

PAGE 198

participants identifying a high number of personal benefits by a factor of from 1.04 to 3.39. Compared to respondents who identified personal costs (PPerCost2), and controlling for the effects of community costs, identifying no personal costs (PPerCost1 ) increased the log odds of participants identifying a moderate number of personal benefits (PPersBen2 ) by .16 to 1.18, and increased the odds of participants identifying a high number of personal benefits by a factor of from 1 1 7 to 3.25. Community costs also reduced the likelihood that participants identified personal benefits of neighborhood participation. Compared to respondents who identified a high level of community costs (PComCost3), and controlling for the effects of personal costs, identifying a moderate level of community costs (PComCost2 ) decreased the log odds of participants identifying a high level of personal benefits (PPersBen1 ) by -.04 to -1. 73, and decreased the odds of participants identifying a high level of personal benefits by a factor of from .18 to .96. Compared to a high level of community costs, and controlling for the effects of personal costs, low and moderate levels of community costs also decreased the likelihood of participants identifying a high and moderate level of personal benefits, although these relationships were not statistically significant. The model for nonparticipants fits the data moderately well, with 188

PAGE 199

likelihood ratio G2 = 7.01, df = 4, p = .14; and X2 = 6.91, df = 4, p = .14. All eighteen cells show frequencies of five or greater. The largest adjusted residual is 2.38, indicating that the data are reasonably well modeled, with only two outlying cells. The entropy (.0056) and concentration (.0057) measures indicate a weak association. For nonparticipants, the legit analysis produced an effect for the association between personal benefits and community costs, and a partial effect for the association between personal benefits and personal costs Community costs reduced the likelihood that nonparticipants identified personal benefits of neighborhood participation. Compared to respondents who identified a high level of community costs (NComCost3), and controlling for the effects of personal costs, a low level of community costs (NComCost1 ) decreased the log odds of nonparticipants identifying a high level of personal benefits (NPersBen,) by -.21 to -1.17, and decreased the odds of nonparticipants identifying a high level of personal benefits by a factor of from .31 to .81. Compared to respondents who identified a high level of community costs (NComCost3), and controlling for the effects of personal costs, a moderate level of community costs (NComCost2 ) decreased the log odds of nonparticipants identifying a high level of personal benefits (NPersBen,) by -.14 to -1 .09, and decreased the odds of nonparticipants identifying a 189

PAGE 200

high level of personal benefits by a factor of from .34 to .87. Low and moderate levels of community costs also decreased the likelihood of nonparticipants identifying a moderate level of personal benefits, although these relationships were not statistically significant. Personal costs also reduced the likelihood that nonparticipants identified personal benefits of neighborhood participation. Compared to respondents who identified personal costs (NPerCost2), and controlling for the effects of community costs, identifying no personal costs (NPerCost,l increased the log odds of nonparticipants identifying a high number of personal benefits (NPersBen,l by .06 to 70, and increased the odds of nonparticipants identifying a high number of personal benefits by a factor of from 1.06 to 2.01. Identifying no personal costs (NPerCost,) also increased the likelihood of nonparticipants identifying a moderate number of personal benefits (PPers8en2), although this relationship was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was partially rejected. Community costs of neighborhood participation reduced the likelihood that both participants and nonparticipants identified high levels of personal benefits from neighborhood participation, but the effect was somewhat more pronounced for nonparticipants. And identifying no personal costs of neighborhood participation increased the likelihood that both participants 190

PAGE 201

and nonparticipants identified high levels of personal benefits from neighborhood participation, but again, the effect was somewhat more pronounced for participants. Table 7-21 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effects of personal and community costs on nonparticipants' perception of personal benefits. Table 7-21 Costs of Participation and Nonparticipant Personal Benefits Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval NPersBen1/NPersBen3 Constant -.0908 .2077 -.50 -.32 NComCost, -.6908* .2460 -1.17--.21 NComCost2 -.6116* .2418 -1.09 --.14 NPerCost1 .3830* 1627 .06-.70 NPersBen2/NPersBen3 Constant .2556 1924 -.50 -.32 NComCost1 -.4034 .2229 -.84 .03 NComCost2 -.1225 .2171 .55 .30 NPerCost1 .1914 .1379 -.08 -.46 Significant at the .05 level. Community Benefits of Participation. This section examines the effect of the costs of neighborhood participation on respondents' perception of the community benefits of neighborhood participation. A three-way frequency analysis was performed to develop a model of community benefits for participants and nonparticipants. Predictor variables included personal costs and community costs. A total of 353 191

PAGE 202

participants and 1 ,269 nonparticipants provided usable data for this analysis. Participants and nonparticipants identifying four to five community benefits (PCommBen1 NCommBen1 ) or identifying two to three community benefits (PCommBen2 NCommBen2 ) were compared to participants identifying none or one community benefit (PCommBen3 NCommBen3). The model for participants fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 1 .32, df = 4, p = .86; and X2 = .94, df = 4, p = .92. Five of the eighteen cells show frequencies less than five. The largest adjusted residual is 75, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy ( .0430) and concentration ( .0466) measures indicate a mild association. For participants, the logit analysis produced a partial effect for the association between community benefits and personal costs, but no effect for the association between community benefits and community costs. Personal costs inversely affect the likelihood that participants will identify high levels of community benefits of neighborhood participation. Compared to participants who identified personal costs (PPerCost2), and controlling for the effects of community costs, identifying no personal costs (PPerCost1 ) increased the log odds of participants identifying a high level of communi t y benefits (PCommBen1 ) by .16 to 1.99, and incre a sed 192

PAGE 203

the odds of participants identifying a high level of community benefits by a factor of from 1 1 7 to 7. 32. Personal costs also inversely affect the likelihood that participants will identify moderate levels of community benefits. Compared to participants who identified personal costs (PPerCost2), and controlling for the effects of community costs, identifying no personal costs (PPerCost1 ) also increased the likelihood that participants identified a moderate level of community benefits. However, this relationship was not statistically significant. Table 7-22 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of personal and community costs on participants' perception of community benefits. Table 7-22 Costs of Participation and Participant Community Benefits Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval PCommBen1/PCommBen3 Constant 2.0306* .5315 .99 3.07 PComCost1 .1124 .6588 -1.18 1.40 PComCost2 -.5170 .6038 -1.70-.67 PPerCost1 1.0727* .4681 .16 -1.99 PCommBen2/PCommBen3 Constant .8848 .5940 -.28 2.05 PC om Cost, -.0873 .7400 -1.54-1.36 PComCost2 .0892 .6683 -1.22 1.40 PPerCost1 .2918 .5174 -.72-1.31 Significant at the .05 level. Community costs had a mixed effect on the likelihood that 193

PAGE 204

participants identified community benefits of neighborhood participation. Identifying the lowest level of community costs had a slight positive effect on the likelihood that participants identified the highest level of community benefits, but a slight negative effect on the likelihood that participants identified a moderate level of community benefits. Identifying a moderate level of community costs had a slight negative effect on the likelihood that participants identified the highest level of community benefits, but a slight positive effect on the likelihood that participants will identified a moderate level of community benefits. However, none of these relationships were statistically significant. For nonparticipants, the logit model fits the data well, with likelihood ratio G2 = 73, df = 4, p = .95; and X2 = 73, df = 4, p = .95. Two of the eighteen cells show frequencies less than five. The largest adjusted residual is .80, indicating that the data are well modeled, with no outlying cells. The entropy (.0052) and concentration (.0051) measures indicate a weak association. For nonparticipants, the logit analysis produced no significant effect for either the association between community benefits and community costs or for the association between community benefits and personal costs. Community costs had an inverse effect on the community benefits of neighborhood participation. Identifying lower and 194

PAGE 205

moderate levels of community costs increased the likelihood that nonparticipants identified both higher and moderate levels of community benefits. However, none of these relationships were statistically significant. Table 7-23 shows the results of the logit analysis of the effect of personal and communi!y costs on nonparticipants' perception of the community benefits of neighborhood participation. Table 7-23 Costs of Participation and Nonparticipant Community Benefits Standard 95% Confidence Parameter Estimate Error Interval NCommBen1/NCommBen3 Constant 1.6730* .2346 1.21 -2.13 NComCost1 .2290 .2855 -.33 -.79 NComCost2 .1895 .2792 -.36 -.74 NPerCost1 .0387 .1979 -.35 -.43 NCommBen2/NCommBen3 Constant .3199 .2832 -.24 -.87 NComCost, .2122 .3416 -.46 -.88 NComCost2 .5956 .3291 -.05 -1.24 NPerCost1 -.0595 .2273 -.51 .30 Significant at the .05 level. Personal costs had a mixed effect on the community benefits of neighborhood participation. Nonparticipants who identified no personal costs were slightly more likely to identify higher levels of community benefits than nonparticipants who identified personal costs, while nonparticipants who identified no personal costs were slightly less likely 195

PAGE 206

to identify moderate levels of community benefits. However, none of these relationships were statistically significant. The null hypothesis is largely accepted. Community costs had no significant effect on the likelihood that either participants or nonparticipants identified higher or moderate levels of community benefits from neighborhood participation. Identifying no personal costs of neighborhood participation significantly increased the likelihood that participants will identified higher levels of community benefits, but not moderate levels of community benefits. Summary of Findings The findings related to the effect of neighborhood participation on citizens' sense of community were partially supportive of participatory theory. Of the four measures representing community, all were in the direction expected by participatory theory, and three were partially statistically significant. The null hypothesis was partially iejected. Individuals who participated in neighborhood associations were not more likely to believe that public discussion was positive rather than negative or to believe that the benefits of participation were greater and the costs less than individuals who did not participate in neighborhood associations. But individuals who participated in neighborhood 196

PAGE 207

associations were more likely to have a stronger overall sense of community than individuals who did not participate in neighborhood assoc i ations. Table 7-24 summarizes the relationship between neighborhood participation and the variables representing community. Table 7-24 Summary of Findings for Participation and Community Relationship to Statistical In Direction Variable Participation Significance of Theory Sense of Community Positive Yes Yes Public Discussion Positive No Yes Personal Benefits Mixed Mixed Mixed Community Benefits Mixed Mixed Mixed The findings related to the effect of neighborhood participation on citizens' sense of political capacity strongly supported participatory theory. Of the seven measures representing the variable of capacity, all were in the expected direction, and all but one were statistically significant. The null hypothesis was rejected. Individuals who participated in neighborhood associations were more likely to have a greater sense of political efficacy and to participate more in social and political activities than individuals who did not participate in neighborhood associations. Table 7-25 summarizes the relationship between neighborhood participation and the variables representing capacity. 197

PAGE 208

Table 7-25 Summary of Findings for Participation and Capacity Relationship to Statistical In Direction Variable Participation Significance of Theory Internal EfficacyA Positive Yes Yes Internal Efficacy8 Positive Yes Yes External Efficacy Positive No Yes Internal Spillover Positive Yes Yes External Spillover Positive Yes Yes Spillover Frequency Positive Yes Yes Spillover Level Positive Yes Yes The findings related to the effect of neighborhood participation on citizens' sense of legitimacy about government did not, for the most part, support participatory theory. Of the seven measures representing the variable of legitimacy, two were in the direction expected by participatory theory, but were not statistically s ignificant, while two measures were statistically significant but neither was in the expected theoretical direction. The null hypothesis was accepted. Individuals who participated in neighborhood associations were not more likely to believe that they were represented by government, to trust government, to believe that government is responsive to them, or to have confidence in government than individuals who did not participate in neighborhood associations. Table 7-26 summarizes the relationship 198

PAGE 209

l between neighborhood participation and the variables representing legitimacy. Table 7-26 Summary of Findings for Participation and Legitimacy Relationship to Statistic-31 In Direction Variable Participation Significance of Theory National Representation Negative Yes No Local Representation Negative No No National Responsiveness Negative No No Local Negative No No National Trust Negative No No Local Trust Positive No Yes Local Confidence Mixed Mixed Mixed In summary, the findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that neighborhood participation contributes to citizens' political capacity, mixed support for the hypothesis that neighborhood participation contributes to an overall sense of community, and virtually no support for the hypothesis that neighborhood participation .;ontributes to a greater sense of legitimacy and trust in government. Notes 1. This study was sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and conducted by the Department of Political Science and the Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs at Tufts University. See Berry et a!., 1993. 199

PAGE 210

! 2. For purposes of this study, socioeconomic factors include education, occupation, and income. Demographic factors include age, gender, home ownership, length of residence, and racial/ethnic origin. 3. One major drawback of limiting analysis to measures of association is that tabular analysis is not a very efficient search procedure for getting to know the major features of the data. 4. Goldenberg (1992) suggests that a study's survey methodology should generally include a description of the following: the sample and sampling procedures, including all procedural details necessary for replication; the sample frame and an estimate of the percentage of the populati on that had a chance of selection; any details about the ways in which people were excluded or how they might differ from the population; field results, including numbers of respondents and nonrespondents, major reasons for nonresponse, strategies for follow-up, and rates of response; interviewers, including demographic characteristics, training and experience, and supervision; questionnaire design, including any pretesting and evaluation; the wording of questions or inclusion of the questionnaire; quality control procedures used during coding, data entry, and preparing files for data analysis; and possible types of errors, sampling error estimates, the effects of nonresponse, and information about the validity and reliability of the measures used in the survey. As is apparent from this ideal outline, this is not always possible when conducting a secondary analysis. 5. Because participants are a minority and unrepresentative of the general population, large-scale studies of political participation usually incorporate a targeted sampling procedure into their overall random sampling process. For example, Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) use a two-stage sample in order to be representative of both participation activists and the population as a whole -a random telephone survey of 15,053 citizens plus interviews with 2517 of this number, weighted so as to produce a disproportionate number of activists and minority groups. 6. A "representative" sample can only be representative of the sampling frame, and sampling frames are rarely truly representative (Fowler, 1984). 7. In terms of the extent or scope of participation, an average of 16.6% of citizens across the five sample cities with citywide participation structures participated in their neighborhood associations. Oropesa 200

PAGE 211

( 1 989a) reports that twenty percent of residents are affiliated with neighborhood associations. In terms of the level of participation, the mean Index of Community Participation (ICP) score for the five core cities is 1.47, while the mean ICP score for the ten matched control cities is 1.50 (ICP range = 0 to 5). In terms of SES bias, the five core cities do exhibit a SES bias, but it is not significantly different from that of the matched cities. 8. Full samples were taken in the five core cities and smaller samples were taken in the ten matched cities. 9. Questionnaire sources include the American National Election Study (1976, 1984, 1986) conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan; the General Social Survey (1985, 1987) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center; the National Survey of Black Americans ( 1 979-80), conducted by James S. Jackson and Gerald Gurin of the University of Michigan; surveys on community psychology conducted by Abraham Wandersman of the University of South Carolina ( 1987); and citizen participation surveys conducted by Richard Rich of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( 1 980). 1 0. An effort was made to increase the validity of questions in several ways: making the questions as reliable as possible; within limits, using more categories rather than fewer; and asking multiple questions that are different but measure the same attitude or attribute. 11. The basic components of survey design include sampling, question design, and interviewing. There are several sampling issues, such as whether to use a probability sample; the sample frame, or those people who actually have a chance to be sampled; sample size; sample design, or strategy used for sampling people or households; and the rate of response. 1 2. Possible survey errors in this study include sampling and nonsampling error. The latter includes coverage error (no telephone), nonresponse error (one group is more likely to not respond), measurement error (the instrument itself), and error related to efforts to reduce survey costs (Lavrakas, 1 993). 13. These included: (a) deciding upon a sampling design, including identifying the sampling frame from which sampled units will be selected 201

PAGE 212

and the method of respondent selection within a sampling unit; (b) choosing a method to generate the group or pool of telephone numbers from the sampling frame that will be used in sampling; (c) producing a call sheet for each number that will be used in sampling; (d) developing and formatting a draft questionnaire; (e) developing a draft introduction/selection sheet and fallback statements for use by interviewers; (f) hiring interviewers and supervisors, and scheduling interviewing sessions; (g) pilot-testing and revising survey procedures and instruments; (h) printing final questionnaires and other forms; (i) training interviewers and supervisors; (j) conducting fully supervised interviews; (k) editing/coding completed questionnaires and converting data into a computer-readable format; and (I) analyzing data and preparing reports. 14. Techniques for measuring attitudes include simple open ended questions, simple rating scales, ladder and thermometer rating devices, numerical rankings, sorting value labels, Q sorts, paired comparisons, Thurstone equal interval scales, numerical and verbal rating scales, and Guttman unidimensional or cumulative scales. Rating scales are by far the most popular technique, because of their relative ease of use for both researcher and respondent. 1 5. Frequency and level of neighborhood participation revealed no significant influence on any of the dependent variables, and were dropped from the design during the analysis. 16. Some researchers argue that only random experiments may be used to infer causality, and go so far as to reject the term "quasi experimental," arguing that a research design either involves investigator control over the observations and values of the key causal variables or it does not (King, Keohane, and Verba, 1994). 1 7. Statistical research shows that the distortion incurred from violating this regression assumption decreases as the number of values or categories of the ordinal variables increases (Bledsoe and Welch, 1985). 18. The methodological problem posed by using a categorical dependent variable in multiple regression is as follows. For any dichotomous dependent variable, errors are unlikely to be normally distributed for each independent variable. This means that the assumption of homoscedasticity (errors have constant variance) and normality are untenable and that standard error estimates are biased, thus invalidating hypothesis tests and confidence intervals. Eventually, 202

PAGE 213

impossible predictions derive from reasonable X values, i.e., probabilities > 1 or < 0 are predicted. To more realistically model probabilities, we need a function that approaches but never exceeds the [0, 11 boundaries. For a more complete discussion, see Aldrich and Nelson ( 1984) and Hamilton ( 1 992). 19. This suggests a problem with using as a measure of fit. In linear regression, can range in value between 0 and 1, with a value of close to 1 indicating a good fit. But the binary dependent variable model is not likely to yield an close to 1 Thus using a linear probability model is likely to obtain a 20. Categorical variables may be ordered or unordered. A categorical variable with only two categories is a dichotomous or binary variable. A categorical variable with more than two categories is a polytomous variable, also referred to as a polychotomous or multinomial variable. 21 For example, if we want to forecast the explicit behavior of a single individual, we cannot expect our forecast to be exactly right. We are more likely to predict an outcome of 1 (vote yes) if the predicted probability is > 0.5 and an outcome of 0 (vote no) if the predicted probability is < 0.5. 22. The pro bit model was introduced in 1 934 for models in toxicology. While the logistic regression model was introduced about a decade later, it is now much more popular, partly because it can be interpreted using odds ratios (Agresti, 1990). 23. This procedure is dubbed "tobit." 24. The probit probability model is equal to the cumulative normal probability function, while the logit model is equal to the cumulative logistic probability function. For logit, the dependent variable is the logarithm of the odds that a particular choice will be made. Probit and logit yield results that are essentially indistinguishable from each other, so there is little reason to choose one over the other (Welch and Comer, 1988). Logit and probit are linear with respect to independent variables, but they transform the dependent variable non-linearly. 25. Until recently, the analysis of qualitative data was limited, for the most part, to data within two-dimensional contingency tables. For such tables, chi-square goodness-of-fit procedures were of immense value The application of log-linear models to qualitative data permits the 203

PAGE 214

examination of relationships within multi-dimensional contingency tables. The use of log-linear statistical models increased markedly during the 1 980s due largely to the increased availability of computer-based statistical packages designed for the specification and fitting of log-linear models (Kennedy, 1992). Logistic regression is used primarily by investigators in biology and medicine. 26. Adapted from John J. Kennedy (1992), Analyzing Qualitative Data: Log-Linear Analysis for Behavioral Research, Second Edition, Ch. 1. 27. If the log it (L) is a linear function of X variables, then probability (PJ is a nonlinear S-shaped function. Predicted probabilities approach but never reach or exceed the boundaries of 0 and 1 Thus logit regression provides a more realistic model for probabilities than does linear regression (Hamilton, 1992). 28. Unless the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is very strong, legit and linear regression produce similar predictions, but become increasingly different as probabilities near 0 or 1 (Hamilton, 1992). 29. Since the conventionally measured W is of limited value to judge the goodness of fit of the model for both logit and probit, Gujarti (1988) suggests as an alternative the X2 (chi square) test. 30. Portable SPSS files were created using the export routine in SPSSx running on a VAX mainframe. Portable SPSS files can then be accessed using SPSS for Windows. 31. Logit analysis and logistic regression produce identical results. However, in SPSS logit log-linear and logistic regression use different variable coding schemes so that printout results are not directly comparable. Logistic regression results can be translated into logit results and vice versa, but some manual arithmetic computation is required. This limitation combined with logistic regression's requirement that dependent variables be dichotomous makes logit a more useful analytic tool for this study. 32. Odds ratios are always nonnegative, with a value greater than 1.0 when a success is more likely than a failure. An odds ratio of 75 equals 75/.25 (components must always = 1), which equals an odds ratio of 3:1 or an odds of 3, meaning that a success is 3 times as likely as a failure. 204

PAGE 215

33. An important limitation is the size of the expected frequency in each cell. As a rule, the expected cell frequencies for all two-way associations should be greater than one, with no more than 20 percent less than five. An examination of residuals in search of discrepant cells leads to a better interpretation of the data set. 34. In general, residuals greater than absolute 2. 35. The likelihood-ratio chi-square (G2 ) is similar to the Pearson chi square in that the summation is over all cells of the table, but it differs in that unlike the calculation of the X2 statistic, the calculation of G2 uses natural logarithms, abbreviated ln. Like the Pearson chi-square, G2 is distributed approximately as a chi-square distribution when samples are sufficiently large. In fact, as samples become sufficiently large, X2 and G2 converge or become asymptotically equivalent. This means that in practice, both statistics will lead to essentially the same conclusions about goodness-of-fit. G2 is essentially the difference between two logged likelihoods. 36. Logit reports both the X2 value and its significance level. The null hypothesis is that no relationship exists between two variables in the population. When the observed and expected frequencies are the same, chi square is equal to 0. Chi square evaluates whether the differences between the observed and expected frequencies are large enough to warrant concluding that the null hypothesis is false and can be rejected in favor of an alternative hypothesis stating that there is a relationship between the two variables. 37 Entropy is the negative of the sum of a set of probabilities times their logarithm. Concentration is one minus the sum of a set of probabilities times their logarithm. 205

PAGE 216

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This final chapter discusses the significance of the research findings. Because this study is concerned with the effect of participation on the variables representing community, capacity, and legitimacy, only the relationships between participation and the dependent variables are discussed. This chapter also discusses the limitations and delimitations of this study and suggestions for future research. The discussion concludes with recommendations for public Jdministration theorists and practitioners and a summary of the study. The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on Community Neighborhood participation has a strong influence on citizens' sense of community. a mild influence on the degree to which public discussion reduces bad feelings among residents, and a mixed influence on respondents' perception of the benefits and costs of participation. One result was statistically significant and two results showed partial statistical significance. All of the findings were in the direction predicted by participatory theory. Neighborhood participation increased the likelihood that 206

PAGE 217

participants felt both a stronger and moderate sense of community with their neighbors, although the increase was statistically significant only for individuals with a stronger sense of community. Neighborhood participation increased the likelihood that participants believed that public discussion decreased bad feelings between people, but this relationship was not statistically significant. Personal and community costs of participation affected neighborhood participants and nonparticipants about the same in terms of the degree to which they identified personal benefits of participation. Fewer personal costs significantly increased the likelihood that participants identified more community benefits of participation, but this relationship was not significant for nonparticipants. Overall, respondents were more likely to feel a strong or moderate sense of community and more likely to believe that public discussion decreased bad feelings between people. This finding is consistent with other empirical studies that report a generally strong sense of community (Davidson and Cot:er, 1993; Wilson and Baldassare, 1996). Similar to external political efficacy, it seems likely that the relatively positive sense of community and public discussion minimized the potential statistical significance of the effect of participation. Although lacking statistical significance, neighborhood participation increased the likelihood that participants felt both a stronger and moderate sense of community and 207

PAGE 218

l increased the likelihood that participants believed that public discussion decreased bad feelings between people. These findings support democratic governance theorists who argue for incorporating participatory and communitarian norms into public administration theory {Buchanan, 1994; Frederickson; 1982; Wamsley, 1990) and communitarian theorists who argue that participation is a key to transforming individuals so that they develop the bonds of community {Bellah eta/., 1985). These findings also support participatory theory's expectation that government play a role in building community. Some theorists see this role as a limited one, arguing that government has considerably less power to create community than to :.mdermine it {Fukuyama, 1 996) and that public administration's institutional model of governance can build process structures but not trust {Frederickson, 1996). But participation through voluntary associations can provide opportunities for participation in the process of governance that go beyond opportunities for participation in the institution of government. Voluntary associations provide the structure for much of community participation; help recreate the lost connection of family and extended family {Heath and Mclaughlin, 1991 ); strengthen the bonds of community that offset the fragmenting forces of the larger society {Etzioni, 1 993); and build citizenship, which as the practice of democratic participation, helps to 208

PAGE 219

build a sense of community (Kemmis, 1990). While government cannot create community directly, its willingness to support civic participation in voluntary associations is one way in which it can fulfill the promise of democracy (Frederickson, 1982, 1996). This study found no difference between participants and nonparticipants in the number of costs and benefits they identified, a finding that is at odds with several recent studies that found greater benefits for participants and higher costs for nonparticipants (Prestby et a/., 1990; Verba et at., 1995). This study found that higher costs reduced the likelihood that both participants and nonparticipants identified benefits from neighborhood participation. This finding is consistent with collective action theory, which holds that the costs of participation outweigh the benefits, especially under conditions where the costs accrue to participants but the benefits can accrue to nonparticipants as well (Crozier and Friedberg, 1980; Davis, 1991; Hardin, 1982; Heckathorn, 1989; Kelly and Kelly, 1994; Libecap, 1994; Olson, 1965; Reisman, 1989; Sandler, 1992; Tuomela, 1992). This study found only one significant difference between participants and nonparticipants in terms of the effect of costs of participation on the benefits of participation. Participants who identified fewer personal costs of participation were significantly more likely to 209

PAGE 220

have identified more community benefits from participation. This finding suggests that reducing the costs of participation can increase the influence of benefits that are inherent within the participation process itself. It also suggests that public officials and administrators should seek ways to reduce the costs of participation in addition to providing incentives for citizen participation (Buckwalter, Parsons, and Wright, 1993; Heckathorn, 1993; Knoke, 1988). This finding provides a single tentacle of support for the argument that participation transforms self-interest into community interest, although this study did not find a stronger communitarian orientation among neighborhood participants. Perhaps participatory democracy's notion of communitarian transformation is overly ambitious, as some critics contend (Bader, 1995; Cochran, 1989). Individuals may not give up their liberal individualist values through the process of participation, but may strengthen a previously underdeveloped capacity for communitarian values (Warren, 1992). Participatory theorists do not assume that people begin their participatory experience solely for democratic or communitarian reasons. Rather, they suggest that it is the process of democratic participation that provides the raw material for the transformation of individualism into communitarianism (Barber, 1984; Greenberg, 1986; Mason, 1982; Warren, 1993). 210

PAGE 221

The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on CapacitY Overall, participation had a positive effect on citizens' sense of political capacity, measured in terms of political efficacy and participation spillover. Six of the seven results were statistically significant, and all of the findings were in the direction predicted by participatory theory. Respondents held a more negative than positive view of their sense of internal political efficacy, but they held a more positive than negative view of their sense of external political efficacy. But unlike the findings for legitimacy, participation had a significant effect on efficacy when respondents held a negative view, and a nonsignificant effect when respondents held a positive view. Neighborhood participation had a positive effect on all three measures of political efficacy. Participation had a positive and statistically significant effect on respondents' sense of internal political efficacy, and a positive but nonsignificant effect on respondents' sense of external political efficacy. These findings only partially support Berry eta/. (1993), who hypothesize that face-to-face forms of political participation should increase individuals' overall sense of political efficacy, especially external efficacy. Berry eta/. (1993) base their efficacy hypothesis on the 211

PAGE 222

assumption that face-to-face participation operates the same as the electoral forms of participation that other researchers have shown to be related to political efficacy (Finkel, 1985; Maxwell, 1981; Niemi, Craig, and Mattei, 1991; Stenner-Day and Fischele, 1992). This study's findings provide greater support for the participatory democratic view of political efficacy than the liberal democratic view. In this study face-to face participation significantly increased internal efficacy but not external efficacy. This suggests that face-to-face participation may be conceptually and operationally distinct from electoral forms of participation, and that assumptions about the effects of electoral participation on political efficacy cannot be applied directly to strong democratic participation. If face-to-face participation emphasizes the knowledge and skills necessary for effective participation (internal efficacy), and electoral participation emphasizes the consequences of participation (external efficacy), then the dynamics of face-to-face participation should be related more to internal efficacy than to external efficacy. It may be also that internal efficacy is a prerequisite for political participation. If so, then we would expect to find a strong relationship between participation and internal efficacy, since a strong sense of internal efficacy would help lead people to participate. Berry eta!. ( 1993) 212

PAGE 223

suggest that once people develop a sense of internal efficacy, they are more likely to participate in face-to-face political activities. This study supports this hypothesis, but it also supports the reciprocity hypothesis of the relationship between participation and efficacy (Finkel, 1 985). The reciprocity hypothesis suggests that participation leads to increased political efficacy, and political efficacy leads to increased participation. The limitations of this study preclude determining causal direction. But the overall negative view held by respondents of their sense of internal efficacy suggests that it is equally likely that while some more efficacious individuals became neighborhood participants, neighborhood participation also helped to produce some more efficacious individuals. Assuming that participants were representative of respondents except for their participation in neighborhood associations, it may be that face-to-face participation has a stronger effect on participants when they have a weak sense of political efficacy, and a weaker effect on participants when they have a strong sense of political efficacy. This connection has not been explored in studies of political efficacy, but it might help to explain what seem to be inconsistent or even contradictory findings in terms of the relationship between participation and efficacy. One specific methodological issue warrants mention. Political scientists have long recognized that the concepts of trust and efficacy 213

PAGE 224

have overlapping meanings (Campbell eta/., 1954). Internal and external efficacy are related in different ways to political trust, with external efficacy more strongly related to trust than internal efficacy (Craig, 1 979). Efficacy is also related to the concept of responsiveness (Schumaker, 1975; Sharp, 1981; Verba and Nie, 1972). The measure of external efficacy may be more closely related to the trust measures of legitimacy than to capacity, which might explain the statistical significance for internal but not external efficacy., This study also found that participation in strong democracy had a positive and statistically significant effect on all four measures of participation spillover. Neighborhood participant;:, were significantly more likely to have been asked to participate in community organizations and activities, to have participated in forms of political participation other than neighborhood associations, to have participated in those activities more frequently, and to have participated in face-to-face activities. These findings provide empirical support for the participation spillover hypothesis, and are consistent with research that shows that within a given social system each new participant triggers others (Macy, 1991 ), that finds civic engagement to be a significant predictor of political participation (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995), and that shows that civic behavior appears to spillover (Putnam, 1995b). 214

PAGE 225

Within the context of participatory theory, these measures of participation spillover are modest and restricted to selected forms of social and political participation. Nonetheless, the findings support the work of political theorists who argue that participation in the process of governance develops individual and civic virtue (Tocqueville, 1848), develops a participatory persuasion (Mason, 1982; Rousseau, 1762); contributes to an increased sense of political efficacy that in turn leads to increased political participation (Almond and Verba, 1963; Pateman, 1970; Mason, 1982); and provides an opportunity for the practice of citizenship (Stivers, 1 990). The findings that neighborhood participation increased participants' sense of political efficacy and that neighborhood participants were more likely to participate in other forms of social and political participation are consistent with research that shows that individuals who report a greater amount of participation score higher on psychological indices of empowerment (Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988}, and with research that finds that individuals with greater participation exhibit significantly higher levels of political efficacy (Wandersman and Florin, 1991). Participatory theorists draw support from regime theory, which starts with the proposition that the capacity to govern is not easily captured through electoral politics. 2 Even if representative democracy 215

PAGE 226

encouraged greater civic participation, participatory theorists argue that representation alone does not develop sufficient political capacity for governing. Governing capacity is created and maintained by bringing together participants and resources, both in and outside government (Stone, 1993). This study supports this key expectation of participatory democracy. Participation in the non-governmental setting of neighborhood associations increases political efficacy and contributes to participation in the wider political and social systems. 3 The Effects of Neighborhood Participation on Legitimacy Neighborhood participation had a negative effect on respondents' sense of representation by both national and local government, although this relationship was statistically significant only for national government; a negative effect on participants' sense of responsiveness by both national and local government, although neither relationship was statistically significant; and a positive effect on trust in local government, but a negative effect on trust in national government, with neither relationship statistically significant. Neighborhood participation had a positive but nonsignificant effect on confidence in local government for those participants who had a high level of confidence, and a significant negative effect for those participants who had a moderate level of 216

PAGE 227

confidence in local government. Most of the effects of neighborhood participation were negative, and nearly all of the effects were statistically nonsignificant. Despite the overall lack of statistical significance, several of the findings suggest theoretical significance, since most of the results pertaining to legitimacy are not in the direction suggested by participatory theory. There are several possible explanations for this overall finding. One possibility is that participation in neighborhood associations decreases citizens' sense of legitimacy. This interpretation would find its strongest support in liberal democratic theory. Liberal theorists argue that participatory democracy has a limited effect on the democratization of the larger political and economic systems (Lane, 1 985), that surges of participation weaker rather than strengthen democracy (Huntington, 1975, 1981), that direct forms of democracy as advocated by participatory theory are incompatible with the republican forms of democracy that exist in representative systems (Schweizer, 1995), and that widespread political participation in direct and strong forms of democracy can have a destabilizing effect on citizen attitudes toward authority and on the legitimacy of the regime (Crozier, Huntington, and Watanuki, 1975; Elkin, 1985). A second possibility is that participants hold more negative views 217

PAGE 228

of government than nonparticipants. "The alienation growing out of a sense of powerlessness in the face of the dominance of one's life by unresponsive megastructures is revealed ... in the loss of confidence in once revered institutions" ( Korten, 1 981 p. 609). Negative feelings and attitudes may lead participants to participate in neighborhood associations. Some participants may be motivated by feelings of anger, distrust, or alienation, while others may participate in neighborhood associations because of their concern about a specific problem or issue. Civic participation can stem from a sense of alienation from public institutions (Wuthnow, 1995), most neighborhood associations are formed around a single issue (Logan and Rabrenovic, 1 990), and participants are more concerned about certain types of community problems than are nonparticipants (Bennett, 1989; Oropesa, 1989a). This second possibility suggests the "mistrustful-efficacious" hypothesis that predicts that a combination of low trust and high efficacy is most likely to lead to participation. The available empirical evidence does not support this hypothesis (Fraser, 1970; Sigelman and Feldman, 1983; Watts, 1973). But efficacy and trust may combine in additive or multiplicative fashion (Sigelman and Feldman, 1 983). Since this study did not examine this relationship, it may be that measures of legitimacy, particularly those of trust, are also influenced by political efficacy. 218

PAGE 229

The negative view of government expressed collectively by respondents suggests a third possible explanation. It may be that respondents' attitudes towards government were sufficiently negative to offset any positive effects of participation on legitimacy. For example, respondents were generally trusting of local government, and neighborhood participation had a positive but nonsignificant effect on trust in local government. Respondents were somewhat less trusting of national government, and neighborhood participation had a negative but nonsignificant effect on trust in national government. The data for this study was collected during a time period that coincides with a documented decline in citizens' sense of trust and legitimacy in government (Abramson, 1981; Bianco, 1994; Feldman, 1983; Johnson, 1993; Robertson and Tang, 1995). Low trust in national government may be more strongly influenced by the larger political climate than by local participation. Interpersonal trust appears to be an effect rather than a cause of democracy (Muller and Seligson, 1994), and citizens have come to expect a lack of responsiveness, resulting in a strong overall sense of distrust (Erlewine, 1993). One methodological difficulty deserves mention. The relative ambiguity of survey items pertaining to trust makes it unclear whether the term "government" refers to the specific political leaders in power at 219

PAGE 230

the time or to the more established institutions of government. Questions dealing with general trust in government tend to be related to trust in specific officials (Abramson and Finifter, 1981 ), and to specific institutions, particularly Congress (Feldman, 1 983). People respond primarily on the basis of their trust in Congress; there is a small spillover from general government to the specific institutions of government, but the greatest spillover is from Congress to general trust in government (Feldman, 1983). Trust items are contaminated by both random and systematic measurement error, with over half of the variance in the items reflecting sources of error rather than the underlying construct of political trust (Feldman, 1983). In terms of the collective set of measures representing legitimacy, the results are both few and disappointing. Overall, there appears to be a negative relationship between participation in neighborhood associations and citizens' sense of legitimacy in government. Five of the six principal effects are negative, although only one was statistically significant. The one positive finding was not statistically significant. Along with the difficulty in attributing cause to the overall negative relationship, these findings neither support nor refute the claims of participatory democratic theory. 220

PAGE 231

Limitations and Delimitations of This Study Dissertation research in public administration has been criticized for often lacking a theoretical framework, adequate methodology, and relevance for theory and practice (Adams & White, 1993). Public administration researchers have called for paying greater attention to political contexts (Rainey, 1 990), to theoretical significance and conceptual grounding (Bartunek eta/., 1993), to the applicability of controlled experiments (Bozeman and Scott, 1992), and to developing more eclectic methodological tastes (Bozeman, 1992; Goodsell, 1990). Researchers continue to struggle with how central a place positive social science should occupy within the discipline (Perry & Kraemer, 1990), and support remains strong for positivist methods and solutions (Perry, 1 989). This epistemological morass connects to this study beyond merely a discussion of appropriate methodologies. It connects directly to the study's core concepts as well. The contribution of the modern social sciences, upon which many public administrators depend for their expertise, has been disappointing at least to those who have hoped for a more precise science of public policy and administration (Lindblom, 1990). This, in turn, has contributed to the crisis of legitimacy confronting public administration (Spicer, 1995). In this context, this 221

PAGE 232

study is a small part of a larger effort to search for more legitimate ways of investigating and understanding political legitimacy. The legitimacy of studies of participation and the legitimizing effects of participation bear directly upon this study. Most proponents of participatory democracy, many of whom are academic activists, write theoretical polemics or use qualitative methodologies adapted to case studies. The piecemeal policymaking supported by positive social science does not agree with the political temperament of many activists, who prefer a policy agenda based on social engineering (Popper, 1968). This study employed a positivist social science methodology to examine several of the most cherished and ambitious expectations of participatory democracy. The principal reason was that the most serious criticism of participatory democracy comes from liberal theorists using a positivist social science perspective. Participatory democracy is a critical theory, and even minimally supportive findings using a positivist approach may be as useful as more optimistic results from an alternative methodology. The study presented in this paper was developed from data collected by a research project not originally designed for the purposes of this investigation. Some of the results presented are statistically significant, and some results are in the direction suggested by participatory theory. Since they explain only a small percentage of the 222 J

PAGE 233

variance, the findings are suggestive at best. And since the development of causal theory is the dominant concern of mainstream political science, this is not, strictly speaking, a positivist study. In retrospect, an original study designed to explore the theoretical expectations of participatory democracy would have deviated from this study in several design respects, but particularly with respect to the issue of causality. Despite several encouraging findings, this study faces the dilemma of ascertaining and attributing cause in a defensible manner. This involves dealing with the issues of association, time priority, and nonspuriousness, with the elimination of rival hypotheses perhaps the most intractable (Goldenberg, 1992). Limitations of Positive Social Science for the Study of Participation There is an old dispute as to whether political science4 ought to be about real places and people or about abstractions and variables. It once was the former, but contemporary social science is more the latter (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). In the century and a half since Tocqueville called for "a new political science" a "hard" social science has not emerged, but a "professional" social science certainly has (Bellah eta/., 1985). Two limitations of positive social science, reductionism and 223

PAGE 234

objectivity, function to limit our understanding of political participation by seeking to exclude normative criteria from empirical investigations. 5 Reductionism does not constitute sufficient grounds for a wholesale rejection of positive social science, but it does suggest that positive social science's value is dependent upon the context of inquiry (Brown, 1 989). The Gulbenkian Commission, in its report on the restructuring of the social sciences, concludes that objectivity is an impossible goal, and that "If this poses a great problem for the natural sciences, it is an even greater problem for the social sciences" (\tVallerstein, 1996, p. 7 5). An important consequence of these limitations is that normative questions pertaining to the fairness and equity of who participates and how are difficult to raise and impossible to answer within the framework of positive social science. These limitations are acknowledged by participation researchers. The predominance of socioeconomic status as a predictor variable in political participation research tells us a great deal about who participate'3 but very little about why they participate (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1 995). Gittell ( 1980) confesses her nonobjectivity when she writes, "We admit, in the study, to a bias which regards participation in an organization, or in the political system, not only as an intrinsically valuable act for the individual but one that is essential to a democratic society" (p. 246). 224

PAGE 235

Several general limitations of positive social science pose problems for this study of participation. First and foremost is the limitation of values, in that the identification of the research problem, conceptualization of key variables, and decision to investigate this problem are all influenced by the researcher's values and normative framework (Price, 1990). There is a limitation of language, in that the choice of words reflects normative beliefs, and the language used in the questionnaire implies a mutual understanding of key terms and concepts between interviewer and interviewee. There is a limitation of complexity, in that the concepts and variables employed in this study cannot ever fully explain such a complex phenomenon as participation. There is a limitation of inadequate data, in that through the process of positive social science methodology a study has been constructed that includes the most relevant variables, to the best of the researcher's knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of participation. There is a limitation of knowledge, in that no study of such a complex phenomenon as participation is ever completed. There are also several specific limitations. There is the limitation of using only individual level variables. Concepts such as sense of community and external political efficacy could benefit from including variables that are also measured at the organizational and macrosystems 225

PAGE 236

level as well (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). There is the limitation of the static measurement of what are dynamic variables, such as participation and sense of community. There is the limitation of a cross-sectional study based on ten year old data. While basic civic attitudes toward democracy, community, and participation are presumably relatively stable over the long term, people's perceptions of issues such as trust, feeling represented by government, and optimism about the future are probably influenced by events in the short term.6 There is reason to believe that the positivist world view of inquiry is coming to an end. Reason (1994) suggests that the political, social, ecological, and personal crises we confront have a fundamental commonality, in that the way we think and how we think separates us from our experience, from each other, and from the rhythms and patterns of the natural world. Brown ( 1989) suggests that the solution to the dilemmas posed by positive social science lies outside positive social science: "To cope with the falling apart of the world we do not need better techniques or more rationalistic plans. The fragmentation of our experience will not be rectified by fiats or policies, no matter how authoritative or energetic their source" (p 168). Limitations of Survey Research Survey research involves asking questions of a large enough 226

PAGE 237

sample of people in order to provide a sense of the range of sentiment across the relevant group. The reference point of each question must be specified quite narrowly in order to have much confidence that respondents are using the same one (e.g., trust in government). Responses must be interpreted and even discounted, for they reflect a socially constructed reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). The bottom line in survey research is that what people tell us is simply what people tell us. Virtually all public opinion research proceeds on the assumption that citizens possess reasonably well formed attitudes on major political issues and that surveys are passive measures of these attitudes (Zaller and Feldman, 1 992). 7 Social science ideology stipulates that the objects of inquiry are stable and accessible, but research often indicates otherwise (Babbie, 1992; Foddy, 1993). Widespread variability in responses leads to another major criticism of survey research, that it almost always treats the individual as the appropriate unit of analysis. Aggregated data on individuals presumably stand for social structural differences of importance. Social structure is relational, yet there is no relational data in the analysis of individuals who are merely dealt with in aggregate. Survey data does not reveal how individuals are connected to one another, or if they are connected to one another. Surveys assume that all respondents are equal. Goldenberg 227

PAGE 238

(1992) argues that we know that they are not all equal, and that to treat them categorically as if they were is to distort what we know about social reality in recognition of the limitations of our statistical techniques Survey research is also embroiled in the struggle between positive social science and public philosophy for influence. The survey questionnaire tends to be the method of choice of positive social scientists, while the active interview is a primary research method for public philosophers. Distinctions between these two survey methods are based on more than methodological arguments Public opinion poll data sum up the private opinions of thousands of respondents, while active interviews create the possibility of public conversation (Haan et a!., 1 983). The meaningfulness of this distinction can be seen in the work of Bellah eta!. (1985), who offer no methodological innovation. They use some of the oldest and most fundamental social science methods, such as participant observation and the active interview. Alternatives to Positivist Methodology Critics of positive social science propose a variety of alternative post-positivist or post-behavioralist methodologies. 8 The goal of these methodologies is to develop a socially relevant discipline that addresses the normative malaise that underlies contemporary political issues. 9 Only 228

PAGE 239

political philosophy can formulate a new mode of inquiry capable of doing justice to behavioralism and phenomenology while avoiding the pitfalls of positivism and social relativity (Fischer 1980). Political philosophy stands out because it shares an epistemological heritage with participatory democracy. Classical political philosophy is built on the recognition that political action rests on participants' value judgments. Political action is directed toward the good life or the good society. The basic analytical task is to construct an ideal model of society that provides evaluative standards against which empirical reality can be judged. Political philosophy also ideological origins with the quest for legitimacy. It tends to flourish in times of crisis because it functions as a practical tool for exposing basic assumptions and conceptualizations that underlie social turmoil. As Sandel writes, "Times of trouble prompt us to recall the ideals by which we live" (1996b, p. 3). A variety of alternatives to positive methodology could be used to study the phenomenon of participation. These include dramaturgical interviews (Berg, 1995); focus groups (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990); ethnographic strategies (Fetterman, 1989; Wolcott, 1994); sociometry (Berg, 1995); content analysis (Dryzek, 1996); case study methods (Yin, 1993; Gast i l, 1993a); and participatory inquiry (Frost and Stablein, 1992; Reason, 1988; Schon, 1983). Several researchers advocate the use of 229

PAGE 240

I participatory research methods in all of social science, including the study of concepts such as participation and community (Burgess, 1990; Curtis, 1989; Dugan, 1993; Florin and Wandersman, 1990; Kaye, 1990; Park, 1992; Perkins and Wandersman, 1990; Taylor, 1991 ). Even within positive social science, there are several social science perspectives that can be used to seek to understand the extent and distribution of participation in a liberal democracy, such as individualist, pluralist, and elitist perspectives (Atkinson, 1987). Regardless of the choice of methodology, the critical social science question is what role should citizens play in a liberal democracy? Normative theory identifies two roles: obedience to the authority of the state, and participation in the affairs of the state. Within the dominant framework of liberal democracy there are two variants: representative democracy and participatory democracy. The extent of participation required of citizens is different for each of these perspectives. From an empirical standpoint, citizens appear to have fulfilled the basic requirements of representative democracy but not the more demanding requirements of participatory democracy. Explanations for the failure of citizens to fulfill the role set for them by participatory democracy vary according to alternative social science perspectives. For example, liberal theory explains nonparticipation in terms of democratic elitism and 230

PAGE 241

socioeconomic differences, while participatory theory explains nonparticipation in terms of unequal opportunities for participation and underdeveloped political capacity. Since the problem of participation can be framed in terms of several different social science disciplines, no single perspective or methodology can lay claim to being comprehensive (Diesing, 1982). A multidisciplinary or multimethod approach should yield greater knowledge than any single perspective alone (Brewer and Hunter, 1989). Several participatory researchers have adopted more interpretive methods that combine several epistemological approaches (Bellah eta/., 1985; Gastil, 1993a; Kemmis, 1990; Mansbridge, 1980) .10 Toward A Public Philosophy of Social Science A social science concerned with the whole of society would have to be historical as well as philosophical, combining both positivist and post-positivist methodologies {Sandel, 1 996a; Sullivan, 1 982). The idea of social science as public philosophy means restoring the larger philosophical, historical, and sociological view {Bellah eta/., 1991). Nowhere is this integration more needed than in the study of democracy: "Finally, democratic theories need to consider the social conditions that make such political institutions possible. The cannot be made practical without a social theory that explains the current social forces, powers, and inequalities that undermine any attempt to 231

PAGE 242

expand the nature and scope of democratic institutions. The role of philosophy contributes a better understanding of the conditions of public reason in collective institutions, while social science can analyze the previous and current attempts to institutionalize such rationality in law, science, and political organization" (Bohman, 1991 t p, 237), Social science's adoption of a normative framework is compatible with the ideals of participatory democracy. Bohman (1991) suggests a transformational perspective: "Ultimately, both philosophy and the social sciences succeed to the extent that they develop the means by which we transform ourselves and our relations to others. Both must be judged according to this purpose, by their contribution to the human struggle with the problems and indeterminacy of social life" (p. 238). Brown ( 1989) adds a phenomenological perspective: "Thus to the empirical meaning of representation must be added the existential mythic meaning, in which planning seeks to make society the representative of a transcendent social truth .... To the extent that the social thinker, planner, or civic leader can become a sage and artist and not merely an expert or technician, the theories and plans through which she manifests her inner experience and social vision become the witness of a new social order. Of course this seems utopian, even foolish. But so did the abolition of slavery or the creation of democracy some centuries ago" (pp. 168-169). The questions addressed in this study are by no means restricted to a single methodological approach, nor are they confined to a particular epistemological domain. These questions could benefit from a variety of behavioral and post-behavioralist approaches, employing positivist, 232

PAGE 243

philosophical, phenomenological, and interpretist methodologies. As democrats, participatory theorists and researchers are obligated to welcome a variety of social science perspectives and participation by researchers of all methodological orientations. Issues for Future Research "The last refuge of a social-scientific scoundrel is to call for more research" (Putnam, 1995b, p. 31 ). Such sage advice notwithstanding, it is the foresworn duty of those who anticipate joining the ranks of such scoundrels to proffer issues for further research The findings with regard to political capacity are suggestive, but hardly conclusive. Schweizer's ( 1995) admonition that normative theorists need to reevaluate 150 years of assumptions and arguments that have led them to accept the proposition that democratic participation in non-political settings can increase political efficacy and political participation in republican systems remains unheeded and unanswered. With regard to political capacity, we might ask that if participation and efficacy have a reciprocal relationship, what causes internal political efficacy in the first place? Does social participation increase political efficacy and participation in the larger political system? What institutions other than neighborhood associations also help to develop a capacity for 233

PAGE 244

democratic participation? With regard to community, participation research needs to explore the conditions under which participation in voluntary associations helps to create a sense of community, and whether a strong sense of community can exist in the abs:mce of voluntary association. Does a strong sense of community lead to participation in the larger political system? Does a sense of community in economic organizations influence political participation? To conduct an empirical investigation of this question requires a new conceptualization of the concept of participation and the relationship between the political and economic spheres of participation. As Mason ( 1 982) suggests, only by moving away from the liberal model of democracy can the empirical data on participation and its correlate dissatisfaction with work be seen as aspects of the same problem the problem of democratization. This study was unable to demonstrate a positive relationship between participation and legitimacy. In fact, the findings suggest that neighborhood associations may function to attract some participants who are particularly disillusioned with government at one level or another. Assuming that Grady { 1 990) is correct when he suggests that we can disregard the ideological and economic systems that structure and reinforce political attitudes and behavior in republican systems, and focus 234 i

PAGE 245

upon the purely political dimension of life, participatory theory might examine how participation in republican versus democratic processes affects attitudes toward government. Based on this study, future participatory research should offer more items per concept, provide more measurement points, have larger samples for some of the measures, incorporate environmental and social outcome indicators, and include a greater variety of neighborhoods. Future research should also focus on the processes of participation. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) recommend investigations that can identify developmental milestones in community processes similar to the function of milestones in human development. A better question might be this: are the formal organizations of community (e.g., neighborhood associations) or the informal mechanisms of association (unitary participation, small group democracy) more effective in enabling citizens to cope with the problems and issues of political and social life? Recommendations The significance of this study for the discipline of public administration lies in its examination of the theoretical and normative expectations held by participatory democracy and democratic governance for the influence of participation in neighborhood governance on citizens' 235

PAGE 246

sense of community, capacity, and legitimacy and trust in government. With public administration and government facing a crisis of legitimacy, it is important for theorists and practitioners alike to explore ways to better understand the normative foundations of political legitimacy. Contrary to the expectations of liberal democracy, it appears that most citizens hold high expectations of their own political capacity, and that participation enhances rather than diminishes community. If citizens are to develop their political capacity, government and politics must embrace the development of citizens as a primary goal. The development of citizens' political capacity, an ideal espoused in the New Public Administration, is often absent from contemporary discussions of the discipline's normative obligations to society. This ideal, revived in the Blacksburg Manifesto, has been shown in this study to deserve greater attention from theorists and practitioners alike. Community is one of the central concepts of democracy (Stevens, 1 994) and public administration (Frederickson, 1 982). This study shows that participation in the process of governance outside of governmental settings contributes to a sense of community. Participatory democratic theorists view participation as the means to achieving democracy, and democratic governance theorists view participation in governance as the means to achieving community. Public administration theorists should 236

PAGE 247

seek ways to extend refounding theory to include the process of governance in non-government settings. Public administrators, whose practice of public administration is normally restricted to "public" organizations and institutions, should seek ways to include communities, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations in their view of the polis. The failure to find a clear and consistent relationship between participation and legitimacy leads neither to an endorsement of liberal democracy nor to a rejection of participatory democracy. Participatory democratic theorists need to explore new ways of operationalizing the concept of legitimacy. The conceptualization of participation as an administrative process has proven both unsuccessful and unsatisfying. Public administration theorists should explore alternative ways of conceptualizing the role of citizens in political and administrative processes. The public administration community will make a big mistake if it tries to respond to the normative expectations of citizen participation simply by advocating a change in governmental procedures, assuming that participation emerges from better administrative rules of the game. The real issue is how to create in citizens a taste for public involvement, perhaps by reconceptualizing our view of citizens, moving away from the metaphor of customers and toward owners (Schachter, 1997). This 237

PAGE 248

overused and inappropriate metaphor reinforces the notion of citizens as passive recipients of products and services based on individual needs (Saul, 1995). Citizens as owners reinvents not government, but the notion of active citizenship, and thus also reinvents our understanding of the process of governance Linking other concepts with democratic governance, such as social capital and coproduction, can provide a theoretical context within which public administration can seek to fulfill its normative obligation to expand democratic participation within liberal, representative government. 11 The creation of social capital through participation and democratic governance becomes a way for government and citizens to coproduce political legitimacy.12 To a limited degree, neighborhood participation, as a form of governance, increased participants' trust in local government. This relationship between participation and trust suggests both the necessity and opportunity for public administration to concern itself with the creation of opportunities for citizens to create social capital by participation in the process of governance.13 Engaging citizens in the coproduction of governance requires more from government and public administrators than an endorsement of liberal democracy. 14 It requires government to actively seek to move citizens from spectator to participant, to challenge citizens to break their silence, 238

PAGE 249

to acknowledge citizen concerns, to look for and identify common interests, to set realistic expectations, to use symbolic acts to create trust, and to tap into the role of citizen (Harwood, 1 993a). It requires public administrators to recognize what they do not know and to encourage citizens to share what they do know and to wield the power they hold (Parry, 1989; Wildavsky, 1992). It requires government to make government work better, not only in an administrative efficiency sense, but in a democratic, representative sense (Waldo, 1980; Zimmerman, 1988). As in any research undertaking, we are left to accept or reject certain assumptions about the relevance, significance, and feasibility of that research. The most critical assumption of this study, and of participatory theory as a whole, is that the effects of political participation transcend the boundaries of the political, economic, and social spheres (Bell, 1973; Cleveland, 1993; Dahl, 1961; Dienhart, 1994; Kemmis, 1 990; Morone, 1 990; Nisbet, 1 971; Reich, 1 983). This is not only a matter of theoretical interest among liberal and participatory theorists. It is also a global social science problem, namely ... how to overcome the artificial separations erected in the nineteenth century between supposedly autonomous realms of the political, the economic, and the social. ... The question of the existence of these separate realms needs to be tackled directly, or rather, to be reopened quite fully" (p. 76). They suggest that the 239

PAGE 250

slogan Think globally; act locally" very deliberately leaves out the state, and represents a withdrawal of faith in the state as a mechanism of reform" (Wallerstein eta/., 1996, p. 82). Public administration researchers and practitioners should seek ways to connect their activities, conducted largely within the political sphere of government, to the social sphere of community and the economic sphere of the workplace.15 This dilemma of the separation between spheres should be a problem of keen interest to public administration, a discipline whose interests and obligations clearly transcend these boundaries. For a society to be truly democratic, democracy must mean more than just a striving for the liberal democratic values of liberty and equality. This study suggests that the discipline of public administration must be concerned with democracy ... not only in the political-public realm but also in the social-economic private realm" (Waldo, 1980, p. 86). Participatory democracy may seem utopian and romantic, but only by figuring out some way to increase citizen participation in government can a foundation for a true participatory democracy be built (Berry eta!., 1 993). Unless at least some republican ideals are restored to politics, the nation risks increased fundamentalism and citizens adrift in a society of more organizations but fewer associations, so that the idea of the polis, the political community, becomes merely an abstraction (Sandel, 1996b). 240

PAGE 251

Summary This study provides empirical support for several normative expectations that seem particularly relevant to public administration's ideal of democratic governance First, the positive effects of true participation in one's community are fundamental to any society aspiring to be democratic and can be acquired only through practice (Miljeteig Oissen, 1992). Second, in a liberal regime citizen virtue equals the proud exercise of the capacity for self-government in public and private life (Macedo, 1989). Third, it is reasonable in a democratic system to ask that citizens be politically competent (Dahl, 1995, 1992). Fourth, if all organizations are "public" (Bozeman, 1987), and public agencies are no .. native and contextual frameworks for the practice of citizenship (Stivers, 1 990), then participation in all forms of governance, not just in government, represents an opportunity to practice citizenship. The adoption of a normative conceptual framework drawn from participatory democracy and democratic governance was based on the assumption that the theoretical effects of participation are at least feasible. The findings in this study support that assumption. Of course, research findings do not prove conclusions; at best they support conclusions. Researchers must always interpret the meaning of their 241

PAGE 252

findings, and all findings can be interpreted in more than one way. Interpretation is fundamentally introspective (Goldenberg, 1992), and the introspective process of searching for and recognizing alternative conclusions can have a liberating effect (Browne and Keeley, 1 994). Although the results support several key tenets of participatory democracy, they by no means obviate liberal criticism of participatory theory (Kateb, 1981; Nagel, 1987; Pennock, 1982). 16 Participatory theorists acknowledge the unsubstantiated claims made on behalf of participatory democracy, and they concede that a politics and political philosophy based on these ideals is a "risky politics" (Sandel, 199Gb, p. 321). But participatory theorists argue that liberal theorists tend to overstate the dangers of participatory democracy (Berry eta/., 1993; Sandel, 199Gb), and fail to acknowledge at all one of the most important functions of citizen participation, i.e., the development of a sense of self confidence and responsibility (Pateman, 1970; Rosenbaum, 1978). Nominally participatory processes often feature severe impairments, e.g., misinformation, indoctrination, and conformism, and greater participation does guarantees neither full representation nor democratic outcomes (Lindblom, 1990). These real flaws lead some critics of participatory democracy to warn of the potential dangers of increased participation. But participatory theorists argue that the dangers 242

PAGE 253

of greater democratization are far outweighed by the dangers of a too flawed democracy: "It may well be dangerous to try to make democracy perfect. But it is even more dangerous, and ultimately more destructive of democratic government, not to try to make it at least a little more perfect than it is" (Lienesch, 1992, p. 1 012). Participatory theorists also argue that further democratization of the state is unlikely without such an effort (Dahl, 1989b, Dryzek, 1996; Mason, 1982). A study of participation can be considered finished if it advances our understanding of the dynamics of participation and furthers our understanding of what elements of participation should be studied next. This study has made a contribution to the knowledge about the effects of participation and the relationship between participation and community, capacity, and legitimacy. The findings provide an opportunity for reframing some of the theoretical and normative expectations of participatory democracy and democratic governance. Such a reframing process should help researchers design more informed empirical investigations of political participation.17 Since so much of participatory theory is normative, it is difficult to subject its theoretical expectations to empirical investigation. There are times when empirical evidence is insufficient. It is crucial that we also have faith (Fiuno, 1971). 243

PAGE 254

Notes 1. Pearson correlation coefficients show that internal (.18, .02) and external efficacy (.15) are only weakly associated with national trust, but that external efficacy is more strongly associated with local trust (.37) than either measure of internal efficacy (. 14, 07). 2. Stone ( 1993) describes regime theory as an unintended offspring of the pluralistic political coalitions first described by Robert Dahl in Who Governs? (1961). 3. The connection between political efficacy and participation spillover was first made by Pateman (1970), who suggests that the significant question arising from studies of political participation is whether there is any evidence to suggest that participation in nongovernmental settings contributes to a sense of political efficacy. 4. My use of the term "political science" is not meant to exclude public administration, but to include it within a political science framework of inquiry. I concur with Dwight Waldo (1980) is his depiction of the conceptual schism between political science and public administration and with the refounding theorists who argue for bridging this gap (Wamsley et al., 1990). 5. Scholars have expressed doubts about the degree to which researchers can obtain objective data (Fischer, 1980; Rein, 1976). Philosophers argue that science is a social practice, that it is socially and contextually bound, and that science and scientific facts are as indeterminate as any other interpretation (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Bohman, 1991 ). One way in which more valid knowledge can be obtained is through transcending the boundary between the social sciences and the humanities (Wallerstein et al., 1996). The humanities can inform policy analysis, for example, since it is rare to find any political dispute that is purely technical or lacking in ethical content (Payne, 1984). 6. This study is by no means unusual with regard to its timeframe. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady ( 1995) designed their study in the mid-1980s, collected data during 1989-90, drafted their report in the early 1990s, and published their results in 1995. 244

PAGE 255

7. Zaller and Feldman ( 1 992) suggest that survey research is beset by two major types of "artifactual" variance. The first type of variance occurs when people who are asked the same question in a series of interviews report changes in their attitudes. The second type occurs when people answer differently based on seemingly small changes in the context of the question. 8. attempts to integrate facts and values through three principal orientations: policy analysis, phenomenology, and political philosophy (Fischer, 1980). 9. Dryzek (1996) supports greater employment of approaches to the study of democracy. His discourses of democracy do not emanate from the minds of professional theorists and researchers, but rather from interactive encounters between researchers and citizens and their language. 1 0. lnterpretists critique positivistic premises, and positivists critique interpretive premises. Goldenberg (1992) describes this situation as follows: positivists are asked to be more humble as to the nature and results of science, to be less deterministic in the expectations of the effects of structure, and to pay attention to the definition of the situation as an important mechanism, process, or intervening variable; interpretists are asked to concede that the definition of the situation may be neither necessary nor sufficient for explanation of behavior. Goldenberg argues that this represents a theoretical impasse and a methodological morass. He suggests that doing defensible work is the bottom line. This has been the goal of this study all along. 11 Most forms of social capital, such as social trust and confidence in government, are moral resources, whose supply increases rather than decreases through use and which become depleted if not used (Hirschman, 1982). Social trust in modern complex settings arises from norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement that undergird transactions between individuals and small informal groups (March and Olsen, 1 989). Networks of civic engagement undergird neighborhood associations and other forms of voluntary association characterized by intensive horizontal interaction, which in turn foster norms of reciprocity (Taylor and Singleton, 1 993). Other things being equal, the greater the communication among participants, the greater their mutual trust and the easier they will find it to cooperate (Knoke, 1990). 245

PAGE 256

I ( 1 2. Social capital refers to features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. For example, members of voluntary associations are much more likely than nonmembers to participate in politics, to spend time with neighbors, and to express social trust. Putnam eta/. (1993) connect social capital to the notion of a prosperous and democratic community. They argue that the performance of government and other social institutions is powerfully influenced by citizen engagement in community affairs, or the creation of social capital. 13. Participation can create social capital and vice versa (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Kolankiewicz, 1996; Ostrom, 1994; Putnam, 1993a, 1995b). When the state refrains from encouraging a particular set of values, it also unintentionally discourages participation (Cortes, 1996). 14. Social capital created through citizen participation can play a role in the coproduction of public goods (Ahlbrandt and Sumka, 1983; Brudney and England, 1983; Mattson, 1986; Percy, 1984; Rich, 1981; Sundeen, 1988; Thomas, 1987; Whitaker, 1980). 1 5. Arguments for connecting the political, social, and economic spheres that relate to the themes of participation and governance can be found in the following works: Bellah eta!., 1985; Bell, 1973; Cleveland, 1993; Dahl, 1961; Dienhart, 1994; Kemmis, 1990; Maslow, 1965; Marone, 1990; Nisbet, 1971; and Reich, 1983. 16. One of the most common liberal criticisms is that participatory democracy is constrained by size, scale and complexity, particularly at the level of the national government. Participatory theorists concur, but suggest that experiments should occur constantly to work out ways in which the public can have direct access to political institutions (Held and Pollitt, 1 986). Critics of participatory democracy who argue that the complexity of modern society exceeds the capacity of local governance should be reminded that contemporary America consists of one national government, 50 state governments, and more than 80,000 units of local government (O'Toole, 1996). 17. Take for example the question of participation spillover. Mason ( 1 982) argues that the empirical question of participation spillover is not possible to answer until we extend our conception of the political to the workplace. Schweizer (1995) suggests extending our conception of spillover to participation in social and community organizations. 246

PAGE 257

! l APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Neighborhood Association Participation Have you personally taken part in the activities of your [Neighborhood Association) in the last two years? 1. Yes 2. No What activities have you taken part in? 1. Attended meetings 2. Spoken at meetings 3. Worked on projects 4. Served on a task force or committee 5. Voted in an election 6. Worked on an election campaign How often have you taken part in these activities? 1. Twice a week 2. Once a week 3. Several times a month 4. Once a month 5. Less than once a month 6. Not in the last two years Representation by Government Would you say the national government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all the people? 1. Run by a few big interests 2. Run for the benefit of all Would you say the local government in [City) is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all the people? 1. Run by a few big interests 2. Run for the benefit of all Responsiveness of Government Over the years, how much attention do you feel the national government pays to what people think when it decides what to do? 1. A good deal of attention 2. Some attention 3. Not much attention Over the years, how much attention do you feel the local government in [City) pays to what people think when it decides what to do? 1 A good deal of attention 2. Some attention 3. Not much attention 247

PAGE 258

Trust and Confidence in Government How much of the time do you think you can trust the national government in Washington, D.C. to do what is right? 1. Always 2. Most of the time 3. Some of the time 4. None of the time How much of the time do you think you can trust the local government in [City) to do what is right? 1 Always 2. Most of the time 3. Some of the time 4. None of the time Overall, how would you rate the way [City) is run? 1 Excellent or very good 2. Good 3. Fair or poor Effects of Public Discussion Sometimes public discussion of issues leads to a great deal of bitterness and increases bad feelings between people in a neighborhood. Other times public discussion of issues settles arguments and reduces bad feelings. Do you think that the way the [Neighborhood Association) has worked on issues in your neighborhood has increased bad feelings or decreased bad feelings between people? 1. Increased bad feelings 2. Decreased bad feelings Sense of Community Some people say they feel like they have a sense of community with the people in their neighborhood. Others don't feel that way. How about you? Would you say that you feel a strong sense of community with others in your neighborhood, very little sense of community, or something in between? 1. Strong sense of community 2. Very little sense of community 3. Something in between Benefits and Costs of Participation People take part in organizational activities for different reasons. Please tell me [Yes, No, Don't know) for the following whether each reward might be enough reason to work with or increase your work with the [Neighborhood Association) at least two hours per month? 1 Solution to specific problem of direct concern to you 2. Increased status or prestige 3. Increased political influence 4. Enhanced personal or professional goals 5. Provide material benefits 248

PAGE 259

6. Increased knowledge of the community and how to improve it 7. Sense of contribution and helpfulness 8. Increased sense of responsibility 9. Friendship with other participants or staff people 10. Provide a useful service to the community Please tell me [Yes, No, Don't know) if the following is one of the things that has discouraged you from participating or that might discourage you from continuing to participate in [Neighborhood Association] activities. 1 The need to give up personal and family matters 2. The amount of time it takes 3. Feeling of frustration from lack of progress 4. Interpersonal conflict with others 5. The need to participate in meetings 6 The energy and effort involved in neighborhood activity Political Efficacy People like me don't have any say about what the government does? 1. Agree 2. Disagree Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on? 1. Agree 2. Disagree How do you think the people who run your city or town would react if you let them know about a major neighborhood problem you are having? If you explained your point of view to the officials, what effect do you think it would have? Would they give your point of view serious consideration? 1 Give serious consideration 2. Pay a little attention 3. Ignore Participation Spillover In the past two years, has anyone personally contacted you to ask you to take part in any citizen or community group? 1. Yes 2. No Have you ever been involved in an election or referendum campaign? 1. Yes 2. No Have you ever been active in any statewide or national groups? 1. Yes 2. No Have you ever been active in any citizen groups or community organizations? 1. Yes 2. No 249

PAGE 260

Have you ever personally gone to see, or spoken to, or written to, some member of the community about some need or problem? 1. Yes 2. No Have you ever worked with others in this community to try to solve some community problem? 1. Yes 2. No Have you ever taken part in forming a new group or a new organization to try to solve some community problem? 1. Yes 2. No Over the last two years, have you taken part in any of these activities? 1 Attended meetings 2. Spoke at meetings 3. Worked on projects 4. Served on a task force or a committee 5. Been a member of the organization Over this period, about how often have you taken part in these activities? 1 Twice a week 2. Once a week 3. Several times a month 4. Once a month 5. Less than once a month Socioeconomic Status Which is the highest level of school you attended? 1 Up to some high school without graduating 2. High school graduate or equivalent 3. Associate or 2-year degree 4. Some college without graduating 5 College graduate 6 Some trade or business school 7. Some graduate school with no advanced degree 8. Advanced college degree What is your occupation, that is, what kind of work do you do, or what did you do on your last job? [ I What was your total family income in 1 986? 1. Less than $5,000 2. $5,000 to $10,000 3 $10,000 to $15,000 4. $15,000 to $20,000 5. $20,000 to $30,000 6. $30,000 to $50,000 7. $50,000 to $75,000 8. $75,000 to $100,000 9. Over $100,000 250

PAGE 261

APPENDIX B QUESTIONS USED IN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS AND THEIR SOURCES Question People like me don't have any say about what government does. Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on. How much of the time do you think you can trust government to do what is right just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time? Some people say they feel like they have a sense of community with the people in their neighborhood. Others don't feel that way. How about you? Would you say that you feel a strong sense of community with others in your neighborhood, very little sense of community, or something in between? Have you ever worked with others in your community to try to solve some community problem? Please tell me yes or no for the following whether each reward might be enough reason to work with your neighborhood association two hours per month: Solve a problem of direct concern, increase your knowledge of the community, personal sense of contribution, increase personal prestige, increase political influence, increase sense of responsibility, friendship with other participants, enhanced personal goals, provide useful service to the community, or provide material benefits. Please tell me if each one of the things that I read to you might discourage you from participating in your neighborhood association: Amount of time, feeling frustration, need to give up personal and family matters, interpersonal conflict with others, need to participate in meetings, or the energy and effort involved Socioeconomic and demographic questions a. General Social Survey, 1987. b. General Social Survey, 1985. c. American National Election Study, 1986. d. American National Election Study, 1984. e. American National Election Study, 1976. f. Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, and Meier, 1987. 251 Source b, d d a, e f a f f c

PAGE 262

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abowitz, Deborah A., 1990. "Sociopolitical Participation and the Significance of Social Context: A Model of Competing Interests and Obligations." Social Science Quarterly, 71, pp 543-566. Abrahams, Naomi, 1992. "Towards Reconceptual i zing Political Action." Sociological Inquiry, 62, pp 327-347. Abramson, Paul R. and Ada W Finifter, 1982. "On the Meaning of Political Trust: New Evidence from Items Introduced in 1978." American Journal of Political Science, 25, pp. 297-307. Acklesberg, Martha A., 1984. "Broadening the Study of Women's Participation." Paper presented at the CAWP Conference. In Kay L. Schlozman, Nancy E. Burns, Sidney Verba, and Jesse Donahue, 1995. "Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice?" American Journal of Political Science, 39, pp 267-293. Acock, Alan C. and Harold D. Clarke, 1990. "Alternative Measures of Political Efficacy: Models and Means." Quality & Quantity, 24, pp. 87-105. Adams, Guy B and Jay D. White, 1993. "Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields: An Assessment of Methods and Quality Paper presented at the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs/Administration Annual Meeting, October 20-23, Orlando, Florida Adams, Guy B., 1992. "Enthralled with Modernity: The Historical Context of Knowledge and Theory Development in Public Administration." Public Administration Review, 52, pp. 363-373. Adamson, Walter L., 1990. "Economic Democracy and the Expediency of Worker Participation." Political Studies, 38, pp. 56-71 Adler, Sy and Gerald F. Blake, 1990. "The Effects of a Formal Citizen Participation Program on Involvement in the Planning Process: A Case Study of Portland, Oregon." State and Local Government Review, 22, pp. 37-43. Agresti, Alan, 1996. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley. Agresti Alan, 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley. Ahlbrandt, RogerS. Jr. and Howard Sumka, 1983. "Neighborhood Organization and the Coproduction of Public Services." Journal of Urban Affairs, 5, pp. 211-220. 252

PAGE 263

Aish, Anne-Marie and Karl G. Joreskog, 1990. "A Panel Model for Political Efficacy and Respons i veness : An Application of LISREL 7 with Weighted Least Squares." Quality & Quantity, 24, pp. 405-426. Alba, Gregory, David Langille, and leo Panitch, eds., 1993. A Different Kind of State?: Popular Power and Democratic Administration. Toronto: Oxford University Aldrich, John, 1993. "Rational Choice and Turnout." American Journal of Political Science, 37, pp 246-278. Aldrich, John N and Forrest D Nelson, 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Sage University Papers Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba, 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University. Alperovitz, Gar and Jeff Faux, 1984. Rebuilding America: A Blueprint for the New Economy. New York: Pantheon. Altman, Irwin and Abraham Wandersman, eds 1987. Neighborhood and Community Environments. New York: Plenum American Revolution Bicentennial Administration, 1976. Characteristics of Community Wide Citizen Involvement Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Anderson, Charles W 1993. "Recommending a Scheme of Reason: Political Theory, Policy Science, and Democracy." Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 215-228. Ankersmit, Frank, 1991. "Tocqueville and the Ambivalences of Democracy." Rationality and Society, 3, pp. 308-316. Antonio, Robert and Douglas Kellner, 1992. "Communication Modernity and Democracy in Habermas and Dewey." Symbolic Interaction, 15, pp. 277-297. Antunes, G. and Plumlee, J., 1977. "The Distribution of an Urban Public Service: Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Bureaucracy as Determinants of the Quality of Neighborhood Streets." Urban Affairs Quarterly, 12, pp. 313-332. Appleby, Paul, 1952. Morality and Administration in Democratic Government. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Appleby, Paul, 1945. Big Democracy. New York: Knoph Apter, David E., 1992. "Democracy and Emancipatory Movements: Notes for a Theory of lnversionary Discourse." Development and Change, 23, 1 39-173. Arendt, Hannah, 1968. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 253

PAGE 264

I Arendt, Hannah, 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago. Argyris, Chris, 1964. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley. Arminger, Gerhard, Clifford C. Clagg, and Michael E. Sobel, Eds., 1995. Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Plenum. Arrighi, Barbara A. and David J. Maume, 1 994. "Workplace Control and Political Participation." Sociological Focus, 27, pp 147-159. Arterton, F. Christopher, 1987. Teledemocracy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Asher, Herbert, 1974. "The Reliability of the Political Efficacy Items." Political Methodology, 1, pp. 45-72. Atkinson, G. B. J., B. McCarthy, and K. M. Phillips, 1987. Studying Society: An Introduction to Social Science. New York: Oxford University. Austin, Mark D 1991. "Community Context and Complexity of Organizational Structure in Neighborhood Associations." Administration & Society, 22, pp 516-531 Austin, Michael J. and Jane lssacs Lowe, eds., 1994. Controversial Issues in Communities and Organizations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Axelrod, Robert M., 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic. Saba, Yoko and Mark D. Austin, 1989. "Neighborhood Environmental Satisfaction, Victimization, and Social Participation as Determinants of Perceived Neighborhood Safety." Environment and Behavior, 21, 763-780. Bachrach, Peter and Aryeh Botwinick, 1992. Power and Empowerment: A Radical Theory of Participatory Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University. Bachrach, Peter, 1967. The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little, Brown. Bader. Veit M., 1995. "Citizenship and Exclusion: Radical Democracy, Community. and Justice. Or, What Is Wrong with Communitarianism?" Political Theory, 23, pp. 211-246. Bailyn, Bernard, 1992. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Baker, Paula, 1984. "The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780-1920." American Historical Review, 89, pp. 620-647. Balch, George 1., 1974. "Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept of 'Sense of Political Efficacy,'" Political Methodology, 1, pp. 1-43. 254

PAGE 265

Bamberger, Michael, 1991. "The Importance of Community Participation." Public Administration and Development, 11, pp. 281-284. Bandura, Albert, 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Banfield, Edward C., ed., 1992. Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies. New York: Praeger. Barber, Benjamin R., 1995. "Searching for Civil Society." National Civic Review, 84, pp. 114-118. Barber, Benjamin R., 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California. Barcikowski, Robert S., ed., 1983. Computer Packages and Research Design. Lanham. MD: University Press of America. Barker, Ernest, 1962, ed. and trans., The Politics of Aristotle. New York: Galaxy. Barnard, Chester 1., 1938. Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversitY. Barry, Brian, 1989. Democracy, Power, and Justice: Essays in Political Theory. New York: Oxford University. Bartunek, Jean M., Philip Bobko, and N. Venkatraman, 1993. "Toward Innovation and Diversity in Management Research Methods". Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 1 362-1373. Barzelay, Michael, 1992. Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government. Berkeley: University of California. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones, 1993. Agendas and lnstabt1ity in American Politics. Chicago: UniversitY of Chicago. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jack L. Walker, 1988. "Survey Research and Membership in Voluntary Associations." American Journal of Political Science, 32, pp. 908-928. Baumgartner, M. P., 1988. The Moral Order of a Suburb. New York: Oxford University. Beck, Paul A. and M. Kent Jennings, 1982. "Pathways to Participation." American Political Science Review, 76, pp. 94-108. Beem, Christopher, 1996. "Civil Is Not Good Enough." The Responsive Community, 6, pp. 47-57. Bell, Daniel A., 1995. "Residential Community Associations: Community or Disunity?" The Responsive Community, 5, pp. 25-36. 255

PAGE 266

Bell, Daniel, 1993. Communitarianism and Its Critics. New York: Oxford University. Bell, Daniel, 1978. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic. Bell, Daniel, 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, 1991. The Good Society. New York: Vintage. Bellah, Robert N Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper & Row. Benello, C. George, 1992. From the Ground Up: Essays on Grassroots and Workplace Democracy. Boston: South End. Benello, C. George and Dimitrios Roussopoulos, eds., 1971. The Case for Participatory Democracy. New York: Grossman. Benest, Frank, 1993. "Recreating the Intimate Connection Between Government and the People." Western City, 69, October, pp. 4-5. Benhabib, Seyla, 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia. New York: Columbia University. Bennett, larry, 1990. Fragments of Cities: The New American Downtowns and Neighborhoods. Columbus: Ohio State University. Bennett, Stephen E. and David Resnick, 1990. "The Implications of Non-Voting for Democracy in the United States." American Journal of Political Science, 34, pp. 771802. Bennett, Stephen E. and linda l. M. Bennett, 1986. "Political Participation." In Samuel Long, ed., The Annual Review of Political Science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 157-204. Bennett, Susan F., 1995. "Community Organizations and Crime." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, pp. 72-84. Bennett, Trevor, 1989. "Factors Related to Participation in Neighbourhood Watch Schemes British Journal of Criminology, 29, pp. 207-218. Bennis, Warren, 1989. On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bens, Charles K., 1994. "Effective Citizen Participation: How to Make It Happen National Civic Review, 83, pp. 32-39. Bentley, John P., Lon N. larson, and Marian A Brenton, 1995. "Values, Participatory Democracy, and Healthcare Resource Allocation: An Application to a Campus Community." Journal of American College Health, 43, pp. 205-211 256

PAGE 267

Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee, 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago. Berg, Bruce L., 1995. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bergen, Timothy J., 1994. "Culture, Character, and Citizenship." Journal of Thought, 29. pp. 7-16. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann, 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor. Berman, Evan M., 1997. "Dealing with Cynical Citizens." Public Administration Review, 57, pp. 105-112. Bernstein, Paul, 1982. "The Necessary Elements for Effective Worker Participation in Decision Making." In Frank Lindenfeld and Joyce Rothschild-Whitt, eds., Workplace Democracy and Social Change. Boston: Porter Sargent, pp. 62-74. Bernstein, Paul, 1976. Workplace Democratization: Its Internal Dynamics. Kent, OH: Kent State UniversitY. Berry, Christopher J 1989. The Idea of a Democratic Community. New York: St. Martin's. Berry, Jeffrey M., Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thomson, 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Berry, Jeffrey M., Kent E Portney, Mary Beth Bablitch, and Richard Mahoney, 1984. "Public Involvement in Administration: The Structural Determinants of Effective Citizen Participation." Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 13, pp. 7-23. Bezold, Clement, ed., 1978. Anticipatory Democracy: People in the Politics of the Future. New York: Vintage. Bianco, William T., 1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Binford, Michael, 1983. "The Democratic Personality: Functions of Attitudes and Styles of Reasoning." Political Psychology, 4, pp. 663-684. Block, Peter, 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Bloom, Allan, 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. Blumberg, Paul, 1968. Industrial Democracy: The Sociology of Participation. New York: Schocken. 257

PAGE 268

i l Bobo, Lawrence and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., 1990. "Race, Sociopolotical Participation, and Black Empowerment American Political Science Review, 84, pp. 377-393. Bohman, James, 1 991 New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bok, Derek, 1997. State of the Nation: Government and the Quest for a Better Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Bolduc, Vincent L., 1980. "Representation and Legitimacy in Neighborhood Organizations: A Case Study." Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 9, pp. 165-178. Bookchin, Murray, 1995. From Urbanization to Cities: Toward a New Politics of Citizenship. New York: Cassell. Boswell, Jonathan 1994. Community and the Economy: The Theory of Public Cooperation. New York: Routledge. Bottomore, Thomas B 1970. "The Insufficiency of Elite Competition." In Henry Kariel, ed., Frontiers of Democratic Theory. New York: Random House, pp. 127-139. Botwinick, Aryeh, 1990. Skepticism and Political Participation. Philadelphia: Temple University. Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis, 1986. Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Social Thought. New York: Basic. Boyle, John and David Jacobs, 1 982. "The Intra-City Distribution of Services: A Multivariate Analysis." American Political Science Review, 76, pp 371-379. Boyte, Harry C. and Frances Moore Lappe, 1990. "The language of Citizen Democracy." National Civic Review, 79, pp. 417-425. Boyte, Harry C., 1989. CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York: Free. Boyte Harry C., Heather Booth, and Steve Max, 1986. Citizen Action and the New Populism. Philadelphia: Temple University. Boyte, Harry C ., 1980. The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizens' Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University. Bozeman, Barry, ed., 1993. Public Management: The State of the Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Bozeman, Barry and Patrick Scott, 1992. "laboratory Experiments in Public Policy and Management" Journal of Public Administration Rese3rch and Theory, 2, pp. 293-313. Bozeman, Barry, 1992. "Experimental Design in Public Policy and Management Research". Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, pp. 289-292. 258

PAGE 269

Bozeman, Barry, 1987. All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories San Francisco : Jessey-Bass Brady, Henry E Sidney Verba, and Kay L. Schlozman, 1995. "Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation." American Political Science Review, 89, pp. 271-294. Braybrooke, David, 1965. Ph1'losophical Problems of the Social Sciences New York: MacMillan. Breinlinger, Sara and Caroline Kelly 1995. "Identity and Injustice : Exploring Women's Participation in Collective Action." Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, pp 41-57. Brewer, John and Albert Hunter, 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bridges, Thomas, 1 994. The Culture of Citizenship: Inventing Postmodern Civic Culture. Albany, NY: State UniversitY of New York. Brooks, Thomas R., 1971. To11 and Trouble: A History of American Labor, Second Edition. New York: Dell. Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 1994. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown, Les, 1992. "Paradox of Democracy-More Channels, Less Discourse Media Studies Journal, 6, pp. 113-123. Brown, Richard D., 1996. The Strength of a People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry in America, 1650-18 70. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Brown, Richard H., 1989. Social Science as Civic Discourse. Chicago : University of Chicago. Brudney, Jeffrey L. and Robert E, England, 1983. "Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept." Public Administration Review, 43, pp 59-65. Bruere, Henry, 1913. New City Government. New York: Appleton Bryan, Frank M. and John McCiaughry, 1989. The Vermont Papers : Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green. Bryant, Stephen and Joseph Kearns, 1982. "Workers Brains as Well as Their Bodies: Quality Circles in a Federal Facility." Public Administration Review, 42, pp. 144-1 50 Buchanan, John H., Jr., 1989. "Civitas : Civic Education to Inform and Involve National Civic Review, 78, pp. 279-284. 259

PAGE 270

Buchanan, William, 1994. "A Sense of Community: City/County Relationships." Public Management, 76, pp. 14-16. Buckner, John C., 1988. "The Development of an Instrument to Measure Neighborhood Cohesion." American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, pp. 771-791. Buckwalter, Doyle, Robert Parsons, and Norman Wright, 1993. "Citizen Participation in Local Government: The Use of Incentives and Rewards." Public Management, 75, pp. 11-15. Burgess, Louis, 1990. "A Block Association President's Perspective on Citizen Participation and Research." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 159-161. Burke, John P., 1982. Organizational Participation and Public Policy: A Conference Report. Policy Memorandum No. 41, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, NJ. Burleson. Brant R . Terrance L. Albrecht, and Irwin G. Sarason, Eds . 1994. Communication of Social Support: Messages, Interactions, Relationships, and Community. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Burnham, Walter Dean, 1988. "Why Americans Don't Vote." New Republic, May 9, pp. 30-34. Burnheim, John, 1985. Is Democracy Possible?: The Alternative to Electoral Politics. Berkeley: University of California. Caldwell. Lynton, 1976. "Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heritage of American Public Administration." Public Administration Review, 36, pp. 476-488. Calhoun, Craig, ed., 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Craig, Stephen C., ed., 1996. Broken Contract?: Changing Relationships Between Americans and Their Government. Boulder, CO: Westview. Campbell. Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller. and Donald E. Stokes, 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Campbell, Angus, G. Gurin, and W. Miller, 1954. The Voter Decides. Chicago: Row, Peterson. Campbell, Colin and Donald Naulls, 1 992. "The Consequences of a Minimalist Paradigm for Governance: A Comparative Analysis In Patricia W. Ingraham and Donald F Ketti. eds., Agenda for Excellence: Public Service in America. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 66-93. 260

PAGE 271

Campbell, Colin and B. G. Peters, 1988. "The Politics/Administration Dichotomy: Death or Merely Change?" Governance, 1, pp. 79-99. Canan, Penelope and George W. Pring, 1988. "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." Social Problems, 35, pp. 506-519. Carens, Joseph H., ed., 1993. Democracy and Possessive Individualism: The Intellectual Legacy of C. B. Macpherson. Albany: State University of New York. Carnoy, Martin and Derek Shearer, 1979. Economic Democracy: Challenge of the 1980s. New York: M. E Sharpe. Carter, Bradley K. and Joseph F. Kobylka, 1990. "The Dialogic Community: Education, Leadership, and Participation in James Madison's Thought." The Review of Politics, 52, pp. 32-63. Casper, Dale E., 1989. Recent Developments in Citizen Associations: Journal Articles, 1982-1988. Monticello, IL: Vance. Center for Governmental Studies, 1995. "The Democracy Network." Utne Reader, July-August, p. 127. Chavis, David M. and Abraham Wandersman, 1990. "Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 55-81 Checkoway, Barry and Jon Van Til, 1978. "What Do We Know about Citizen Participation? A Selective Review of Research." In Stuart Langton, ed., Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, pp. 25-42. Checkoway, Barry, 1991. "Innovative Participation in Neighborhood Service Organizations." Community Development Journal, 26, pp. 14-23. Checkoway, Barry, 1981. "The Politics of Public Hearings Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, pp. 566-582. Chickering, A. Lawrence, 1993. Beyond Left and Right: Breaking the Political Stalemate. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Chrislip, David D. and Carl E. Larson, 1994. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chrislip, David D., 1994. "American Renewal: Reconnecting Citizens with Public Life." National Civic Review, 83, pp. 25-31. Christenson, James A., James G. Hougland, Jr., Thomas W. llvento, and Jon M. Shepard, 1988. "The 'Organization Man' and the Community: The Impact of Organizational Norms and Personal Values on Community Participation and Transfers." 261

PAGE 272

Social Forces, 66, pp. 808-826. Cisneros. Henry G., 1991 Revitalizing Citizen Activism and Participatory Democracy." National Civic Review, 80, pp. 5-15. Cisneros, Henry G. and John Parr, 1990. "Reinvigorating Democratic Values: Challenge and Necessity." National Civic Review, 79, pp. 408-413. Citrin, Jack, 1974. "Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government." American Political Science Review, 68, pp. 973-988. Clark, Todd, 1990. "Participation in Democratic Citizenship Education." Social Studies, 81, pp 206-209. Cleveland, Frederick A., 1913. Organized Democracy. New York: Longmans, Green. Cleveland, Harlan, 1993. Birth of a New World: An Open Moment for International Leadership. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Cnaan, Ram A., 1991. "Neighborhood-Representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They?" Social Service Review, 65, pp. 614-634. Cochran, Clarke E., 1989. "The Thin Theory of Community: The Communitarians and Their Critics." Political Studies, 37, pp. 422-435. Cochrun, Steven E., 1994. "Understanding and Enhancing Neighborhood Sense of Community." Journal of Planning Literature, 9, pp. 92-99. Coffey, Amanda and Paul Atkinson, 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cohen, Carl, 1973. Democracy. New York: Free. Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1993. "Associations and Democracy." Social Philosophy and Policy, 10, pp. 282-312. Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1992. "Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance." Politics and Society, 20, pp. 393-4 72. Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1983. On Democracy: Toward a Transformation of American Society. New York: Penguin. Cohen, Joshua, 1989. "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy." In Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, eds., The Good Polity. New York: Basil Blackwell, pp. 17-34. Cohen, Nevin, 1995. "Technical Assistance for Citizen Participation: A Case Study of New York City's Environmental Planning Process." American Review of Public Administration, 25, pp. 119-135. 262

PAGE 273

Cole, G. D. H., 1920. Self-Government in Industry. London: Bell. Cole, Richard L. and David A. Caputo. 1984. "The Public Hearing as an Effective Citizen Participation Mechanism." American Political Science Review, 78, pp. 404-416. Coniglio, Jamie Wright, 1985. Neighborhood Associations: A Selected Checklist. Monticello, IL: Vance. Cook, Brian J. and B. D. Wood, 1989. "Principal Agent Models of Political Control in Bureaucracy American Political Science Review, 83, pp. 965-978. Cook, Brian J 1992. "The Representative Function of Bureaucracy: Public Administration in Constitutive Perspective." Administration and SocietY, 23, pp. 403429. Cook, Terrance and Patrick Morgan, 1971. Participatory Democracy. San Francisco : Canfield. Cooper, Davina, 1993. "The Citizen's Charter and Radical Democracy: Empowerment and Exclusion within Citizenship Discourse." Social and Legal Studies, 2 pp. 149-171. Cooper, Terry L., 1984. "Citizenship and Professionalism in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 143-149. Cooper, Terry L., 1982. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat. Cooper, Terry L., 1980. "Bureaucracy and Community Organization : The Metamorphosis of a Relationship." Administration and SocietY, 11, pp 411-443. Cortes. Ernesto J. Jr., 1996. "Community Organization and Social Capital." National Civic Review, 85, pp. 49-53. Con, Nancy F., 1990. "Across the Great Divide: Women in Politics Before and After 1920. In Louise A. Tilly and Patricia Gurin, eds., Women, Politics, and Change. New York: Russell Sage Coye, Ray W and James A. Belohlav, 1995. "An Exploratory Analysis of Employee Participation." Group and Organization Management, 20, pp. 4-17. Craig, Stephen C., Richard G. Niemi, and Glenn E. Silver, 1990. "Politi cal Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items." Political Behavior, 12, pp. 289-313. Craig, Stephen C and Michael A Maggiotto, 1982. "Measuring Political Efficacy." Political Methodology, 8, pp. 85-110. Craig, Stephen C., ed., 1996. Broken Contract?: Changing Relationships Between Americans and Their Government. Boulder, CO: Westview. 263

PAGE 274

Craig, Stephen C., 1993. The Malevolent Leaders: Popular Discontent in America. Boulder, CO: Westview. Craig, Stephen C., 1979. "Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior : An Anempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma." American Politics Quarterly, 7, pp. 225-239. Cramer, Jan S., 1991. The LOGIT Model: An Introduction for Economists. London: Routledge Crane, Jonathon, 1991 "The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenage Childbearing." American Journal of Sociology, 96, pp 1226-1259. Crenson, Manhew A., 1983. Neighborhood Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Cronin, Thomas E., 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge : Harvard University Crosby, Ned, Janet M Kelley, and Paul Schaefer, 1986. "Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation." Public Administration Review, 46, pp. 170-178. Cross, Roger, 1994. "Scientific Literacy and Democracy." Search, 25, pp. 283-286. Crony, William, ed., 1991. Political Participation and American Democracy. New York : Greenwood. Crozier, Michel and Erhard Friedberg, 1980. Actors and Systems : The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago. Crozier, Michel, Samuel P Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, 1975. The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University. Cupps, D Stephen, 1977. "Emerging Problems of Citizen Participation Public Administration Review, 37, pp. 4 78-487. Curti, Merle E 1959. The Making of an American Community: A Case Study of Democracy in a Frontier County Stanford, CA : Stanford University. Curtis, James E., Edward G. Grabb, and Douglas E. Baer, 1992. "Voluntary Association Membership in Rfteen Countries: A Comparative Analysis." American Sociological Review, 57, pp. 139-152. Curtis, James E., 1971. "Voluntary Association Joining: A Cross National Comparative Note." American Sociological Review, 36, pp. 872-880. Curtis, Karen A., 1989. "Help from Within: Participatory Research in a Low-Income Neighborhood Urban Anthropology, 18, pp. 203-217. 264

PAGE 275

Dagger, Richard, 1981. "Metropolis, Memory, and Citizenship." American Journal of Political Science, 25, pp. 715-737. Dahl, Robert A., 1995. "Participation and the Problem of Civic Understanding." In Amitai Etzioni, Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective. New York: St. Martin's, pp. 261-270. Dahl, Robert A., 1 994. .. A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus Citizen Participation." Political Science Quarterly, 109, pp. 23-34. Dahl, Robert A., 1992. "The Problem of Civic Competence... Journal of Democracy, 3. pp. 45-59. Dahl, Robert A., 1989a. "Democracy and Participation." In Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University, pp. 225-231. Dahl, Robert A., ed., 1989b. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Dahl, Robert A., 1985. A Preface to Economic Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Dahl, Robert A., 1982. Dl'lemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Dahl, Robert A., 1967. "The City in the Future of Democracy... American Political Science Review, 61, pp. 953-969. Dahl, Robert A., 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Dahl, Robert A., 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago. Dahlberg, Jane S., 1 966. The New York Bureau of Municipal Research: Pioneer in Government Administration. New York: New York University. Daly, Markate, 1994. Communitarianism: A New Public Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Danigelis, Nicholas L., 1978. "Black Political Participation in the United States: Some Recent Evidence. American Sociological Review, 43, pp. 756-771. Davidson, William 8. and Patrick R. Cotter, 1993. "Psychological Sense of Community and Support for Public School Taxes." American Journal of Community Psychology, 21. pp. 59-66. Davies, Wayne K. D. and Ivan J. Townshend, 1994. "How Do Community Associations Vary? The Structure of Community Associations in Calgary, Alberta ... Urban Studies, 265

PAGE 276

31, pp. 1739-1761. Davis, John E., 1991. Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Davison, W. Phillips, 1988. Mass Media, Civic Organizations, and Street Gossip: How Communication Affects the Quality of Life in an Urban Neighborhood. New York: Gannett Center for Media Studies. Dawes, Robyn M., Jean McTavish, and Harriet Shaklee, 1977. "Behavior, Communication, and Assumptions About Other People's Behavior in a Commons Dilemma Situation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 1-11. deleon, Peter, 1995. "Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences." American Journal of Political Science, 39, pp. 886-905. deleon, Peter, 1992. "The Democratization of the Policy Sciences." Public Administration Review, 52, pp. 125-129. DeMartini, Joseph A., 1992. "Generational Relationships and Social Movement Participation." Sociological Inquiry, 62, pp. 450-463. Denhardt, Robert B., James Pyle, and Allen C. Bluedorn, 1987. "Implementing Quality Circles in State Government." Public Administration Review, 47, pp. 304-309. Denhardt, Robert, 1993. Theories of Public Organization, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth. Denhardt, Robert B., 1990. "Public Administration Theory: The State of the Discipline." In Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 43-72. Denhardt, Robert D., 1981. "Toward a Critical Theory of Public Organization." Public Administration Review, 41, pp. 628-635. Derber, Charles, 1995. What's Left? Radical Politics in the Postcommunist Era. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Derber, Charles and William Schwartz, 1983. "Toward a Theory of Worker Participation." Sociological Inquiry, 53, pp. 61-78. DeRienzo, Harold, 1995. "Beyond the Melting Pot: Preserving Culture, Building Community." National Civic Review, 84, pp 5-15. DeSena, Judith N., 1994. "Women: The Gatekeepers of Urban Neighborhoods." Journal of Urban Affairs, 16, pp. 271-283. Dewey, John, 1927. The Public and Its Problems. In Jo Ann Boydston, ed., 1984, John Dewey: The Later Works, Vol. 2: 1925-1927. Carbondale: Southern Illinois 266

PAGE 277

University. Dey, tan, 1993. Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge. Dienhart, John W., 1994. "Responsibility and Community: A Theory of Public Cooperation." Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, pp. 221-231 Diesing, Paul, 1982. Science and Ideology in the Policy Sciences. New York: Aldine. Dilulio, John J. Jr., ed., 1994. Deregulating the Public Service: Can Government Be Improved? Washington, DC: Brookings. Dilger, Jay Morgantown, 1994. "Residential Community Associations: Their Impact on Local Government Finance and Politics." Public Management, 76, pp. 16-21. Dilger, Jay Morgantown, 1991. "Residential Community Associations: Issues. Impacts, and Relevance for local Government." State and Local Government Review, 23, pp. 17-23. Dilger, Robert J., 1992. Neighborhood Politics: Residential Associations in American Governance. New York: New York University. Dionne. E. J Jr., 1991. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster. Dobel, Patrick J., 1990. Compromise and Political Action: Political Morality in Liberal and Democratic Life. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Douglas. Mary, 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse: Syracuse University. Douglass, R. Bruce, 1 994. "The Renewal of Democracy and the Communitarian Prospect." The Responsive Community, 4, pp. 55-62. Drucker. Peter. 1989. The New Realities: In Government and Politics, In Economics and Business, In Society and World View. New York: Harper & Row Drukman, Mason, 1971. Community and Purpose in America: An Analysis of American Political Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dryzek, John S. and Douglas Torgerson, 1993. "Democracy and the Policy Sciences: A Progress Report." Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 127-137. Dryzek, John S., 1996. Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University. Oryzek, John S . 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York: Cambridge University 267

PAGE 278

Dryzek, JohnS., 1989. "Policy Sciences of Democracy." Polity, 22, pp. 97-118. Dubbelde, Nan M., 1981. Citizen Participation: Action for the Common Good. Monticello, IL: Vance. Dugan, Sloane, 1993. "Reflections on Helping II: A Perspective on Participatory Action Research." International Journal of Public Administration, 16, pp. 1715-1733. Dumbauld, Edward, ed., 1955. The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Duncan, Graeme and Steven Lukes, 1 967. "The New Democracy." In Charles A. McCoy and John Playford, eds., Apolitical Politics. New York: Crowell, pp. 160-184. Duncan, Graeme, ed., 1983. Democratic Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University. Duncan, Otis D Howard Schuman, and Beverly Duncan, 1973. Social Change in a Metropolitan Community. New York: Russell Sage. Durning, Dan, 1993. "Participatory Policy Analysis in a Social Service Agency: A Case Study." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12, pp. 231-257. Dye, Thomas and Harmon Zeigler, 1987. The Irony of Democracy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Easton, David, 1960. The Political System: An Inquiry into The State. New York: Knopf. Eberly, Don E., 1995. "The Ouest for a Civil Society." National Civic Review, 84, pp. 119-125. Eberly, Don E., ed. 1994. Building a Community of Citizens: CiVI1 Society in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: University Press. Ehrenhalt, Alan, 1996. The Last City: The Forgotten Virtues of Community in America. New York: Basic. Eksterowicz, Anthony J. and Paul C. Cline, 1990. "Is Citizen Participation Consistent with Effective Political Parties?" National Civic Review, 79, pp. 529-545. Elden, J. Maxwell, 1 981 "Political Efficacy at Work: The Connection between More Autonomous Forms of Workplace Organization and a More Participatory Politics." American Political Science Review, 75, pp. 43-58. Eliason, Scott R., 1993. Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Elkin, Stephen L., 1985. "Pluralism in Its Place: State and Regime in Liberal Democracy. In Roger Benjamin and Stephen l. Elkin, eds The Democratic State, 268

PAGE 279

Lawrence: University of Kansas, pp. 186-196. Ellison, Christopher G. and Darren E. Sherkat, 1995. "The Semi-Involuntary Institution Revisited: Regional Variations in Church Participation among Black Americans." Social Forces, 73, pp. 1415-1437. Ellison, Christopher G. and Bruce London, 1992. "The Social and Political Participation of Black Americans: Compensatory and Ethnic Community Perspectives Revisited." Social Forces, 70, pp. 681-701. Ellison, Christopher G. and David A. Gay, 1989. "Black Political Participation Revisited: A Test of Compensatory, Ethnic Community, and Public Arena Models." Social Science Quarterly, 70, pp. 101-119. Ellison, Christopher G .. 1992. "Military Background, Racial Orientations, and Political Participation Among Black Adult Males." Social Science Quarterly, 73, pp. 360-378. Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 1995. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic. Elshtain, Jean B 1994. "Democracy and the Politics of Difference." The Responsive Community: Rights and Responsibilities, 4, pp. 9-21. Elster, Jon, 1991. "Patterns of Causal Analysis in Tocqueville's Democracy in America." Rationality and Society, 3, pp. 277-297. Emig, Arthur G., Michael B. Hesse, and Samuel H. Fisher Ill, 1996. "Black-White Differences in Political Efficacy, Trust, and Sociopolitical Participation : A Critique of the Empowerment Hypothesis." Urban Affairs Review, 32, pp. 264-276. Emmert, Mark A., Michael Crow, and R. F. Shangraw, Jr., 1993. "Public Management in the Future: Post-Orthodoxy and Organization Design." In Barry Bozeman, ed., Public Management: The State of the Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 345-360. Entman, Robert M., 1989. Democracy without Citizens : Media and the Decay of American Politics. New York: Oxford University. Erlewine Sheri, 1993. "Have You Ever Watched Them Fill a Pothole?: What Californians Know About Their City Government." Western City, 69, September, pp. 12-16. Etzioni, Amitai, 1997. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society. New York: Basic. Etzioni, Amitai, 1995. Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective. New York: St. Martin's. Etzioni, Amitai, 1993. The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society. New York: Touchstone. 269

PAGE 280

Etzioni, Amitai, 1988. The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Free. Etzioni, Amitai, 1969. "The Fallacy of Decentralization." The Nation, August 25, pp. 145-149. Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte, 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper and Row. Farazmand, Ali, 1989. "Crisis in the U.S. Administrative State." Administration and Society, 21, pp. 173-199. Fallows, James, 1996. Breaking the News: How American Media Undermine Democracy. New York: Pantheon. Farley, Reynolds, 1996. The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got Here, Where We Are Going. New York: Russell Sage. Farris, Buford, 1988. "Neighborhood Social Action Organization and the Issue of Double Closure Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 12, pp 17-30. Feldman, Stanley, 1983. "The Measurement and Meaning of Trust in Government." Political Methodology, 9 pp. 341-354. Ferman, Barbara, 1996. Challenging the Growth Machine: Neighborhood Politics in Chicago and Pittsburgh. Lawrence: University of Kansas Ferris, James M., 1984. "Coprovision : Citizen Time and Money Donation in Public Service Provision." Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 324-333. Fenerman, David M., 1989. Ethnography Step by Step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fine, Gary A. and Lori Holyfield, 1996. "Secrecy, Trust, and Dangerous Leisure: Generating Group Cohesion in Voluntary Organizations Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, pp. 22-38. Finer, Herman, 1941. "Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government." Public Administration Review, 1, pp. 335-350. Finkel, Steven E., 1985. "Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis." American Journal of Political Science, 29, pp. 891-913. Fiorino, Daniel J., 1990. "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms." Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1 5, pp. 226-243. Fischer, Frank, 1993. "Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical InQuiry to Practical Cases." Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 1651 88. 270

PAGE 281

Fischer. Frank. 1980. Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology. Boulder. CO: Westview. Ascher. Henry W., 1996. The Sociologist's Statistical Tools: Computer Based Data Analysis Using SPSS Windows. Lanham. MD: University Press of America Fisher. Robert, 1994. Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America, 2nd ed. Boston: Twayne. Fishkin, James, 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven. CT: Yale University. Flacks. Richard, 1971. Youth and Social Change. Chicago: Markham. Fleurbaey, Marc, 1993. "An Egalitarian Democratic Private Ownership Economy." Politics and Society, 21. pp. 215-233. Florin, Paul and Abraham Wandersman. 1990. "An Introduction to Citizen Participation. Voluntary Organizations. and Community Development: Insights for Empowerment Through Research." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 41-54. Florin, Paul, Eric Jones. and Abraham Wandersman, 1986. "Black Participation in Voluntary Associations." Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 15, pp. 65-86. Fluno, Robert, 1971. The Democratic Community. New York: Dodd, Mead. Faddy, William, 1993. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Fogarty, Michael, 1990. "Efficiency and Democracy in Large Voluntary Associations." Policy Studies, 11. pp. 42-48. Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards, 1996. "The Paradox of Civil Society." Journal of Democracy, 7. pp. 38-52. Follett, Mary Parker. 1940. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. Elliot M. Fox and Lyndall Urwick. New York: Hippocrene. Follett, Mary Parker, 1924. Creative Experience. New York: Longmans. Green. Follett, Mary Parker, 1918. The New State. New York: Longmans. Green. Folz, David H . 1991. "Recycling Solid Waste: Citizen Participation in the Design of a Coproduced Program." State and Local Government Review, 23, pp. 98-102. Fowler, Floyd J., Jr . 1984. Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fowler, Robert Booth, 1991. The Dance with Community: The Contemporary Debate in American Political Thought. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 271

PAGE 282

j Fox, Charles J. and Hugh T. Miller, 1995. Pastmadern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fraser, John, 1970. "The Mistrustful-Efficacious Hypothesis and Political Participation." Journal of Politics, 32, pp. 444-449. Frederickson, H. George, 1996. "City and Community in American Life." National Civic Review, 85, pp 28-36. Frederickson, H. George, 1991. "Toward a Theory of the Public for Public Administration." Administration and Society, 22, pp. 395-417. Frederickson, H. George, 1982. "The Recovery of Civism in Public Administration." Public Administration Review, 42, pp. 501-508. Frederickson, H. George, 1980. New Public Admli";fs;,-;;tion. University, AL: University of Alabama. Frederickson, H. George, ed., 1973. Neighborhood Control in the 1970s: Politics, Administration, and Citizen Participation. New York: Chandler. Freedman, James 0., 1978. Crisis and Legitimacy: The Administrative Process and American Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Freeman, Joseph, 1992. Government Is Good : Citizenship, Participation, and Power. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Friedrich, Carl J . 1940. "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility." Public Policy, 1 pp. 3-24. Frost, Peter J. and Ralph E. Stablein, eds., 1992. Doing Exemplary Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Fukuyama, Francis, 1996. "Trust: Social Capital and the Global Economy Current, 379, pp. 12-18. Fukuyama, Francis, 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free. Gallup Pall Monthly, February 1994. Gallup Pall Monthly, September 1992. Galston, William A., 1993. "Salvation Through Participation: John Dewey and the Religion of Democracy Raritan, 12, pp 144-1 54. Gamba, Raymond J. and Stuart Oskamp, 1994. "Factors Influencing Community Residents' Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs." Environment and Behavior, 26, pp. 587-612. 272

PAGE 283

Gans, Herbert J., 1988. Middle American Individualism: The Future of Liberal Democracy. New York: Free. Gant, Michael M. and WilliamS. Lyons, 1993. "Democratic Theory, Nonvoting, and Public Policy: The 1972-1988 Presidential Elections." American Politics Quarterly, 21, pp. 185-205. Gardner, John W., 1995. "Building a Responsive Community." In Amitai Etzioni, Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective. New York: St. Martin's, pp. 167-178. Gardner, John W., 1994. "American Renewal: Adding Spirit to Communities." Public Management, 76, pp. 8-12. Gardner, John W., 1990. On Leadership. New York: Free. Garreau, Joel, 1991 Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Andtor. Gastil, John, Gina Adam, and Hank Jenkins-Smith, 1995. A Builder's Guide to Public Deliberation: An Executive Summary of "Understanding Public Deliberation. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Gastil, John, 1 994a. "A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership." Human Relations, 47, pp. 953-975. Gastil, John, 1 994b. "A Meta-Analytic Review of the Productivity and Satisfaction of Democratic and Autocratic Leadership." Small Group Research, 25, pp. 384-410. Gastil, John, 1993a. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication. Philadelphia: New Society. Gastil, John, 1993b. "Identifying Obstacles to Small Group Democracy." Small Group Research, 24, pp. 5-27. Gastil, John, 1992a. "A Definition of Small Group Democracy." Small Group Research, 23, pp. 278-301 Gastil, John, 1992b. "Undemocratic Discourse: A Review of Theory and Research on Political Discourse." Discourse & Society, 3, pp 469-500. Gastil, John, 1992c. "Why We Believe in Democracy: Testing Theories of Attitude Functions and Democracy." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, pp. 423-450. Gawthrop, Louis C., 1984. "Civis, Civitas, and Civilitas: A New Focus for the Year 2000." Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 101-1 07. Gay, Robert, 1990. "Neighborhood Associations and Political Change in Rio de Janeiro." Latin American Research Review, 25, pp 102-118. 273

PAGE 284

Gerloff, Robert, 1994. "The New Urbanism Takes Hold Utne Reader, May/June, pp. 28-30. Getter, Russell W and Paul Schumaker, 1978. "Contextual Bases of Responsiveness to Citizen Preferences and Group Demands Policy and Politics, 6, pp. 249-278. Gilbert, G Nigel, 1981. Modelling Society: An Introduction to Loglinear Analysis for Social Researchers London: Allen & Unwin. Giles Michael W. and Marilyn K Dantico, 1982. "Political Participation and Neighborhood Social Context Revisited. American Journal of Political Science 26, pp. 144-150. Gilman, Sander L., ed 1976. The City and Sense of Community Ithaca NY: Cornell University. Gilman, Stuart C. and Carol W. Lewis, 1996. "Public Service Ethics: A Global Dialogue." Public Administration Review, 56, pp. 517-524. Gilmore, Thomas N and Charles Barnett 1992. "Designing the Social Architecture of Participation in Large Groups to Effect Organizational Change." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, pp. 534-548. Gilmore Thomas N. and James Krantz, 1991. "Innovation in the Public Sector: Dilemmas in the Use of Ad Hoc Processes." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10, pp. 455-468. Gittell Marilyn, 1980. Limits to Citizen Participation : The Decline of Community Organ i zations Beverly Hills: Sage. Gladwell, Malcolm, 1996. "The Tipping Point." The New Yorker, June 3, pp. 32-38. Glaser, William A 1959. "The Family and Voting Turnout. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, pp 563-570. Glendon, Mary Ann, 1991 Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free. Goldberg, Ellis, 1996. "Thinking About How Democracy Works." Politics and Society, 24, pp. 7-18. Goldenberg, Sheldon, 1992. Thinking Methodologically. New York: HarperCollins Golembiewski, Robert T., 1967. Men, Management, and Morality. New York: McGraw Hill. Goodnow, Frank, 1900. Politics and Administration. New York: Macmillan. 274

PAGE 285

Goodsell, Charles T., 1990. "Public Administration and the Public Interest." In Gary L. Wamsley eta/., Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 96-113. Goodsell, Charles T., 1985. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 2nd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Goodsell, Charles T., ed., 1981. The Public Encounter. Bloomington: Indiana University. Gordon, Mildred, 1993. "Intentional Communities as Laboratories: Learning Participatory Management and Direct Democracy." Communities, no. 80181, pp. 54-58. Gormley, William T., Jr., John Hoadley, and Charles Wiliams, 1983. "Potential Responsiveness in the Bureaucracy: Views of Public Utility Regulation." American Political Science Review, 77, pp. 704-717. Gould, Carol C., 1994. "Feminist Theory and the Democratic Community." !n Markate Daly, Communitarianism: A New Public Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 344-353. Gould, Carol C., 1988. Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Grady, Robert C., 1990. "Workplace Democracy and Possessive Individualism." The Journal of Politics, 52, pp. 146-1 66. Graebner, William, 1986. "The Small Group in Democratic Social Engineering, 1900-1950. Journal of Social Issues, 42, pp. 137-154. Graham, Pauline, ed., 1996. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School. Greenberg, Edward S., Leon Grunberg, and Daniel Kelley, 1996. "Industrial Work and Political Participation: Beyond Simple Spillover." Political Research Quarterly, 49, pp. 305-330. Greenberg, Edward S., 1986. Workplace Democracy: The Political Effects of Participation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Greenberg, Edward S., 1981 a. "Industrial Self-Management and Political Attitudes." American Political Science Review, 75, pp. 29-42. Greenberg, Edward S., 1981 b. "Industrial Democracy and the Democratic Citizen." Journal of Politics, 43, pp. 964-981. Greenberg, Edward S., 1975. "The Consequences of Worker Participation and Control: A Clarification of the Theoretical Literature." Social Science Quarterly, 55, pp. 215-232. 275

PAGE 286

Green, Charles St. Clair, 1985. Elitism vs. Democracy in Community Organizations: The Agonies of a South Bronx Group. Bristol: Wyndham Hall. Green, Philip, 1993. "Democracy as a Contested Idea." In Philip Green, ed., Democracy: Key Concepts in Critical Theory. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, pp. 2-18. Grofman, Bernard, ed., 1993. Information, Participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Groper, Richard, 1996. "Political Participation and the Internet: A Review Essay." Political Communication, 13, pp. 247-249. Gross, Richard E. and Leslie D. Zeleny, 1958. Educating Citizens for Democracy. New York: Oxford University. Grossman, Lawrence K., 1995. The Electronic Republic: The Transformation of American Democracy. New York: Viking. Guarasci, Richard and Gary Peck, 1987. "Beyond the Syndicalism of Workplace Democracy." The Insurgent Sociologist, 14, pp. 49-76. Gujarti, Damodar N., 1988. "Regression on Dummy Dependent Variable: The LPM, Legit, and Probit Models." In Basic Econometrics, Second Edition. New York: McGrawHill, Ch. 2, pp. 467-504. Gulick, Luther and Lyndall Urwick, eds., 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration. Guterbock, Thomas M. and Bruce London, 1983. "Race, Political Orientation, and Participation: An Empirical test of Four Competing Theories." American Sociological Review, 48, pp 439-453. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Gutmann, Amy, 1987. Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University. Gutmann, Amy, 1985. "Communitarian Critics of Liberalism." Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14, pp. 308-322. Gutmann, Amy, 1980. Liberal Equality. New York: Harper & Row. Haack, Susan, 1996. Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Haan, Norma, Robert N. Bellah, Paul Rabinow, and William M. Sullivan, 1983. Social Science as Mora/Inquiry. New York: Columbia University. 276

PAGE 287

I Habermas, Jurgen, 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Habermas, Jurgen, 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Habermas. Jurgen, 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger with Frederick lawrence. Cambridge: MIT. Habermas, Jurgen, 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Trans. T. A. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon. Habermas, Jurgen, 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon. Habermas, Jurgen, 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon. Haeberle, Steven. H., 1989. Planting the Grassroots: Structuring Citizen Participation. New York: Praeger. Haeberle, Steven H., 1988. "Community Projects and Citizen Participation: Neighborhood Leaders Evaluate Their Accomplishments." Social Science Quarterly, 69, pp. 1014-1021. Hall, Budd, 1992. "From Margins to Center? The Development and Purpose of Participatory Research." The American Sociologist, 23, pp. 1 5-28. Hallman, Howard W., 1984. Neighborhoods: Their Place in Urban Life. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Hallman, Howard W . 1974. Neighborhood Government in a Metropolitan Setting. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Halprin, Robert, 1995. Rebuilding the Inner City. New York: Columbia University. Hamilton, Lawrence C., 1 992. Regression with Graphics: A Second Course in Applied Statistics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hampton, Henry and Steve Fayer, 1991. Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement from the 1950s Through the 1980s. New York: Bantam. Handy, Charles, 1990. The Age of Unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School. Hanks, Michael and Bruce Ecland, 1978. "Adult Voluntary Associations and Adolescent Socialization." The Sociological Quarterly, 19, pp. 481-90. Hansen, Susan B., 1975. "Participation, Political Structure. and Concurrence." American Political Science Review, 69, pp. 1181-1199. 277

PAGE 288

Hardin, Russell, 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Harmon, Michael M., 1981. Action Theory for Public Administration. New York: Longman. Hart, David K., 1989. "A Partnership in Virtue Among All Citizens." Public Administration Review, 49, pp. 101-114. Hart, David K., 1974. "Social Equity, Justice and the Equitable Administrator." Public Administration Review, 34, pp. 3-11 Hart, Vivien, 1978. Distrust and Democracy: Political Distrust in Britain and America. London: Cambridge University. Harwood, Richard C., 1993a. "Leadership in the 1990s: Yearning for a New Politics." Western City, 69, May, pp. 9-24. Harwood, Richard C., 1993b. "Leadership in the 1 990s: Managing the Politics of Change." Western City, 69, June, pp. 1 5-1 6. Harwood, Richard C., 1993c. "Listening More Is Not Listening Better." Western City, 69, July, p. 15. Harwood, Richard C., 1991a. "Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street, Part I." Western City, 67, September, pp. 6-12. Harwood, Richard C., 1991b. "Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street, Part II." Western City, 67, October, pp. 12-21 Harwood, Richard C., 1990. Citizens and Policymakers in Community Forums: Observations from the National Issues Forums. Dayton: Kettering Foundation. Hausknecht, Murray, 1962. The Joiners: A Sociological Description of Voluntary Association Membership in the United States. New York: Bedminster. Hayward, Bronwyn, 1993. "Participatory Democracy: Questions Raised by Feminist Involvement with Practice and Theory." Political Science, 45, pp. 27-39. Heath, Shirley B. and Milbrey W. Mclaughlin, 1991. "Community Organizations as Family: Endeavors That Engage and Support Adolescents." Phi Delta Kappan, 72, pp. 623-627. Heckathorn, Douglas D., 1993. "Collective Action and Group Heterogeneity: Voluntary Provision Versus Delective Incentives." American Sociological Review, 58, pp. 329350. Heckathorn, Douglas D., 1989. "Collective Action and the Second-Order Free-Rider Problem." Rationality and Society, 1, pp. 78-100. 278

PAGE 289

Heerema, Douglas L. and Robert Giannini, 1991. "Business Organizations and the Sense of Community." Business Horizons, 34, pp. 87-1 01 Hegel, Georg W. F., 1994. "Community as the Basis for Free Individual Action." In Markate Daly, Communitarianism: A New Public Ethics, pp. 36-40. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Held, David and Christopher Pollitt, eds., 1986. New Forms of Democracy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hellinger, Daniel, and Dennis R. Judd, 1991. The Democratic Facade. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Henton, Douglas, John Melville, and Kimberly Walesh, 1997. Grassroots Leaders for a New Economy: How Civic Entrepreneurs Are Building Prosperous Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hernandez, Antonia, 1991. "Latino Political Participation: Invigorating the Democratic Process." National Civic Review, 80, pp. 266-274. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, ed., 1962. Essays on Politics and Culture by John Stuart Mill. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hindera, John J., 1993. "Representative Bureaucracy: Further Evidence of Active Representation in the EEOC District Offices." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, pp. 415-429. Hirschman, Albert 0., 1982. Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Hirst, Paul Q., 1992. "Comments on 'Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.'" Politics and Society, 20, pp. 473-480. Hirst, Paul Q., 1990. Representative Democracy and Its Limits. Cambridge: Polity. Hodson, Randy, Sean Creighton, and Sandy Walsh, 1994. "Loyalty to Whom? Workplace Participation and the Development of Consent." Human Relations, 4 7, pp. 895-909. Hopper, Joseph R. and Joyce M. Nielsen, 1991. "Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral Strategies to Expand Participation in a Community Recycling Program." Environment and Behavior, 23, pp. 195-220. Horvat, Branko, 1982. The Political Economy of Socialism. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Horwitt, Sanford D., 1990. "America's Number One Problem: Democracy." National Civic Review, 79, 414-418. 279

PAGE 290

j Hosmer. David W. and Stanley Lemeshow, 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley. Huckfeldt, Robert, Eric Plutzer, and John Sprague, 1993. "Alternative Contexts of Political Behavior: Churches, Neighborhoods, and Individuals." Journal of Politics, 55, pp. 365-381. Huckfeldt. R. Robert, 1986. Politics in Context: Assimilation and Conflict in Urban Neighborhoods. New York: Agathon. Huckfeldt, Robert, 1979. "Political Participation and the Neighborhood Social Context." American Journal of Political Science, 23, pp. 579-592. Hunter Albert, 1979. "The Urban Neighborhood: Its Analytical and Social Contexts." Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14, pp. 267-288. Hunter, Albert, 1975. "The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test Through Replication." American Sociological Review, 40. pp. 537-552. Hunter, Albert, 1974. Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago's Local Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago. Hunter, James D., 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic. Huntington, Samuel P., 1991 The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Huntington, Samuel P., 1981. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Huntington, Samuel P., 1975. "The Democratic Distemper." Public Interest, 41, pp. 9-38. Hyman, Herbert, 1959. Political Socialization. New York : Free. Hyneman, Charles S., 1994. The American Founding Experience: Political Community and Republican Government. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. lacofano, Daniel S., 1990. Public Involvement as an Organizational Development Process: A Proactive Theory for Environmental Planning Program Management. New York: Garland. Iannello, Kathleen P., 1992. Decisions Without Hierarchy: Feminist Interventions in Organization Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. lchilov, Orit, 1990. Political Socialization, Citizenship Education, and Democracy. New York: Teachers College. 280

PAGE 291

lmmergut, Ellen M . 1992. "An Institutional Critique of Associative Democracy: Commentary on 'Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.'" Politics and Society, 20, pp. 481-486. Ingraham, Patricia W. and Donald F Ketti, eds., 1992. Agenda for Excellence: Public Service in America. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Ingram, Helen and Anne Schneider, 1993. "Constructing Citizenship: The Subtle Messages of Policy Design." In Helen Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds . Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D .C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 68-97. Ingram, Helen and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., 1993. Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Jackson, Jim, 1989. "Evaluation for Voluntary Organizations." Community Development Journal, 24, pp. 292-300. Jacobs, Jane, 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Jennings, M. Kent and Richard G. Niemi, 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents. Princeton: Princeton University. Jennings, M. Kent and Richard G. Niemi, 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. Princeton: Princeton University. Johnson, Ronald N. and Gary D. Libecap, 1991. "Public Sector Employee Voter Participation and Salaries." Public Choice, 68, pp. 137-1 50. Jones, Bryan D., 1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kaltsounis, Theodore, 1990. "Democracy and Democratic Citizenship Education." Social Studies, 81 pp. 1 90-1 9 3. Kanpol, Barry and Fred Yeo, 1995. "Inner-City Realities: Democracy within Difference, Theory, and Practice." The Urban Review, 27, pp. 77-91. Kasarda, John and Morris Janowitz, 1974. "Community Attachment in Mass Society." American Sociological Review, 39, pp. 328-340. Katan, Joseph and Ram A. Cnaan, 1986. "Neighborhood Committees in Israel: Their Local and External Orientations." Community Development Journal, 21, pp. 23-32. Kateb, George, 1981 "The Moral Distinctiveness of Representative Democracy." Ethics, 91, pp. 357-374. 281

PAGE 292

Kathlene, Lyn and John A. Martin, 1991. "Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formulation." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1 0, pp. 46-63. Katz, Peter, ed., 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy V .. 1985. "Pragmatism. Policy Science, and the State." American Journal of Political Science, 29, pp. 827-849. Kaufman, Arnold, 1969. "Human Nature and Participatory Democracy." In William E. Connolly, ed., The Bias of Pluralism. New York: Atherton. Kaye, Gillian, 1990. "A Community Organizer's Perspective on Citizen Participation Research and the Researcher-Practitioner Partnership." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 151-1 57. Kearney, Richard C. and Chandan Sinha, 1988. "Professionalism and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Conflict or Compatibility?" Public Administration Review, 48, pp. 571-579. Keating, W. Dennis, Norman Krumholz, and Philip Star, eds., 1996. Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Keefer, Joseph D 1993. "The News Media's Failure to Facilitate Citizen Participation in the Congressional Policymaking Process." Journalism Quarterly, 70, pp. 412-424. Keller, Suzanne, 1968. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House. Kelling, George L. and Catherine M. Coles, 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free. Kelly, Caroline and John Kelly, 1994. "Who Gets Involved in Collective Action?: Social Psychological Determinants of Individual Participation in Trade Unions." Human Relations, 47, pp. 63-88. Kemmis, Daniel, 1995. The Good City and the Good Life: Renewing the Sense of Community. New York: Houghton Miflin. Kemmis, Daniel, 1990. Community and the Politics of Place. Norman: University of Oklahoma. Kennedy, John J., 1992. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Log-Linear Analysis for Behavioral Research, Second Edition. New York: Praeger. Kerr, Norbert L., 1989. "Illusions of Efficacy: The Effects of Group Size on Perceived Efficacy in Social Dilemmas." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, pp. 287-313. 282

PAGE 293

Ketcham, Ralph, 1992. "A Rationale for Civic Education: Preparing for Democracy." Current, Nov. 01, n. 347, pp. 10-13. Khilnani, Sunil, 1991. "Democracy and Modern Political Community: Limits and Possibilities." Economy and Society, 20, pp. 196-204. Khullar, Gurdeep S., 1988. "Race and Gender Variations in Social Participation Among Working Retired Elderly." International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 18, pp. 45-55. Kimball, Deborah Hall, 1983. Forming Neighborhood Associations: A Bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance King, Anthony, 1997. "Running Scared." The Atlantic Monthly, January, pp. 41-61. King, Gary, Robert 0. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University. King, Gary, 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. New York: Cambridge University. Kingsley, J Donald, 1944. Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch University. Kirkhart, Larry, 1971. "Toward a Theory of Public Administration." In Frank Marini, ed., Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. San Francisco: Chandler, pp 127-163. Klee, Earl, 1989. Politics, an American Perspective: Uneasy Democracy, the Tensions of Citizenship, and Ideology. Lake Oswego, OR: Circa. Kline, Stephen Jay, 1996. Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Klinkner, Philip A . 1993. "Dwarfing the Political Capacity of the People? The Relationship Between Judicial Activism and Voter Turnout, 1840-1988." Polity, 25, pp. 633-646. Knoke, David and James R. Wood, 1981. Organized for Action: Commitment in Voluntary Associations. New Brunswi::k, NJ: Rutgers University. Knoke, David, 1990. Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations. New York: A. de Gruyter. Knoke, David, 1988. "Organizational Incentives." American Sociological Review, 53, pp. 311-329. Knoke, David, 1986. "Associations and Interest Groups." Annual Review of Sociology, 12, pp. 8-9. 283

PAGE 294

Kolankiewicz, George, 1996. "Social Capital and Social Change." British Journal of Sociology, 47, pp. 427-441. Komorita, Samuel S. and Craig D. Parks, 1994. Social Dilemmas. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Communications. Kornberg, Allan and Harold D. Clarke, 1992. Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University. Korten, David, 1981. "The Management of Social Transformation." Public Administration Review, 41, pp. 613-618. Kotler. Milton, 1 969. Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Kramer, David, 1972. Participatory Democracy: Developing Ideals of the Political Left. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Kretzmann, John P. and John L. McKnight, 1993. Building Communities From the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Chicago: ACTA Krimerman, Len and Frank Lindenfeld, eds., 1992. When Workers Decide: Workplace Democracy Takes Root in North America. Philadelphia: New Society. Krimerman, Len, ed . 1992. From the Ground Up: Essays on Grassroots and Workplace Democracy by C. George Benel/o. Boston: South End. Krislov, Samuel and David H. Rosenbloom, 1981. Representative Bureaucracy and the American Political System. New York: Praeger. Krumholz, Norman and Philip Star, 1996. "Neighborhood Revitalization: Future Prospects." In W. Dennis Keating et al., eds . Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods. Lawrence: University of Kansas, pp. 235-248. Kuhn, Thomas S., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kunde, James E., 1994. "American Renewal: The Challenge of Leadership." National Civic Review, 83, pp 17-24. Kweit, Mary G. and Robert W. Kweit, 1987. "Citizen Participation: Enduring Issues for the Next Century." National Civic Review, 76, pp. 191-198. Kweit, Mary G. and Robert W. Kweit, 1981. Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society: A Contingency Approach. New York: Praeger. Lab, Steven P., 1990. "Citizen Crime Prevention: Domains and Participation." Justice Quarterly, 7, pp. 467-491. 284

PAGE 295

i Lackey, Alvin S. and Larry Dershem, 1992. "The Process is Pedagogy: What Does Community Participation Teach?" Community Development Journal, 27, pp. 220-234. Lafferty, William, 1981. Participation and Democracy in Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Laird, Frank N., 1993. "Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making." Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18, pp. 341-361. Lambert, Susan J. and Karen Hopkins, 1995. "Occupational Conditions and Workers' Sense of Community: Variations by Gender and Race." American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp. 151-179. Lampe, David, 1 994. "A Developing Bibliography of Renewal Literature." National Civic Review, 83, pp. 430-446. Lamm, Richard D., 1997. "Commandments of Community. Rocky Mountain News, February 16. Landy, Marc, 1993. "Public Policy and Citizenship." In Helen Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., Public Policy for Democracy Washington, D.C : The Brookings Institution, pp. 19-44. Lane, Robert, 1985. "From Political to Industrial Democracy?" Polity, 17, pp. 623-648. Langton, Stuart, 1987. "Strengthening Citizen Participation and the Renewal of Community." National Civic Review, 76, pp. 224-230. Langton, Stuart, 1978. "Citizen Participation in America: Current Reflections on the State of the Art. In Stuart Langton, ed Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington, MA: D. C Heath, pp. 1-12. Lappe, Frances M. and Paul M. DuBois, 1995. The Quickening of America: Rebut7ding Our Nation, Remaking Our Lives. San Francisco: JesseyBass. Lappe Frances M. and Paul M. DuBois, 1994a. "Educating Real-World Problem Solvers." National Civic Review, 83, pp. 240-258. Lappe, Frances M. and Paul M. DuBois, 1994b. "Bringing Democracy to Life: What Works and Why." National Civic Review, 83, pp. 413-429. Lasch, Christopher, 1995. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy New York: W. W. Norton. Lasker, Bruno, 1949. Democracy through Discussion. New York : H W. Wilson. Laslett, Peter, 1956. "The Face to Face Society In Peter Laslett, ed Philosophy, Politics and Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 157-171. 285

PAGE 296

Lasswell, Harold D., 1971. A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier. Lave, Charles A. and James G. March, 1993. An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Lavrakas, Paul J., 1993. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision. Newbury Park, CA : Sage. Lee, Dalton S 1986. The Basis of Management in Public Organizations. New York: Peter Lang. Leege, David C. and Lyman A. Kellstedt, 1993. Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics. Armonk, NY: M .E. Sharpe. Leege, David C., 1988. "Catholics and the Civic Order: Parish Participation, Politics, and Civic Participation." Review of Politics, 50, pp. 704-737. Leighley, Jan E., 1990. "Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political Participation." American Politics Quarterly, 18, pp. 459-475. Leo, John, 1995. "The Unmaking of Civic Culture." U.S. News & World Report, February 13, p. 24. Lerner, Michael, 1996. The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Levi, Margaret, 1996. "Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work." Politics and Society, 24, pp. 45-55. Levine, Andrew, 1992. "Soft on Capitalism : Prospects for 'Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.'" Politics and Society, 20, pp. 487-491. Levine, David 1., 1992. "Public Po:icy Implications of Imperfections in the Market for Worker Participation." Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1 3, pp 183-197. Levison Andrew, 1974. The Working-Class Majority. New York : Penguin. Levitan, David M., 1943. "Political Ends and Administrative Means". Public Administration Review, 3, pp. 353-359. Lewin, Kurt, 1947a. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics, Part 1: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science: Social Equilibria and Social Change." Human Relations, 1, pp. 5-41. Lewin, Kurt, 194 7b. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics, Part II: Channels of Group Life: Social Planning and Action Research." Human Relations, 1, pp. 143-1 53. Lewis, Dan A 1988. The Social Construction of Reform: Crime Prevention and Community Organizations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 286

PAGE 297

Lewis, Eugene, 1977. American Politics in a Bureaucratic Age: Citizens, Constituents, Clients and Victims Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Lewis, RobertS., 1994. "Citizen Leagues: Free Spaces of Deliberative Democracy." National Civic Review, 83, pp. 469-478. li, Mingche M., 1975. A Logic Model of Homeownership: The Case of Multi Dimensional Interactions. Urban Planning Policy Analysis and Administration Discussion Paper D75-5, Harvard University. Libecap, Gary D., 1994. "The Conditions for Successful Collective Action." Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, pp 563-592. Lichbach, Mark 1., 1994. "Rethinking Rationality and Rebellion: Theories of Collective Action and Problems of Collective Dissent." Rationality and Society, 6, pp 8-39 Lichtenstein, Nelson and Howell John Harris, eds 1993. Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise. New York: Cambridge University. Lichterman, Paul, 1996. The Search for Political Community: American Activists Reinventing Commitment. New York : Cambridge University. Liebes Tamar and Rivka Ribak, 1992. "The Contribution of Family Culture to Political Participation, Political Outlook, and Its Reproduction." Communication Research, 19, pp. 618-641. Lienesch, Michael, 1992. "Wo(e)begon(e) Democracy." American Journal of Political Science, 36, pp. 1004-1014. Light, Paul C., 1993. Monitoring Government: Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Lilienthal, David E . 1944. TVA: Democracy on the March. New York: Harper and Row. Lindblom, Charles E . 1990. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempts to Understand and Shape Society New Haven, CT: Yale University Lindblom, Charles E 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free. lindenfeld, Frank and Joyce Rothschild-Whitt, eds., 1982. Workplace Democracy and Social Change. Boston: Porter Sargent. lindsey, James K., 1995a. Modelling Frequency and Count Data. Oxford: Clarendon. Lindsey, James K . 1995b. Introductory Statistics: A Modelling Approach. Oxford: Clarendon. 287

PAGE 298

Upset, Seymour Martin and William Schneider, 1987. The Confidence Gap: Business. Labor and Government in the Public Mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Upset, Seymour Martin, 1996. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1981. Political Man: The Social Bases for Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1963. Political Man. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Littlepage, Glenn E. and Holly Silbiger, 1992. "Recognition of Expertise in Decision Making Groups: Effects of Group Size and Participation Patterns." Small Group Research, 23, pp. 344-355. Lockridge, Kenneth A., 1981. Settlement and Unsettlement in Early America: The Crisis of Political Legitimacy Before the Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Logan. John R. and Gordana Rabrenovic, 1990. "Neighborhood Associations: Their Issues. Their Allies, and Their Opponents." Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26, pp. 68-94. Lohmann, Roger A., 1992. The Commons: New Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Long, Norton E., 1980. "The City as a Local Political Economy." Administration and Society, 12, pp. 5-35. Lowi, Theodore. J., 1979. The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Luton, Larry S., 1995. "Citizen Participation in Solid Waste Policy-Making: A Case Study of the Spokane Experience." International Journal of Public Administration, 18, pp. 613-637. Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., 1993. "Policy Achievement as a Collective Good: A Strategic Perspective on Managing Social Programs." In Barry Bozeman, ed., Public Management: The State of the Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 108-133. Lynn, Naomi B. and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., 1990. Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Macedo, Stephen, 1990. Liberal Values: Citizenship, Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism. New York: Oxford University. Macedo, Stephen, 1989. "Capitalism, Citizenship, and Community." Social Philosophy and Policy, 6, 113-139. MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 288

PAGE 299

MacKinnon, Frank, 1973. Postures and Politics: Some Observations on Participatory Democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto. Macpherson, C. B., 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University. Macy, Michael W., 1991. "Chains of Cooperation: Threshhold Effects in Collective Action." American Sociological Review, 56, 730-743. Maione, Giandomenico, 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University. Majone, Giandomenico, 1988. "Policy Analysis and Public Deliberation." In Robert B. Reich, ed. The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 156-178. Mann, Dale, 1976. The Politics of Administrative Representation. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Mansbridge, Jane, 1993. "Macpherson's Neglect of the Political." In Joseph H. Carens, ed., Democracy and Possessive Individualism: The Intellectual Legacy of C. B. Macpherson. Albany: State University of New York, pp. 155-173. Mansbridge, Jane J., 1990a. "On the Relation of Altruism and Self-Interest." In Jane J. Mansbridge ed. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 133-43. Mansbridge, Jane J., 1990b. "Feminism and Democracy." The American Prospect, Spring, pp. 126-139. Mansbridge, Jane J., 1982. "Fear of Conflict in Face-to-Face Democracies." In Frank Lindenfeld and Joyce Rothschild-Whitt, eds., Workplace Democracy and Social Change. Boston: Porter Sargent, pp. 125-138. Mansbridge, Jane J., 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago. Mansbridge, Jane J., 1973. "Time, Emotion, and Inequality: Three Problems of Participatory Groups... Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 351-368. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen, 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen, 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free. Marchington, Mick, Adrian Wilkinson, and John Goodman, 1994. "Understanding the Meaning of Participation: Views from the Workplace... Human Relations, 4 7, pp. 867-894. Marcus, George E. and Russell L. Hanson, eds., 1993. Reconsidering the Democratic Public. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. 289

PAGE 300

Mariea, Kay, 1994. "Citizen Participation, Colorado Style." Colorado Municipalities, 70, 28-36. Marini, Frank, ed., 1971 Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. San Francisco: Chandler. Markowitz, Fran, 1992. "Community without Organizations." City and Society, 6, pp. 141-155. Marshall, Alicia A. and Cynthia Stohl, 1993. "Participating as Participation: A Network Approach." Communication Monographs, 60, pp. 137-157. Marston, Sallie A., 1995. The People and the Public Sphere: Neighborhood and Participatory Politics in Tucson. Tucson : University of Arizona. Marston, Sallie A., 1993. "Citizen Action Programs and Participatory Politics in Tucson." In Helen Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C. : The Brookings Institution, pp. 119-135. Martin, Daniel, 1993. "Competing Motives in the Formation of American Public Administration." International Journal of Public Administration, 16, pp. 187-209. Mason, Ronald M., 1982. Participatory and Workplace Democracy: A Theoretical Development in Critique of Liberalism. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Massey, Rachel Ida, 1994. "Impediments to Collective Action in a Small Community." Politics & Society, 22, pp. 421-434. Mathews, David, 1 996. Elements of a Strong Civil Society and a Healthy Public Life. Dayton: Kettering Foundation. Mattson, Gary A., 1986. "The Promise of Citizen Coproduction: Some Persistent Issues." Public Productivity Review, 40, pp. 51-56. McCloskey, Herbert 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics." American Political Science Review, 58, pp. 361-382. McGregor, Eugene 8., Jr., 1984. "The Great Paradox of Democratic Citizenship and Public Personnel Administration." Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 126-132. McKelvey, R. D. and W. Zavoina, 1976. "A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables." Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, pp. 103-120. McKnight, John L., 1989. "Do No Harm : Policy Options That Meet Human Needs Social Policy, 20, pp 5-15. McKnight, John L., 1987. "Regenerating Community." Social Policy, 17, pp. 54-58. Mclaughlin, Lisa, 1993. "Feminism, the Public Sphere, Media and Democracy." Media, 290

PAGE 301

Culture and Society, 1 5, pp. 599-620. Mclaughlin, Milbrey W., Merita A. lrby, and Juliet Langman, 1994. Urban Sanctuaries: Neighborhood Organizations in the lives and Futures of Inner-City Youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McNamee, Stephen J. and Kimberly Swisher, 1985. "Neighborhood Decentralization and Organized Citizen Participation." Sociological Focus, 18, pp 301-312. McPhail, Clark and Charles W. Tucker, 1990. "Purposive Collective Action." American Behavioral Scientist, 34, pp. 81-94. McPherson, J. Miller and Thomas Rotolo, 1996. "Testing a Dynamic Model of Social Composition: Diversity and Change in Voluntary Groups." American Sociological Review, 61. pp. 179-202. McPherson, J. Miller, 1977. "Correlates of Social Participation: A Comparison of Ethnic Community and Compensatory Theories Sociological Quarterly, 18, pp. 197-208. McSwain, Cynthia J., 1985. "Administrators and Citizenship: The Liberalist Legacy of the Constitution." Administration and Society, 17, pp. 131-149. Mead, Lawrence M., 1986. Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free. Meier, Kenneth J. and R. England, 1984. "Black Representation and Educational Policy: Are They Related?" American Political Science Review, 78, pp. 392-403. Meier, Kenneth J. and Lloyd G. Nigro, 1976. "Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives." Public Administration Review, 36, pp. 458-470. Meier, Kenneth J. and J. Stewart, Jr., 1992. "Active Representation in Educational Bureaucracies: Policy Impacts." American Review of Public Administration, 22, pp. 157-171. Meier, Kenneth J., 1993a. "Representative Bureaucracy: A Theoretical and Empirical Exposition." In James Perry, ed., Research in Public Administration, vol. 2. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass, pp. 1-36. Meier, Kenneth J., 1993b. "Latinos and Representative Bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson Hypotheses." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, pp. 393-414. Meier, Kenneth J., 1975. "Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis." American Political Science Review, 69, pp. 526-542. Melvin, Patricia M., ed., 1986. American Community Organizations: A Historical Dictionary. New York: Greenwood. 291

PAGE 302

Mendel-Reyes, Meta, 1995. Reclaiming Democracy: The Sixties in Politics and Memory. New York: Routledge. Mendes, Richard H. P., 1965. Bibliography on Community Organizations for Citizen Participation in Voluntary Democratic Associations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Midgley, James, Anthony Hall, Margaret Hardiman, and Dhanpaul Narine, 1986. Community Participation, Social Development, and the State. london: Methuen. Milbrath, lester W. and M. L. Goel, 1977. Political Participation, 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally. Milbrath, Lester W., 1981. "Citizen Surveys as Citizen Participation Mechanisms Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, pp. 478-496. Milbrath, lester W., 1965. Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally. Miles, Matthew B., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miljeteig-Oissen, Per, 1992. "Children's Participation: Giving Children the Opportunity to Develop into Active and Responsible Members of Society." Social Education, 56, p. 216. Mill, John Stuart, 1869. The Subjection of Women, ed. Mary Warnock, 1992. London: Everyman's Library. Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. London: J. M. Dent. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. Principles of Political Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto. Miller, Arthur H., 1974. "Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964-70." American Political Science Review, 68, pp. 951-972. Miller, Byron, 1992. "Collective Action and Rational Choice: Place, Community, and the Limits to Individual Self-Interest." Economic Geography, 68, pp. 22-42. Miller, David, 1992. "Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice." Political Studies, 40, pp. 54-67. Miller, Warren E. and J. Merrill Shanks, 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Miller, Warren E., Arthur E. Miller, and Edward J. Schneider, 1980. American National Election Studies Data Sourcebook, 1952-1978. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 292

PAGE 303

Milward, H. Brinton, Keith G. Provan, and Barbara A. Else, 1993. "What Does the 'Hollow State' Look Like?" In Barry Bozeman, ed., Public Management: The State of the Art. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 309-322. Mladenka, Kenneth R., 1981. "Citizen Demands and Urban Services: The Distribution of Bureaucratic Response in Chicago and Houston." American Journal of Political Science, 25, pp. 693-714. Moe, Terry M., 1984. "The New Economics of Organization." American Journal of Political Science, 28, pp. 739-777. Monroe, Kristen Renwick, 1996. The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton: Princeton University. Moore, Carl M., 1991. "Community Is Where Community Happens." National Civic Review, 80, pp. 352-357. Morgan, Arthur E., 1954. Bottom-Up Democracy: The Affiliation of Small Democratic Units for Common Service. Yellow Springs, OH: Community Service, Inc. Morgan, Arthur E., 1942. The Small Community, Foundation of Democratic Life. New York: Harper. Marone, James A., 1990. The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government. New York: Basic. Mosher, Frederick C., 1982. Democracy and the Public Service, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University. Mouffe, Chantal, 1993. The Return of the Political. New York: Verso. Mouffe, Chantal, 1992. "Democratic Citizenship and the Political Community." In Chantal Mouffe, ed., Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. New York: Verso, pp. 225-239. Moynihan, Patrick, 1993. "Defining Deviance Down." The American Scholar, 62, pp. 17-30. Mucciaroni, Gary, 1991. "Unclogging the Arteries: Tt'!e Defeat of Client Politics and the Logic of Collective Action." PolicyStudiesJournal, 19, pp. 474-494. Mullen, Brian, Eduardo Salas. and James E. Driskell, 1989. "Salience, Motivation, and Artifact as Contributions to the Relation Between Participation Rate and Leadership." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, pp. 545-559. Muller, Edward N. and Mitchell A. Seligson, 1994. "Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships." The American Political Science Review, 88, pp. 635-652. 293

PAGE 304

I Murdock, Graham. 1995. "Across the Great Divide: Cultural Analysis and the Condition of Democracy." Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12. pp. 89-95. Nagel, Jack H., 1987. Participation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. National Academy of Public Administration, 1993. Leading People in Change: Empowerment, Commitment, Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Author. National Academy of Public Administration, 1992. Renewing Our Capacity for Governance. Washington, D.C.: Author. National Civic League, 1993. The Civic Index: A New Approach to Improving Community Ufe. Denver: Author. National Civic League, 1992. Civics in the Workplace. Denver: Author. National Commission on Neighborhoods, 1979. People Building Neighborhoods: Final Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on the Public Service, 1989. Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, 1 968. Making Democracy Work: A Study of Neighborhood Organization. New York: Author. National Research Council, 1991 Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: National Academy Nelson, Barbara J 1980. "Help-Seeking from Public Authorities: Who Arrives at the Agency Door?" Policy Sciences, 12, pp. 175-192. Nelson, Richard. 1996. A Culture of Confidence: Politics, Performance and the Idea of America. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi. Neugarten, Dail A., 1992. "Recreating Democracy: Community Building, Coalition Building, and Change." In Aging America: Leadership, Change, and CommunityBuilding. Denver: National Leadership Institute on Aging, pp. 45-4 7. Nie, Norman, Sidney Verba, and John Petrocik, 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Nie, Norman, G. Bingham Powell, Jr., and Kenneth Prewitt, 1969. "Social Structure and Political Particioation: Developmental Relationships; Part II." American Political Science Review, 63, pp. 808-832. Niemi, Richard G., Stephen C. Craig, and Franco Mattei, 1991. "Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1 988 National Election Study." The American Political Science Review, 85, pp. 1407-1413. 294

PAGE 305

Nigro, Lloyd G. and William D. Richardson, 1992. "The Founders' Unsentimental View of Public Service In Patricia W Ingraham and Donald F. Ketti. eds Agenda for Excellence : Public Service in America. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 3-21. Nisbet, Robert A 1973. "The Concept of Community: A Reexamination." Sociological Review, 21, pp. 397-416. Nisbet, Robert A., 1971. The Quest for Community. London: Oxford University. Niskanen, William, 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine and Atherton. Nixon, Nina L., 1989. "Mexican-American Voluntary Associations in Omaha, Nebraska." Journal of the West, 28, pp. 73-85. Norris, Pippa, 1996. "Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam Political Science and Politics, 29, pp. 4 74-480. Norusis, Marija J 1985. SPSSX: Advanced Statistics Guide Chicago: McGraw-Hill O'Brien, David J 1974. "The Public Goods Dilemma and the 'Apathy" of the Poor Towards Neighborhood Organizations." Social Service Review, 48, pp. 229-244. O'Neill, William L., 1986. American High: The Years of Confidence, 1945-1960. New York: Free. O'Neil, Edward 1987. "Civic Education: The Problems and Potentials National Civic Review, 76, pp. 302-307. O'Sullivan, Elizabethann and Gary R Rassel, 1995. Research Methods for Public Administrators, Second Edition. White Plains, NY : Longman. O'Toole, James, 1993. The Executive's Compass : Business and the Good Society. New York : 0 xford University O'Toole, Laurence J., Jr., 1996. "American lntergovl;!rnmental Relations: An Overview." In Richard J. Stillman II Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, Sixth Edition. Boston: Houghton Miflin, pp. 129-147. O'Toole, Laurence J Jr., 1987. "Doctrines and Developments: Separation of Powers, the Politics-Administration Dichotomy, and the Rise of the Administrative State." Public Administration Review, 47, pp. 17-25. O'Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 1975. The Concept of Participation in the Literature of American Public Administration. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Obler, Jeffrey L., Jurg Steiner, and Guido Dierickx, 1977. Decision Making in Smaller Democracies: The Consociational Burden. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 295

PAGE 306

Oldenburg, Ray, 1989. The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon. Oldfield, Adrian, 1990. Citizenship and Community: Civic Republicanism and the Modern World. New York: Routledge. Olsen, Marvin E., Harry Perlstadt, Valencia Fonseca, and Joanne Hogan, 1989. "Participation in Neighborhood Associations." Sociological Focus, 22, pp. 1-1 7. Olsen, Marvin E., 1982. Participatory Pluralism: Political Participation and Influence in the United States and Sweden. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Olsen, Marvin E., 1972. "Social Participation and Voting Turnout: A Multivariate Analysis." American Sociological Review, 37, pp. 318-331. Olsen, Marvin E., 1970. "Social and Political Participation of Blacks." American Sociological Review, 35, pp. 682-697. Olson, Mancur, 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Onibokun, Adepoju, 1990. "Poverty as a Constraint to Citizen Participation in Urban Redevelopment in Developing Countries: A Case Study." Urban Studies, 27, pp. 371-384. Orians, Carlyn E., Edward B. Liebow, and Kristi M. Brach, 1995. "Community Based Organizations and HIV Prevention Among Seattle's Inner-City Teens." Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems, 24, pp. 36-58. Oropesa, R. S., 1992. "Social Structure, Social Solidarity, and Involvement in Neighborhood Improvement Associations." Sociological Inquiry, 62, pp. 107-118. Oropesa, R. S., 1989a. "Neighborhood Associations, Political Repertoires, and Neighborhood Exits." Sociological Perspectives, 32, pp. 435-452. Oropesa. R. S., 1989b. "The Social and Political Foundations of Effective Neighborhood Improvement Associations." Social Science Quarterly, 70, pp. 723-743. Orren, Gary R., 1988. "Beyond Self-Interest." In Robert B. Reich, ed., The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 13-30. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler, 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Osbun, Lee Ann, 1985. The Problem of Participation: A Radical Critique of Contemporary Democratic Theory. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Ostrom, Elinor, 1994. "Constituting Social Capital and Collective Action." Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, pp. 527-562. 296

PAGE 307

I : Ostrom, Elinor, 1993. "A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance." National Civic Review, 82, pp. 226-233. Ostrom, Elinor, 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University. Ostrom, Vincent, 1989. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, 2nd ed. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Overman, E. Sam, 1984. "Public Management: What's New and Different?" Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 275-278. Paget. Karen, 1990. "Citizen Organizing: Many Movements, No Majority." American Prospect, Summer. pp. 11 5-128. Parenti, Michael, 1995. Democracy for the Few. New York: St. Martin's. Park, Peter et a/., eds . 1993. Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Park, Peter, 1992. "The Discovery of Participatory Research as a New Scientific Paradigm: Personal and Intellectual Accounts." The American Sociologist, 23, pp. 29-42. Parry, Geraint and Michael Moran, eds . 1994. Democracy and Democratization. London: Routledge. Parry, Geraint. 1989. "Democracy and Amateurism -The Informed Citizen." Government and Opposition, 24, pp. 489-502. Pateman, Carole, 1992. "Political Obligation, Freedom, and Feminism." American Political Science Review, 86, pp. 179-182. Pateman, Carole, 1989. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory. Palo Alto: Stanford University. Pateman, Carole, 1979. The Problem of Political Obligation. New York: Wiley. Pateman, Carole, 1975. "A Contribution to the Political Theory of Organizational Democracy." Administration and Society, 7, pp. 20-21. Pateman, Carole, 1973. "Feminism and Democracy In Graeme Duncan, ed., Democratic Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 204-217. Pateman, Carole, 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Paulsen, Ronnelle, 1991. "Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action." Sociology of Education, 64, pp. 96-11 0. 297

PAGE 308

j Payne, Bruce L., 1984. "Contexts and Epiphanies: Policy Analysis and the Humanities." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4, pp. 92-111. Pennock, J. Roland and John W, Chapman, eds., 1975. Participation in Politics. New York: Ueber-Atherton. Pennock, J. Roland and John W. Chapman, eds., 1969. Voluntary Associations. New York: Atherton. Pennock, J. Roland, 1982. Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University. Percy, Stephen L., 1984. "Citizen Participation in the Coproduction of Urban Services Urban Affairs Quarterly, 19, pp. 431-436. Perez, Andres, 1993. "Historical Change and the Administrative State: An Analysis of the Theoretical Foundations of Public Administration." International Journal of Public Administration, 16, pp. 261-293. Perkins, Douglas D., Paul Florin, Richard C. Rich, Abraham H. Wandersman, and David M. Chavis, 1990. "Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 83-115. Perkins, Douglas D. and Abraham H. Wandersman, 1990. "You'll Have to Overcome Our Suspicions: The Benefits and Pitfalls of Research with Community Organizations." Social Policy, 21, pp. 32-41. Perrucci, Robert and Bonnie L. Lewis, 1989. "lnterorganizational Relations and Community Influence Structure: A Replication and Extension The Sociological Quarterly, 30, pp. 205-223. Perry, James. L. and Kenneth L. Kraemer, 1990. "Research Methodology in Public Administration: Issues and Patterns." In Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 347-372. Perry, James L., ed., 1989. Handbook of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jessey Bass. Persons, Georgia A . 1990. "Defining the Public Interest: Citizen Participation in Metropolitan and State Policy Making National Civic Review, 79, pp. 118-131. Petersen, James C., 1984. Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Peterson, Steven A., 1992a. "Church Participation and Political Participation: The Spillover Effect." American Politics Quarterly, 20, pp. 123-139. 298

PAGE 309

l Peterson, Steven A., 1992b. "Workplace Politicization and Its Political Spillovers: A Research Note ... Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1 3. pp 511-524. Phillips, Anne, 1992. "Must Feminists Give Up on Liberal Democracy?" Political Studies, 40, pp. 68-82. Phillips, Anne, 1991. Engendering Democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Pierce, John C . Nicholas P. Lovrich, Jr. and Masahiko Matsuoka, 1990. "Support for Citizen Participation : A Comparison of American and Japanese Citizens, Activists and Elites." Western Political Quarterly, 43, pp 39-59. Pierce, Neil R., Curt Johnson, and John Hal, 1993. Citistates. Washington. DC: Seven Locks Pilisuk, Marc, JoAnn McAllister, and Jack Rothman. 1996. "Coming Together for Action: The Challenge of Contemporary Grassroots Community Organizing." Journal of Social Issues 52, pp. 1 5-37. Pindyck, RobertS. and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 1991. "Models of Qualitative Choice." In Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Ch. 1 0, pp. 248-284. Pitts, Terry, 1993. "The Illusion of Control and the Importance of Community in Health Care Organizations... Hospital and Health Services Administration, 38, pp 101-112. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward, 1977. Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward, 1971 Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage. Plas. Jeanne M. and Susan E. Lewis, 1996. "Environmental Factors and Sense of Community in a Planned Town." American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, pp. 109-143. Poggi, Gianfranco. 1978. The Development of the Modern State. Stanford. CA: Stanford University. Poole, Michael, 1986. Towards a New Industrial Democracy: Workers' Participation in Industry. New York: Routledge. Popper, Karl R., 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row. Popper, Karl R 1965. "Social Science and Social Policy." In David Braybrooke, Philosophical Problems of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, pp. 99-107. 299

PAGE 310

I Potapchuk, William R., 1996. "Building Sustainable Community Politics: Synergizing Participatory, Institutional, and Representative Democracy." National Civic Review, 85, pp. 54-59. Potapchuk, William R., 1991. "New Approaches to Citizen Participation: Building Consent." National Civic Review, 80, pp. 1 58-168. Pratkanis, Anthony R. and Marlene E. Turner, 1996. "Persuasion and Democracy: Strategies for Increasing Deliberative Participation and Enacting Social Change." Journal of Social Issues, 52, pp. 187-205. Pratte, Richard, 1988. "Civic Education in a Democracy." Theory into Practice, 27, pp. 303-308. Prestby, John E., Abraham H. Wandersman, and Paul Florin, Richard C. Rich. and David M. Chavis, 1990. "Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management, and Participation in Voluntary Organizations: A Means to Understanding and Promoting Empowerment." American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 117-149. Price, Richard H., 1990. "Whither Participation and Empowerment?" American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, pp. 163-167. Pugliese, Donato J 1986. Voluntary Associations: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland. Purcell, Edward A., Jr., 1973. The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti, 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Putnam, Robert Robert D., 1995a. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy, 6, pp. 65-78. Putnam, Robert D., 1995b. "Bowling Alone, Revisited." The Responsive Community: Rights and Responsibilities, 5, pp 18-33. Putnam, Robert D., 1995c. "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America." Political Science & Politics, 28, pp. 664-683. Putnam, Robert D., 1993a. "The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life." The American Prospect, 13, pp. 35-42. Putnam, Robert D., 1993b. "What Makes Democracy Work?" National Civic Review, 82, pp. 101-107. Putnam, Robert D., 1991. "Local Participation Key to Democracy." Current Municipal Problems, 17, 443-445. 300

PAGE 311

Rainey, Hal G., 1990. "Public Management: Recent Developments and Current Prospects." In Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 157-184. Rauch, Jonathon, 1994. Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government. New York: Times. Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Rea, Louis M and Richard A Parker, 1997. Designing and Conducting Survey Research, Second Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reason, Peter, ed., 1994. Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage. Reason, Peter, ed. 1988. Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Redford, Emmene S 1969. Democracy in the Administrative State. New York: Oxford University. Rehfuss, John A., 1986. "A Representative Bureaucracy? Women and Minority Executives in the California Career Service. Public Administration Review, 46, pp. 454-459. Reich, Robert B 1990. Public Management in a Democratic Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reich, Robert B ed 1988. The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Reich Robert B., 1983. The Next American Frontier. New York : Penguin. Rein, Martin, 1976. Social Science and Public Policy. New York: Penguin. Reingold, David A., 1995. "Public Housing, Home Ownership, and Community Participation in Chicago's Inner-City." Housing Studies, 10, pp. 445-469. Reisman, David A 1989. Theories of Collective Action: Downs, Olson, and Hirsch. New York: St. Martin's. Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webber, Horst Rakel, Peter Dienel and Brenda Johnson, 1993. "Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure." Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 189-214. Renshon, Stanley A., 1974. Psychological Needs and Political Behavior: A Theory of Personality and Political Efficacy. New York: Free. Rich, Richard C., M i chael Edelstein, and Abraham H. Wandersman, 1995. "Citizen Participation and Empowerment : The Case of Local Environmental Hazards." American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp. 657-676. 301

PAGE 312

Rich, Richard C., 1981. "Interaction of the Voluntary and Governmental Sectors: Toward an Understanding of the Coproduction of Municipal Services." Administration & Society, 13, pp. 59-76. Rich, Richard C., 1980. "The Dynamics of Leadership in neighborhood Organizations." Social Science Quarterly, 60, pp. 570-587. Rich, Richard C., 1978. "Voluntary Action and Public Services." Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 7, pp. 4-14. Richter, Peyton E . ed., 1971. Utopias: Social ideals and Communal Experiments. Boston: Holbrook. Robertson, Peter J. and Shui-Yan Tang, 1995. "The Role of Commitment in Collective Action: Comparing the Organizational Behavior and Rational Choice Perspectives." Public Administration Review, 55, pp. 67-80. Roberts, Nancy, 1997. "Public Deliebration: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting Direction." Public Administration Review, 57, pp. 124-132. Robinson, David and Derek Wilkinson, 1995. "Sense of Community in a Remote Mining Town: Validating a Neighborhood Cohesion Scale." American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp. 137-148. Robinson, John B . 1992. "Risks, Predictions and Other Optical Illusions: Rethinking the Use of Science in Social Decision-Making." Policy Sciences, 25, pp. 237-255. Rohe, William M. and Michael A. Stegman, 1994. "The Impact of Home Ownership on the Social and Political Involvement of Low Income People." Urban Affairs Quarterly, 30. pp. 152-170. Rohr, John A . 1989. Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker. Rohr, John A . 1 986. To Run A Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Rohs, F. Richard and Christine A. Langone, 1993. "Assessing Leadership and Problem Solving Skills and Their Impacts in the Community." Evaluation Review, 17, pp. 109-115. Romzek, Barbara S., 1 992. "The Dynamics of Employee Commitment." In Patricia W. Ingraham and Donald F. Ketti, eds., Agenda for Excellence: Public Service in America. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 146-161. Rosenbaum, Nelson M., 1978. "Citizen Participation and Democratic Theory." In Stuart Langton, ed., Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, pp. 43-54. 302

PAGE 313

Rosenbaum, Walter A., 1978. "Public Involvement as Reform and Ritual." In Stuart Langton, ed., Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art. Lexington, MA: D C Heath. Rosenbloom, David H. and J. C. Featherstonhaugh, 1977. "Passive and Active Representation in the Federal Service: A Comparison of Blacks and Whites." Social Science Quarterly, 57, pp 873-82. Rosenblum, Nancy L., ed., 1989. Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Rosenstone Steven J. and John M. Hansen, 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. Rosenwein, Robert E. and Donald T Campbell, 1992. "Mobilization to Achieve Collective Action and Democratic Majority/Plurality Amplification." Journal of Social Issues, 48, pp. 125-1 38. Ross, Jack C., 1976. An Assembly of Goud Fellows: Voluntary Associations in History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Roszak, Theodore, 1969. The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Rothschild, Joyce and J. Allen Whitt, 1986. The Cooperative Workplace: Potentials and Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy and Participation New York : Cambridge University. Rourke, Francis E., 1992. "Responsiveness and Neutral Competence in American Bureaucracy." Public Administration Review, 52, pp. 539-546. Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1762. The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. and ed. G. D H. Cole, 1950. New York: E. P. Dutton. Rucinski, Dianne E ., 1 991 "The Centrality of Reciprocity to Communication and Democracy." Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, pp 184-194. Rutter, Lawrence, ed., 1980. The Essential Community: Local Government in the Year 2000. Washington, DC: International City Management Association. Ryan, Alan, 1996. John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism. New York : Norton. Ryn, Claes G., 1990. Democracy and the Ethical Life: A Pht1osophy of Politics and Community. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America. Sabetti, Filippo, 1996. "Path Dependency and Civic Culture: Some Lessons from Italy About Interpreting Social Experiments." Politics and Society, 24, pp. 19-44. 303

PAGE 314

Salamon, Lester M., ed., 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Sale, Kirkpatrick, 1980. Human Scale. New York: Coward, McCann and Geohegan. Sallach, David, Nicholas Babchuk, and Alan Booth, 1972. "Social Involvement and Political Activity: Another View." Social Science Quarterly, 52, pp. 879-892. Saltzstein, Grace H 1992. "Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Conceptual Issues and Current Research." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, pp 63-88. Saltzstein, Grace H., 1979. "Representative Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic Responsibility." Administration and Society, 10, pp 465-75. Sandel, Michael J 1996a. "America's Search for a New Public Philosophy." The Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 57-74. Sandel, Michael J 1996b. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Sandel, Michael J 1988. "The Political Theory of the Procedural Republic." In Robert B. Reich, ed., The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 109-121. Sandel, Michael J ed., 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sandel, Michael J 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Sandhill, Laird, 1996. "Embracing Community and Democracy at the Same Time." Communities, Spring, 90, pp 18-19. Sandler, Todd, 1992. Collective Action: Theory and Applications. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan. Sapiro, Virginia, 1983. The Political Integration of Women: Roles, Socialization, and Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Sarason, Seymour B., 1974. The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Saul, John Ralston, 1995. The Unconscious Civilization. Concord, Ontario: Anansi. Scavo, Carmine, 1993. "The Use of Participative Mechanisms in Large U.S. Cities." Journal of Urban Affairs, 15, pp. 93-109. Schachter, Hindy Lauer, 1997. Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves: The Role of Citizen Owners in Making a Better Government Albany : State University of New York. 304

PAGE 315

Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., 1992. The Disuniting of America: Reflectionson a Multicultural Society. New York: W W. Norton. Schlozman, Kay L., Nancy E. Burns, Sidney Verba, and Jesse Donahue, 1995. "Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice?" American Journal of Political Science, 39, pp. 267-293. Schlozman, Kay L., Nancy E. Burns, and Sidney Verba, 1994. "Gender and the Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources." Journal of Politics, 56, pp. 963990. Schlozman, Kay L., Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady, 1994. "Participation's Not a Paradox: The View from American Activists." British Journal of Political Science, 24, pp. 1-36. Schmitter, Phillippe C., 1992. "The Consolidation of Democracy and Representation of Social Groups." American Behavioral Scientist, 35. pp. 422-449. Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram, 1990. "Behavicral Assumptions of Policy Tools." Journal of Politics, 52, pp. 510-529. Schon, Donald A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic. Schonfeld. William R . 1975. "The Meaning of Democratic Participation." World Politics, 28, pp. 1 34-1 58. Schumaker, Paul, 1991. Critical Pluralism, Democratic Performance, and Community Power. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Schumaker. Paul. 1975. "Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands." Journal of Politics, 37. pp. 488-521 Schumpeter. Joseph A., 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Schwartzman, Helen. 1989. The Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities. New York: Plenum. Schweizer, Steven L., 1995. "Participation, Workplace Democracy, and the Problem of Representative Government." Polity, 27. pp. 359-377. Schwerin. Edward W., 1995. Mediation, Citizen Empowerment, and Transformational Politics. Westport. CT: Praeger. 305

PAGE 316

Scott, Anne Firer, 1991. Natural Allies: Women's Associations in American History. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Scott, Anne Rror, 1990. "Most Invisible of All: Black Women's Voluntary Associations." Journal of Southern History, 56, pp. 3-22. Seabrook, Jeremy, 1984. The Idea of Neighbourhood: What Local Politics Should Be About. London: Pluto. Secret, Philip E., James B. Johnson, and Audrey W. Forrest, 1990. "The Impact of Religiosity on Political Participation and Membership in Voluntary Associations Among Black and White Americans." Journal of Black Studies, 21, pp. 87-102. Selznick, Philip, 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. New York: Harper & Row. Sembor, Edward, 1992. "Building Community Citizenship Through Study Circles." Public Management, 74, pp. 15-17 Serow, Robert C 1990. "Volunteering and Values: An Analysis of Students' Participation in Community Service." Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, pp. 198-203. Shain, Barry Alan, 1996. The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Shapiro, lan, 1996. Democracy's Place. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Sharp, Elaine B., 1981. "Responsiveness in Urban Service Delivery." Administration and Society, 13, pp. 33-58. Sherkat, Darren and T. Jean Blocker, 1994. "The Political Development of Sixties' Activists: Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender, and Socialization on Protest Participation." Social Forces, 72, pp. 821-842. Sigelman, Lee and Stanley Feldman, 1983. "Efficacy, Mistrust, and Political Mobilization." Comparative Political Studies, 16, pp. 118-143. Siisiainen, Mami, 1994. "Social Movements, Voluntary Associations and the Development of the Welfare State in Finland." International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, pp. 249-269. Simon, Herbert A., 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 3rd ed. New York: Free. Simpson, Evan, 1992. "Liberty, Democracy, Community." Public Affairs Quarterly, 6, pp. 327-344. Sisneros, Antonio, 1993. "Hispanics in the Public Service in the Late Twentieth Century." Public Administration Review, 53, pp. 1-7. 306

PAGE 317

Skogan, Wesley G., 1989. "Communities, Crime, and Neighborhood Organization." Crime and Delinquency, 35, pp. 437-457. Skolnick, Jerome H., 1969. The Politics of Protest: A Task Force Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. New York: Simon and Schuster. Skowronek, Stephen, 1 982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920. New York : Cambridge University. Slayton, Robert A., 1986. Back of the Yards: The Making of a Local Democracy. Chicago : University of Chicago. Sleeper, Jim, 1990. The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York. New York: W. W. Norton. Smith, Constance E. and Anne Freedman, 1972. Voluntary Associations: Perspectives on the Literature Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Smith, David H. and Frederick Elkin, eds., 1981 Volunteers, Voluntary Associations, and Development. leiden: Brill. Smith, David H., 1975. "Voluntary Action and Voluntary Groups Annual Review of Sociology, 1, pp 247-251. Smith, Stephen C., 1985. "Political Behavior as an Economic Externality." In Dereck Jones and Jan Svejnar, eds Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms. Greenwich, CT: JAI, pp. 123-136. Sobel, Richard, 1993. "From Occupational Involvement to Political Participation : An Exploratory Analysis." Political Behavior, 15, pp. 339-353. Somers, Margaret R., 1993. "Citizenship and the Place of the Public Sphere : Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy." American Sociological Review, 58, pp. 587-620. South Ruth E . 1987. Citizen Action and the Neighborhood Chicago : Council of Planning Librarians. Spicer, Michael W., 1995. The Founders, the Constitution, and Public Administration : A Conflict in World Views. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University. Splichal, Slavko and Janet Wasko, eds., 1993. Communication and Democracy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Stack, Sam, 1994. "Democracy and the Quest for Community: A Pragmatic Conception." Journal of Thought, 29, pp. 17-26. 307

PAGE 318

Staines, Graham L., 1980. "Spillver versus Compensation: A Review of the Literature on the Relationship Between Work and Nonwork." Human Relations, 33, pp. 111-129. Stamato, Linda, 1988. "Land Use and Siting Conflicts: New Roles for Community Organizations." National Civic Review, 77, pp. 315-322. Steinberg, Lois Saxelby, 1977. Social Science Theory and Research on Participation and Voluntary Associations: A Bibliographic Essay. Boston: Institute for Responsive Education. Stenner-Day, Karen and Mark Rschele, 1992. "The Effect of Political Participation on Political Efficacy: A Simultaneous Equations Model." Australian Journal of Political Science, 27, pp. 282-305. Stern, Robert N., 1988. "Participation by Representation." Work and Occupations, 15, pp. 396-422. Stevens, Joann, 1994. "American Commitments: Democracy and Community Making." Liberal Education, 80, pp. 40-4 7. Stever, James A., 1993. "Modernism, Administration, and the Post-Progressive Era." International Journal of Public Administration, 16, pp. 237-259. Stewart, David W. and Michael A. Kamins, 1993. Secondary Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Stewart, David W. and Prem N. Shamdasani, 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stiehm, Jamie, 1994. "Only Academic?: Community and Communitarians." The Nation, July 18, pp. 87-89. Stillman, Richard J. II, 1996. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, Sixth Edition Boston: Houghton Miflin. Stillman, Richard J. II, 1990. "The Peculiar 'Stateless' Origins of American Public Administration and the Consequences for Government Today." Public Administration Review, 50, pp 1 56-167. Stivers, Camilla, 1 994. "The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in Public Administration." Public Administration Review, 54, pp. 364-369. Stivers, Camilla, 1 993. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stivers, Camilla, 1990. "Active Citizenship and Public Administration." In Gary L. Wamsley eta/., Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp 246-273. 308

PAGE 319

Stoecker, Randy, 1995. "Community Movement, Organization: The Problem of Identity Convergence in Collective Action." The Sociological Quarterly, 36, pp. 111-130. Stokley, Jan and Anthony Daysog, 1994. "Neighborhood Organizations Respond to Street Crime." Clearinghouse Review, 28, pp. 479-484. Stoltz, Gail, 1989. "Leadership Grassroots Style." Social Policy, 20, pp. 41-42. Stone, Deborah A., 1993. "Clinical Authority in the Construction of Citizenship." In Helen Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 45-67. Stone, Deborah, 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Chicago: Scott, Foresman. Stone, Clarence N., 1993. "Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach." Journal of Urban Affairs, 1 5, pp. 1-28. Straits, Bruce C., 1990. "The Social Context of Voter Turnout." Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, pp. 64-73. Strate, John M., Charles J. Parrish. Charles 0. Elder, and Coit Ford Ill, 1989. "Life Span Civic Development and Voting Participation." American Political Science Review, 83, pp. 443-467. Strike, Kenneth A., 1988. "Democracy, Civic Education, and the Problem of Neutrality." Theory into Practice, 27, pp. 256-261. Sullivan, William M., 1982. Reconstructing Public Ph1losophy. Berkeley: University of California. Sundeen, Richard, 1988. "Explaining Participation in Coproduction: A Study of Volunteers." Social Science Quarterly, 69, pp. pp. 547-568. Suttles, Gerald, 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago. Syme, G. J., D. K. MacPherson, and C. Seligman, 1991. "Factors Motivating Community Participation in Regional Water-Allocation Planning: A Test of an Expectancy-Value Model." Environment and Planning, 23, pp. 1779-1795. Tabachnick, Barbara G. and Linda S. Fidell, 1989. "Multiway Frequency Analysis." In Using Multivariate Statistics, Second Edition. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 236-315. Tandy, Kathleen Q. and Alan Tandy, 1990. "Community Consensus for Economic Development." National Civic Review, 79, pp. 546-551. Taub, Richard P., George P. Surgeon, Sara Lindholm, Phyllis B. Otti, and Amy Bridges, 1977. "Urban Voluntary Association: Locality Based and Externally Induced." American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 425-442. 309

PAGE 320

I j Taylor, Lawrence, 1991. "Participatory Evaluation with Non-Government Organizations." Community Development Journal, 26, pp. 8-13. Taylor, Michael and Sara Singleton, 1993. "The Communal Resource: Transaction Costs and the Solution of Collective Action Problems. Politics and Society, 21, pp. 195-214. Taylor, Ralph B., ed., 1986. Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy. New York: Praeger. Thomas, John C., 1987. "Neighborhood Coproduction and Municipal Productivity." Public Productivity Review, 42, pp. 95-105. Thomas, John C., 1986. Between Citizen and City: Neighborhood Organizations and Urban Politics in Cincinnati. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Thompson, Dennis F., 1970. The Democratic Citizen: Social Science and Democratic Theory in the Twentieth Century. New York.: Cambridge University. Thompson, Frank. J., ed., 1993. Revitalizing State and Local Public Service: Strengthening Performance, Accountability, and Citizen Confidence. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. Thompson, Frank. J., 1976. "Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active Representation Linked?" Administration and Society, 8, pp. 201-226. Thomson, Ken, 1987. "Directions for Democracy." National Civic Review, 76, pp. 199-207. Tillotson, Shirley, 1994. "Citizen Participation in the Welfare State: An Experiment, 1945-57." Canadian Historical Review, 75, pp. 511-542. Tobin, James, 1958. "Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables." Econometrica, 26, pp. 24-36. Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1848. Democracy in America, ed. J. P. Mayer and trans. George Lawrence, 1969. New York.: Harper & Row. Torgerson, Douglas, 1986. "Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis." Policy Sciences, 19, pp. 33-60. Tulloss, Janice K., 1995. "Citizen Participation in Boston's Development Policy: The Political Economy of Participation." Urban Affairs Review, 30, pp. 514-537. Tuomela, Raimo, 1992. "On the Structural Aspects of Collective Action and Free Riding Theory and Decision, 32, pp. 165-202. Udehn, Lars, 1993. "Twenty-Five Years with the Logic of Collective Action." Acta Sociologica, 36, pp. 239-261. 310

PAGE 321

Valelly, Richard M., 1993. "Public Policy for Reconnected Citizenship." In Helen Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 241-266. Van de Geer, John P., 1993. Multivari'ate Analysis of Categorical Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Van Rees, Wim, 1 991. "Neighbourhoods, The State, and Collective Action." Community Development Journal, 26, pp. 96-1 02. Van Riper, Paul P., 1983. "The American Administrative State: Wilson and the Founders -An Unorthodox View." Public Administration review, 43, pp. 470-490. Vanderpool, Tim, 1995. "Secession of the Successful." Utne Reader, November December, pp. 32-34. Vasoo, S., 1991. "Grass-root Mobilization and Citizen Participation: Issues and Challenges." Community Development Journal, 26, pp. 1 -7. Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, Henry E. Brady, and Norman Nie, 1993a. "Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do They Say?" American Political Sci'ence Review, 87, pp. 303-318. Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, Henry E. Brady, and Norman Nie, 1 993b. "Race, Ethnicity, and Political Resources: Participation in the United States." British Journal of Political Sci'ence, 23, pp. 453-497. Verba, Sidney, Norman Nie, and Jae-on Kim, 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison. New York: Cambridge University. Verba. Sidney and Norman Nie, 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row. Verba, Sidney, 1961. Small Groups and Political Behavior: A Study in Leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Vernon, S.W., A.X. Yeomans, and V.G. Vogel, 1995. "Behavioral and Social Factors That Predict Participation in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 768, pp. 300-302. Wachtel, Ted, 1992. The Electronic Congress: A Blueprint for Participatory Democracy. Pipersville, PA: Piper. Wald, Kenneth D., 1992. Religion and Politics in the United States, Second Edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. 311

PAGE 322

j Waldo, Dwight, 1990. "A Theory of Public Administration Means in Our Time a Theory of Politics Also." In Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 73-83. Waldo, Dwight, 1 984. The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration, Second Edition. New York: Holmes & Meier. Waldo, Dwight, 1980. The Enterprise of Public Administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp. Waldo, Dwight, 1952. "The Development of a Theory of Democratic Administration." American Political Science Review, 46, pp. 81-103. Walker, Henry A., Larry Rogers, and Morris Zelditch, Jr., 1988. "Legitimacy and Collective Action: A Research Note." Social Forces, 67, pp. 216-228. Walker, James C., 1992. "Education for Democracy: The Representation/Participation Dualism Educational Theory, 42, pp. 315-330. Wallerstein, Immanuel et a/, 1 996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Walzer, Michael, ed., 1995. Toward a Global Civic Society Providence: Berghahn. Walzer, Michael, 1992a. What It Means to Be an American. New York: Marsilio. Walzer, Michael, 1992b. Citizenship and Civil Society. Rutgers: New Jersey Committee for the Humanities Series on the Culture of Community. Walzer, Michael, 1990. "The Communitarian CritiQue of Liberalism." Political Theory, 18, pp. 6-23. Walzer, Michael, 1 983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic. Walzer, Michael, 1980. "Civility and Civic Virtue in Contemporary America." In Radical Principles: Reflections of an Unreconstructed Democrat New York: Basic, pp. 54-72. Walzer, Michael, 1970. Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War and Citizenship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wamsley, Gary L., Charles T. Goodsell, John A. Rohr, Camilla M. Stivers, Orion F. White, and James F. Wolf, 1990. "Public Administration and the Governance Process: Shifting the Political Dialogue." In Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 31-51. Wandersman, Abraham H. and Paul Florin, 1991. "Citizen Participation." In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman, eds. Handbook of Community Psychology. New York: 312

PAGE 323

, ; Plenum. Wandersman. Abraham H., Paul Florin, Robert Friedmann, and Ron Meier, 1987. "Who Participates, Who Does Not Participate, and Why? An Analysis of Voluntary Neighborhood Organizations in the United States and Israel." Sociological Forum, 2, pp. 534-555. Warren, Kenneth, 1993. "We Have Debated Ad Nauseum the Legitimacy of the Administrative StateBut Why?" Public Administration Review, 53. pp. 257-261. Warren, Mark E., 1993. "Can Participatory Democracy Produce Better Selves? Psychological Dimensions of Habermas's Discursive Model of Democracy." Political Psychology, 14, pp. 209-234. Warren, Mark E . 1992. "Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation." American Political Science Review, 86, pp. 8-23. Watts, Meredith W 1973. "Efficacy, Trust, and Commitment to the Political Process. Social Science Quarterly, 54, pp. 623-631. Weick, Karl E., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Weisberg, Jacob, 1996. In Defense of Government: The Fall and Rise of Public Trust. New York: Scribner Weisbord, Marvin R., 1987. Productive Workplaces: Organizing and Managing for Dignity, Meaning, and Community. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Weissberg, Robert, 1974. Political Learning, Political Choice and Democratic Citizenship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weissert, Carol S., 1994. "Beyond the Organization: The Influence of Community and Personal Vi'!ues on Street-Level Bureaucrats' Responsiveness." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, pp 225-254. Welch, Susan and John Comer, 1988. Quantitative Methods for Public Administration: Techniques and Applications, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Whitaker, Gordon, 1980. "Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery." Public Administration Review, 40, pp. 240-246. White, Leonard D., 1926. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: Macmillan. White, Louise G . 1994. "Policy Analysis as Discourse." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13, pp. 506-525. 313

PAGE 324

' ./ l White, Orion F., 1990. "Reframing the Authority/Participation Debate." In Gary L. Wamsley eta/., Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 182-245. White, Orion F., 1981. "The Citizen of the 1980s." In Charles T. Goodsell, ed., The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, pp. 206-219. White, Shirley A., K. Sadanandan Nair, and Joseph Ascroft, eds . 1994. Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Whyte, William F., 1991 a. Social Theory for Action: How Individuals and Organizations Learn to Change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Whyte, William F., ed., 1991 b. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1992. "Foundations of Democracy: Representative vs. Direct Democracy." The Responsive Community, 2. pp. 31-40. Will, George F., 1983. Statecraft as Sou/craft: What Government Does. New York: Simon & Schuster. Williams, Cecil and Rebecca Laird, 1992. No Hiding Place: Empowerment and Recovery for Our Troubled Communities. New York: HarperCollins. Williams, Michael R., 1985. Neighborhood Organizations: Seeds of a New Urban Life. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Williams, Raymond, 1976. "Democracy." In Keywords. London: Fontana/Croom Helm. pp. 82-87. Wills, Garry, ed., 1982. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. New York: Bantam. Wilson, C. Dwayne and YuHui A. Zhou, 1992. "Measuring Effectiveness in Citizens' Participation Organizations: An Exploratory Study." The Urban Review, 24, pp. 23-37. Wilson, Georgeanna and Mark Baldassare, 1996. "Overall 'Sense of Community' in a Suburban Region: The Effects of Localism, Privacy, and Urbanization." Environment and Behavior, 28, pp. 27-43. Wilson, James Q., 1991. "The Government Gap." The New Republic, June 3, pp. 35-38. Wilson, James Q., 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do ft. New York: Basic. 314

PAGE 325

J Wilson, James Q., 1985. "The Rediscovery of Character: Private Virtue and Public Policy." Public Interest, 81 pp. 3-1 6. Wilson, James Q., 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic. Wilson, John, 1990. "Public Work and Social Participation: The Case of Farm Women." Sociological Quarterly, 31, pp. 107-121. Wilson, Woodrow, 1887. "The Study of Administration." Political Science Quarterly, 2, pp. 197-222. Witte, John F 1980. Democracy, Authority, and Alienation in Work: Workers' Participation in an American Corporation. Chicago: University of Chicago. Wolcott, Harry F., 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wolfe, Alan, 1991. America at Century's End. Berkeley : University of California. Wolfe, Alan, 1989. Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation. Berkeley: University of California. Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Steven J. Rosenstone, 1980. Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University. Wolin, Sheldon S., 1990. "Democracy i n the Discourse of Postmodernism Social Research, 57, pp. 5-30. Wollman, Neil and Robin Stouder, 1991 "Believed Efficacy and Political Activity: A Test of the Specificity Hypothesis." The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, pp. 557-571. Woodward, Calvin, 1997. "Americans Still Civic-Minded". The Rocky Mountain News, April 20. Woodward, Susan L., 1977. "Freedom of the People Is in Its Private Life: The Unrevolutionary Implications of Industrial Democracy American Behavioral Scientist, 20, pp. 279-296. Woodwell, William H. Jr., 1994. "Democracy at Work." The National Voter, 43, pp. 9-13. Work in America : Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wuthnow, Robert, 1995. "Between the State and Market: Voluntarism and the Difference It Makes." In Amitai Etzioni, Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective. New York : St. Martin's, pp. 209-221. 315

PAGE 326

Wuthnow, Robert, 1 994. Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America's New Quest for Community. New York: Free. Wuthnow, Robert, ed., 1991. Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Wynn, Joan R., 1995. "Neighborhood Organizations and Inner-City Youth: Successfu; Programs, Current Initiatives." American Journal of Education, 103, pp. 218-224. Yammarino, Francis J. and Thomas J. Naughton, 1992. "Individualized and Group Based Views of Participation in Decision Making." Group & Organization Management, 17, pp. 398-413. Yates, Douglas, 1973. Neighborhood Democracy: The Politics and Impacts of Decentralization. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Yeich, Susan and Ralph Levine, 1994. "Political Efficacy: Enhancing the Construct and Its Relationship to Mobilization of People." American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, pp. 259-272. Yin, Robert K., 1993. Applications of Case Study Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Young, Iris Marion, 1992. "Social Groups in Associative Democracy." Politics and Society, 20. pp. 529-534. Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman. 1992. "A Simple Theory of Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences." American Journal of Political Science, 36, pp. 579-616. Zimmerman, Joseph F., 1988. "Threats to the Future of Citizen Participation." Current Municipal Problems, 15, pp. 232-241 Zimmerman, Joseph F., 1986. Participatory Democracy: Populism Revived. New York: Praeger. Zimmerman, Marc A. and Julian Rappaport. 1988. "Citizen Participation, Perceived Control, and Psychological Empowerment." American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, pp. 725-750. Zimmerman, Marc A., 1989. "The Relationship Between Political Efficacy and Citizen Participation: Construct Validation Studies." Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 554-568. Zwerdling, Daniel, 1984. Workplace Democracy: A Guide to Workplace Ownership, Participation, and Self-Management Experiments in the United States and Europe. New York: Harper & Row. 316