¹ For a synthesis of recent comparative studies of urban policy making, see Fried, Robert C., Comparative Urban Performance, Working Paper No. 1, European Urban Research, UCLA Google Scholar, which, in revised form appears as chapter 6 in volume 6 of The Handbook of Political Science, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975)Google Scholar. The unimportance of political factors in policy making was first argued by Dawson, Richard E. and Robinson, James A., “Interparty Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the United States,” Journal of Politics, 25 (05 1963), 265–289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: and by Dye, Thomas R., Politics, Economics and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966)Google Scholar.

² The possible importance of politics in policy making is counter-argued in several pieces, including Ira Sharkansky, “Economic and Political Correlates of State Government Expenditures: General Tendencies and Deviant Cases,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 11 (05 1967), 173–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Spending in the American States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968)Google Scholar, and Regionalism in American Politics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970)Google Scholar; Lineberry, Robert L. and Fowler, Edmund P., “Reformism and Public Policies in American Cities,” American Political Science Review, 61 (09 1967), 701–716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, Terry N., “Community Structure, Decision-making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Communities,” American Sociological Review, 33 (08 1968), 576–593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aiken, Michael and Alford, Robert R., “Community Structure and Innovation: The Case of Public Housing,” American Political Science Review, 64 (09 1970), 843–864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eyestone, Robert, The Threads of Public Policy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971)Google Scholar; Fry, Brian R. and Winters, Richard F., “The Politics of Redistribution,” American Political Science Review, 64 (06 1970), 508–522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Booms, Bernard H. and Halldorson, James R., “The Politics of Redistribution: A Reformulation,” American Political Science Review, 67 (09 1973), 924–933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Natchez, Peter B. and Bupp, Irvin C., “Policy and Priority in the Budgetary Process,” American Political Science Review, 67 (09 1973), 951–963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

William Bicker argues that the case against the importance of politics as an output determinant has not yet been properly established in “The Effects of Malapportionment in the States: A Mistrial,” in Reapportionment in the 1970's, ed. Polsby, Nelson W. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

³ The countries: the United States, Belgium, Canada, England, Scotland, West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, and Venezuela. For references to these studies (as of 1973), see Fried, , Comparative Urban Performance, pp. 63–81 Google Scholar, where the reader will also find references to works concerning the impact of other kinds of political variables (e.g., party competitiveness, citizen turnout, etc.).

⁴ On one such cross-national study, see Fried, Robert C., “The Performance of Cities: Explorations in Cross-National Comparison,” Working Paper No. 4 (07 1964)Google Scholar. European Urban Research project. University of California, Los Angeles. The EUR project is also conducting within-nation studies of the relationship between party variables, ecological variables, and policy variables for the 43 largest French communes (those over 100,000 population in 1968), the largest 38 Dutch communes (those over 50,000 population in 1965), and the largest 20 Swedish communes (those over 50,000 population in 1968).

⁵ Sharpe, L. J., “American Democracy Reconsidered,” British Journal of Political Science, 3 (01 1973), 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 3 (April 1973), 129–167. Similar comments applying to Rome may be found in Fried, Robert C., Planning the Eternal City: Roman Politics and Planning Since World War II (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 255–256 Google Scholar.

⁶ See Fried, Robert C., “Communism, Urban Budgets, and the Two Italies: A Case Study in Comparative Urban Government,” The Journal of Politics, 33 (11 1971), 1008–1051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two other studies on Italian urban policies have been published; one by Giarda, Pietro, “Un' analisi sui determinanti delle spese degli enti locali,” in Studi sulla finanza locale, ed. Cosciani, Cesare (Milan: Giuffre, 1967)Google Scholar, and the other by Galli, Giorgio and Prandi, Alfonso, Patterns of Political Participation in Italy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970)Google Scholar. Studying 85 small towns in the Milan metropolitan area, Giarda found party to be of modest explanatory power as did the Fried study of the 31 largest Italian communes (over 100,000 population.) The Galli and Prandi study of 13 communes in the 100,000–200,000 population bracket and of the 92 provincial capitals found no systematic or consistent associa-tion between political orientation of the local government and budgetary policies (p. 241).

⁷ For further discussion, see Fried, , “Comparative Urban Performance,” 63–81 Google Scholar.

⁸ On German local party politics, see Ziebell, Otto, Politische Parteien ttnd kommunale Selbstverwaltitng (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1964)Google Scholar. On the historical aspects of local party politics, see also Ritter, Gerhard A., Die Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelminischen Reich (Colloquium Verlag: Berlin, 1959)Google Scholar; Sheehan, James J., “Liberalism and the City in Nineteenth-Century Germany.” Past and Present, No . 51 (1971), pp. 116–137 Google Scholar; Croon, Helmuth et al., Kommunale Selbstverwaltung im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971)Google Scholar; Dawson, William H., Municipal Life and Government in Germany (London: Longmans, 1914)Google Scholar.

⁹ On West Germa n local institutions, see Wells, Roger H., German Cities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1932)Google Scholar, The States in West German Federalism (New Haven: College and University Press, 1961)Google Scholar, and “Local Government.” in Governing Postwar Germany, ed. Litchfield, E. H., (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1953)Google Scholar. See also Jacob, Herbert, German Administration Since Bismarck (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)Google Scholar, and Wagener, Frido, “Gemeindeverwaltung,“ in Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften (Stuttgart: G. Fischer, 1952–1965), IV, 323–338 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The remarkable strength of municipal autonomy as a German political tradition is shown in the lip-service paid to its principles even by the National-Socialist regime. See, for example, the essay on changes made in German local institutions under the Nazi regime by Gaertner, Erich, “Der Wandel des kommunalen Aufgabenkreises von der Machtübernahme bis zur Jetzzeit,” in Jahrbuch für Kommunalwissenschaft, vols. 6-7 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1939–1940), 1–64 Google Scholar, and Matzerath, Horst, Nalional-sozialismus and kommunale Selbstverwaltung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970)Google Scholar. It should be noted that local autonomy, rather than democratic self-government, was the political tradition involved and that Nazi practices were as little respectful of the principles of local autonom y as they were of the principles of nationalism and socialism.

¹¹ For a comparison of German and American urban concepts and definitions, see Weiler, Conrad J. Jr., “Metropolitan Definitions in Comparative Political Research,” Comparative Politics, 3 (04 1971), 429–446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² The study by Rakoff, Stuart and Schaefer, Guenther, “Policy Responsiveness of German and American Cities: A Time-Series Analysis of Municipal Expenditures” (paper presented to the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in New Orleans, 09 1973)Google Scholar, does not deal with parly variables.

¹³ Data on occupants of the mayor's office are drawn from the Christian Democratic party, Politisches Jahrbuch der CDU/CSU; from the series Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne Google Scholar; from Wer is Wer? Das Deutsche Who's Who, Habel, Walter, ed., published by Arani Verlags, Berlin Google Scholar; and The Yearbook of the Socialist International, ed. Braunthal, Julius, published by International Socialist Yearbook Publishers, London (1960–1961)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Data on council composition and elections for the period 1957–1962 are taken from the Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutscher Gemeinden (henceforth, SJDG), 1963, pp. 379–380 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Data on postwar city outputs have been drawn from the Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschen Gemeinder (SJDG) as SJDG 1950 (municipal employment, 1950); SJDG 1952 (spending, 1952); SJDG 1963 (taxation; owner-occupancy; financial dependency); SJDG 1964 (public safety employment; education employment; utility employment; general employment; city land ownership); SJDG 1965 (welfare, libraries, spending); SJDG 1970 (hospitals); SJDG 1971 (city land; 1968 housing data, including public assistance, owner-occupancy, multi-family dwellings); SJDG 1972 (spending, 1970).

¹⁶ Fried, R., “Politics, Economics, and Federalism: Aspects of Urban Government in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland,” in Comparative Community Politics, ed. Clark, Terry (Beverly Hills: Sage Publishers, 1974), 313–350 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Deppe, Lothar, Das Verhältnis der kommunalen Ausgaben zur Grösse, Struktur, Funktion und Finanzkraft stddtischer Gemeinden: Untersucht am Biespiel der sozialen und kulturellen Ausgaben in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Münster: Institut für Siedlungs- und Wohnungswesen der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 1966), p. 232 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For an interesting analysis of the differences between the SPD and the CDU in power and policy, see Triesch, Günter, “Kommunalpolitik und Parteiarbeit,” in Dokumente zur parteipolitischen Entwicklung in Deutschland seit 1945, Flechtheim, Ossip K. (Berlin: Wendler, 1965), vol. 4, part 1, 208–221 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ritter, Wilhelm, “Christliche Kommunalpolitik in den Ratund Kreishäusern,” in Polititisches Jahrbuch der CDU/CSU: 1960, 107–115 at 108 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ziebill, , Politische Parteien, pp. 30–31 Google Scholar.

²¹ See, e.g., Triesche, , “Kommunalpolitik,” p. 210 Google Scholar.

²² The CDU strongholds are: Aachen, Bonn, Koblenz, Mönchen-Gladbach, Münster, and Neuss. The SPD strongholds are: Bochum, Dortmund, Frankfurt, Gelsenkirchen, Hannover, Heme, Kassel, and Mülheim.

²³ Here, as in several other places, lack of space precludes publication of the actual statistical findings. These will gladly be supplied by the author to interested readers on request.

²⁴ The proletarian SPD cities include: Bochum, Dortmund, Duisburg, Gelsenkirchen, Hagen, Heme, Oberhausen, Recklinghausen, Salzgitter, and Wanne Eickel. The middle-class SPD cities include: Darmstadt, Frankfurt, Hannover, Karlsruhe, Kassel, and Munich. On the class basis of West German party politics, see Conradt, David P. and Lambert, Dwight, “Party System, Social Structure, and Competitive Politics in West Germany,” Comparative Politics, 1 (1974), pp. 61–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ CDU spokesmen have often accused the SPD of packing the upper levels of municipal bureaucracies with SPD functionaries, selected more for their party loyalty than their expertise. SPD power, which is thus built into the city bureaucracy, then makes it difficult, claims the CDU, to reverse municipal policy even when the CDU wins control of the council and the executive. For these charges, see Triesche, , “Kommunalpolitik,” 215 Google Scholar. We lack data on the party affiliations of municipal bureaucrats which would help us to weigh the validity of these accusations.

²⁶ See Nussmacher, Karl-Heinz, “Parteien in kommunalpolitischen Zielbildungsprozess,” Osterreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 1 (1973), 39–65 Google Scholar.

²⁷ Kaack, Heino, Geschischte und Struktur des deutschen Parteiensystems (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1971), pp. 135–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Fried, , “Politics, Economics, and Federalism,” in Clark, , pp. 322–338 Google Scholar.

²⁹ The expression “false pragmatism” comes from a long denunciation of alleged SPD opportunism by the Young Socialists, (JUSOs) in December 1969, reprinted in Kaack, H., Geschichte, pp. 534–536 Google Scholar. See also SPD und Staat: Geschichte, Reformideologie, “Friedenspolitik,” Ernst, Friedhelm, ed. (Berlin: Verlag Klaus Wagenbach, 1974)Google Scholar.

³⁰ See the references in Kaack, H., Geschichte, p. 11 Google Scholar, and in particular, Chalmers, Douglas A., The Social Democratic Parly in Germany: From Working-Class Movement to Modern Political Party (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar, and Schelleneer, Harold K., The SPD in the Bonn Republic: A Socialist Party Modernizes (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ See Leber, Georg, “Unser innerpolitischer Auftrag,” in Mündige Gesellschaft: Die SPD zur zukunft der Nation, Arndt, Klaus Dieter, ed. (Hannover: Verlag Dietz Nachf., 1967), pp. 62–66 at p. 63 Google Scholar.

³² Ziebilt, O., Politische Parteiein, p. 30 Google Scholar; K.-H. Nussmacher, “Parteien”; and Kaack, H., Geschichte, p. 476 Google Scholar. Kaack actually uses the phrase “Antiparteieneffekt”; Nussmacher suggests that “Antiparteienaffekt” is what Kaack really means to say, ( Nussmacher, , “Parteien,” p. 46, n. 23Google Scholar).

³³ This accords well with the correlation of –.42 that we have found between CDU voting strength and spending increase between 1962 and 1970 (Table 8).

³⁴ Nor do we have data on the age of the mayor—frequently asserted as being predictive of municipal outputs.

³⁵ For some recent efforts, see the papers presented at the Conference on Politics, Policy, and the Quality of Urban Life, Bellagio, Italy, June 20–24, 1975.