¹ Thompson, Victor A., “Bureaucracy and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 10 (June, 1965), p. 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Thompson, Victor A., Bureaucracy and Innovation (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Mohr, Lawrence B., “Determinants of Innovation in Organizations,” this Review, 63 (March, 1969), 111–126 Google Scholar; and Walker, Jack, “The Adoption of Innovations by the American States,” this Review, 63 (September, 1969), 880–899 Google Scholar.

² For reviews of much of the literature on innovation, see Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovation (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962)Google Scholar; and Katz, Elihu, Levin, Martin L., and Hamilton, Herbert, “Traditions of Research in the Diffusion of Innovation,” American Sociological Review, 28 (April, 1963), 231–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Chapin, F. Stuart, Cultural Change (New York: Century, 1928)Google Scholar; and McVoy, Edgar C., “Patterns of Diffusion in the United States,” American Sociological Review, 5 (April, 1940), 219–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Crain, Robert L., Katz, Elihu, and Rosenthal, Donald B., The Politics of Community Conflict: The Fluoridation Decision (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969)Google Scholar.

⁵ Salisbury, Robert H., “The Analysis of Public Policy: A Search for Theories and Roles,” in Ranney, Austin (ed.), Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham, 1968), pp. 151–175 Google Scholar.

⁶ Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics, 16 (July, 1964), 677–715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Froman, Lewis A. Jr., “An Analysis of Public Policies in Cities,” Journal of Politics, 29 (February, 1968), 94–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for still another classification of public policies.

⁸ Jacob, Herbert and Lipsky, Michael, “Outputs, Structure, and Power: An Assessment of the Changes in the Study of State and Local Politics,” Journal of Politics, 30 (May, 1968), 510–538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Salisbury, op. cit.

⁹ Sharkansky, Ira, Spending in the American States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For general discussions of policy outputs and urban politics, see Jacob and Lipsky, op. cit.; Alford, Robert R., Bureaucracy and Participation: Political Cultures in Four Wisconsin Cities (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969)Google Scholar; Aiken, Michael, “The Distribution of Community Power: Structural Bases and Social Consequences,” in Aiken, Michael and Mott, Paul E. (eds.), The Structure of Community Power: Readings (New York: Random House, 1970)Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Aiken, Michael and Alford, Robert R., “Community Structure and Innovation: The Case of Urban Renewal,” American Sociological Review, 35 (August, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Aiken, Michael and Alford, Robert R., Community Structure and the War on Poverty: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations,” in Dogan, Mattei (ed.), Studies in Political Ecology (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar, for parallel data on different federal programs, and more extended theoretical and methodological interpretations. The model cities program will be the subject of a future paper.

¹² Banfield, Edward C. and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q. and Banfield, Edward C., “Public-Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior,” this Review, 58 (December, 1964), 876–887 Google Scholar; and Wilson, James Q. and Banfield, Edward C., Communication to the Editor, this Review, 60 (December, 1966), 998–999 Google Scholar.

¹³ Hawley, Amos M., “Community Power Structure and Urban Renewal Success,” American Journal of Sociology, 68 (January, 1963), 422–431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Crain, Robert L. and Rosenthal, Donald B., “Community Status as a Dimension of Local Decision-Making,” American Sociological Review, 32 (December, 1967), 970–984 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁵ Clark, Terry N., “Community Structure and Decision-Making,” in Clark, Terry N. (ed.), Community Structure and Decision-Making: Comparative Analyses (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 91–126 Google Scholar; and “Community Structure, Decision-Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Communities,” American Sociological Review, 33 (August, 1968), 576–593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Crain, Katz, and Rosenthal, op. cit.; see also Greenstone, J. David and Peterson, Paul E., “Reformers, Machines, and the War on Poverty,” in Wilson, James Q. (ed.), City Politics and Public Policy (New York: Wiley, 1968), pp. 267–292 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Dye, Thomas R., “Urban School Segregation: A Comparative Analysis,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 4 (December, 1968), 141–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Coleman, James S., Community Conflict (New York: The Free Press, 1957)Google Scholar. Also see Pinard, Maurice, “Structural Attachments and Political Support in Urban Politics: A Case of a Fluoridation Referendum,” American Journal of Sociology, 68 (March, 1963), 513–526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Much of the information in this section has been abstracted from “The Public Housing Program,” Section 7, Part I, Local Housing Authority Management Handbook, Housing Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 1963 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Friedman, Lawrence M., Government and Slum Housing (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968), p. 100 Google Scholar. This book reviews the entire history of these programs. See also Journal of Housing for many details on the administration of the programs.

²¹ Friedman, op. cit., p. 102.

²² “United States Housing Act of 1937,” Basic Laws and Authorities on Housing and Urban Development (as revised through January 15, 1968), Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 177 Google Scholar.

²³ It is, and has been, possible for the tribal housing authorities on Indian reservations located in states not having state enabling legislation to develop low-rent housing projects.

²⁴ “National Policy and Purpose: Excerpt from the Housing Act of 1949,” Basic Laws and Authorities on Housing and Urban Development, op. cit., p.1.

²⁵ It is not required that all housing authorities participating in the programs as authorized and amended under the Housing Act of 1949 obtain a preliminary loan for surveys and planning. Some housing authorities have sufficient resources to do such surveys and planning on their own. In addition, the leasing program that was established by the 1965 amendments requires neither a preliminary loan, cooperation agreement, tax exemption, nor workable program. These, however, do not apply to leasing or privately owned accommodations. For three of the 646 communities in this study, the first program the community developed was a leasing program. Two (Amsterdam, New York, and Lansing, Michigan) had previously executed a preliminary loan with the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the third, Vallejo, California, had not, however. The procedure used for taking this into consideration is described below.

²⁶ Elazar, Daniel J., “‘Fragmentation’ and Local Organizational Response to Federal-City Programs,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 4 (June, 1967), 32 Google Scholar.

²⁷ See Gold, David, “Statistical Tests and Substantive Significance,” American Sociologist, 4 (February, 1969), 42–46 Google Scholar; and Winch, Robert F. and Campbell, Donald T., “Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. The Significance of Tests of Significance,” American Sociologist, 4 (May, 1969), 140–143 Google Scholar. For a recent dissenting view, see Morrison, Denton E. and Henkel, Ramon E., “Significance Tests Reconsidered,” American Sociologist, 4 (May, 1969), 131–139 Google Scholar.

²⁸ Banfield and Wilson, op. cit., pp. 33–46; and Wilson and Banfield, op. cit.

²⁹ Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Field, John Osgood, “Political Ethos and the Structure of City Government,” this Review, 60 (June, 1966), 306–326 Google Scholar. Also see James Q. Wilson and Edward C. Banfield, Communication to the Editor, op. cit.

³⁰ Southern cities are those in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi. Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The data are not presented because of limitation on space.

³¹ Hawley, op. cit.

³² Aiken, op. cit.

³³ Hawley, op. cit., p. 428.

³⁴ This same point can be made with respect to urban renewal decisions, as we have in “Community Structure and Innovation: The Case of Urban Renewal,” op. cit.

³⁵ Crain and Rosenthal, op. cit. Their argument is more complex than this, however. For decisions about urban renewal and school desegregation, they found a negative relationship between level of education and success. However, they found a curvilinear relationship between educational level and success in an issue such as fluoridation. Since the public housing decision is most comparable to urban renewal, we have discussed their theory only as it applies to this kind of decision. We have not included their discussion of a curvilinear relationship between educational level and policy outcomes in which cities with the very highest educational levels have more success than cities with intermediate educational levels.

³⁶ Aiken, op. cit.

³⁷ Clark, “Community Structure, Decision-Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Communities,” op. cit.

³⁸ Alford, Robert R. and Lee, Eugene C., “Voting Turnout in American Cities,” this Review, 62 (September, 1968), 796–813 Google Scholar.

³⁹ Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? Power and Democracy in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Dahl, op. cit., p. 200.

⁴² Hunter, op. cit., p. 204.

⁴³ Clark, op. cit.

⁴⁴ Aiken, op. cit.

⁴⁵ The most recent statement of this hypothesis occurs in a study of fluoridation by Crain, Katz, and Rosenthal, op. cit., and one on poverty programs by Greenstone and Peterson, op. cit. The somewhat more complex argument of Crain, Katz, and Rosenthal will be discussed in detail below.

⁴⁶ Crain, Katz, and Rosenthal, op. cit., pp. 177–205.

⁴⁷ Dye, Thomas R., “Urban School Segregation: A Comparative Analysis,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 4 (December, 1968), 141–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Mohr, op. cit.

⁴⁹ Pinard, op. cit. James Coleman, op. cit., has provided the theoretical argument which he illustrated by case studies, and Pinard has applied the theory in his study of fluoridation decisions.

⁵⁰ While we cannot summarize Pinard's complex argument here, it may be noted that his data do not support his hypothesis about the effects of middle-class composition. Middle-class cities are less likely to decide to fluoridate their water than working-class cities, contrary to the integration hypothesis. Pinard then argues that a large middle-class city is more likely to have a divided elite, thus decentralized power arrangements, more conflict, and, therefore, less innovation. Although his postulates about the meaning of his indicators are inconsistent with ours, his data are consistent, at least with respect to the effect of middle-class composition.

⁵¹ Cf. Stinchcombe, Arthur L., “Social Structure and Organizations,” in March, James G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 142–193 Google Scholar.

⁵² Dogan, Mattei and Rokkan, Stein (eds.), Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Alford, Robert R., “A Critical Evaluation of the Principles of City Classification,” in Berry, Brian (ed.), Classification of Cities: New Methods and Alternative Uses Google Scholar, forthcoming, for an elaboration of these methodological points with special reference to the factor analyses of city characteristics.

⁵⁴ Evan, William M., “The Organization-Set: Toward a Theory of Interorganization Relations,” in Thompson, James D. (ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design (Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The research by Mohr, op. cit., is suggestive of the appropriateness of this two-level approach.

⁵⁶ See Aiken and Alford, American Sociological Review, op. cit., for a more extended theoretical statement.

⁵⁷ See Warren, Roland L., “Interaction of Community Decision Organizations: Some Basic Concepts and Needed Research,” Social Services Review, 41 (September, 1967), 261–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The Interorganizational Field as a Focus for Investigation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (December, 1967), 396–419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a discussion of the meaning of the concept.

⁵⁸ See Mott, Paul E., “Configurations of Power,” in Aikon, Michael and Mott, Paul E. (eds.), The Structure of Community Power: An Anthology (New York: Random House, 1970)Google Scholar, for one example of this approach.