¹ Traditionally, the literature on British local government usually ignored the policy-making aspects of local governance. Some writers even argued that local governments are only ‘administering and executing policies whose broad lines have been determined by Act of Parliament or Ministerial directives’. Rose, Richard, Politics in England (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), p. 202Google Scholar. See also Robson, William A., Local Government in Crisis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966)Google Scholar. More recently, however, scholars have undertaken notable efforts to analyze local policy formation. Often these authors have underscored British-American differences. See Newton, K., ‘City Politics in Britain and the United States’, Political Studies, XVII (1967), 208–17Google Scholar; Sharpe, L. J., ‘American Democracy Re-considered: Part I’, and ‘Part II’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 1–28 and 129–67Google Scholar; Banfield, Edward C., ‘The Management of Metropolitan Conflict’, in Urban Government (New York: The Free Press, 1969), 34–49Google Scholar; Dearlove, John, The Politics of Policy in Local Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Peterson, Paul E., ‘British Interest Group Theory Re-Examined: The Politics of Comprehensive Education in British Cities’, Comparative Politics, III (1971), 381–402Google Scholar; Newton, K., Second City Politics: Political Processes and Decision-Making in Birmingham (forthcoming)Google Scholar. However, output approaches have suggested some similarities. See Boaden, Noel and Alford, Robert R., ‘Sources of Diversity in English Local Government Decisions’, Public Administration, XLVII (1969), 203–24Google Scholar; Boaden, Noel, Urban Policy Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Glassberg, Andrew, ‘The Linkage Between Urban Policy Outputs and Voting Behavior: New York and London’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 341–61.Google Scholar

² The classic statements of the ‘elite’ community power model are Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953)Google Scholar; , Robert S. and Lynd, Helen M., Middletown (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1929)Google Scholar and Middletown in Transition (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1937)Google Scholar. Critiques and various currents of thought on ‘elite’ theory are legion. Some of the best are in Polsby, Nelson W., Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Prestus, Robert, Men at the Top (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Vidich, Arthur, Bensman, Joseph and Stein, Maurice, eds., Reflections on Community Studies (New York: Wiley, 1964)Google Scholar; Ricci, David, Community Power and Democratic Theory (New York: Random House, 1971)Google Scholar. Of course ‘social stratification’, ‘power elite’ and ‘ruling class’ approaches are quite distinct schools, but their differences are not relevant to the purpose here. Cf. Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Domhoff, G. William, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967).Google Scholar

³ See Newton, ‘City Politics in Britain and the United States’, for a survey of both ‘elitist’ and ‘pluralist’ approaches in American and British local politics.

⁴ Miller, D. C., ‘Industry and Community Power Structure: A Comparative Study of an American and an English City’, American Sociological Review, XXIII (1958), 9–15Google Scholar, and ‘Decision-Making Cliques in Community Power Structures: A Comparative Study of an American and an English City’, American Journal of Sociology, LXIV (1958), 299–310.Google Scholar

⁵ Certainly the major pluralist statements of this are Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar and Polsby, , Community Power and Political TheoryGoogle Scholar. See also Sayre, Wallace and Kaufman, Herbert, Governing New York City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶ See Sharpe, , ‘American Democracy Reconsidered’, Parts I and IIGoogle Scholar; and Newton, , ‘City Politics in Britain and the United States’, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁷ See, for example, Birch, A. H., Small Town Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Lee, J. M., Social Leaders and Public Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Bealey, Frank, Blondel, J. and McCann, W. P., Constituency Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1965), Pp. 21–55.Google Scholar

⁸ For classic statements of this model see Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957)Google Scholar and Dahl, Robert, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).Google Scholar

⁹ See Fletcher, Peter, ‘The Results Analyzed’, in Sharpe, L. J., ed., Voting in Cities (London: Macmillan, 1967), 298–303Google Scholar. This argument is elaborated in Peterson, Paul E. and Kantor, Paul, ‘Political Parties, Citizen Participation and Democratic Theory: An Analysis of Local Politics in England’, paper read to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1970Google Scholar and in Kantor, Paul, ‘The Governable City: Islands of Power and Political Parties in London’, Polity, VII (1974), 1–31Google Scholar. However, this does not mean that local party efforts have no impact on the party vote, especially on turnout. See Bochel, J. M. and Denver, D. T., ‘Canvassing, Turnout and Party Support’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 257–70Google Scholar, and Pimlott, Ben, ‘Does Local Party Organization Matter?’ British Journal of Political Science, II (1972), 381–3.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For an example of this in British national politics see Hewitt, Christopher, ‘Policy Making in Post-War Britain: A Nation-Level Test of Elitist and Pluralist Hypotheses’, British Journal of Political Science, IV (1974), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ On this point see especially Dahl, , Who Governs?Google Scholar and Sayre, and Kaufman, , Governing New York City.Google Scholar

¹² See Sharpe, , ‘American Democracy Reconsidered’Google Scholar, Parts I and II; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar; Bellush, Jewel and David, Stephen M., Race and Politics in New York City (New York: Praeger, 1971).Google Scholar

¹³ For classical treatments of this point see Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1962Google Scholar; originally published in 1942). Also, Lippman, Walter, The Public Philosophy (New York: Mentor, 1955)Google Scholar. I am using the notion of ‘elitism’ here in a policy-related sense as opposed to its usage in the community power debate.

¹⁴ Lowi, Theodore J., ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, World Politics, XVI (1964), 677–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This discussion draws heavily on Lowi's work in content and inspiration.

¹⁵ Thus, the communication of expected outcomes may not be always clear as different individuals may disagree about policy impacts. But it is unlikely that many policies are so mysterious in their probable effects that most participants are unable to find cues that suggest similar types of issues that have occurred previously. The type of policy is therefore an important variable apart from actor ‘perceptions’ because expectations are unlikely to be randomly subjective. For other views on this see Smith, T. Alexander, ‘Toward a Comparative Theory of the Policy-Process’, Comparative Politics, I (1968–69), 498–515Google Scholar; Froman, Lewis A. Jr., ‘The Categorization of Policy Contents’, in Ranney, Austin, ed., Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham, 1968), pp. 41–52Google Scholar. See also Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘The Analysis of Issue Contexts in the Study of Decision-Making’, Journal of Politics, XXXIV (1962), 717–32.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Lowi, , ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, pp. 690–1.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Lowi also recognizes that some kinds of policies may evoke logrolling patterns of ‘mutual non-interference’, but this process is not relevant here.

¹⁸ Beer, Samuel H., British Politics in the Collectivist Age (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), Chap. XII.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Banfield, Edward C., Political Influence (New York: The Free Press, 1961)Google Scholar. See also Meyerson, Martin and Banfield, Edward C., Politics, Planning and the Public Interest (New York: The Free Press, 1955).Google Scholar

²⁰ This point is made most elaborately by Beer, who argues that groups which are directly affected by government policy have a widely recognized right to consult national officials. See British Politics in the Collectivist Age, Chap. XII.Google Scholar

²¹ This point is well illustrated by Allison in his analysis of the closed politics in the Cuban missile crisis. Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), Chap. 5Google Scholar. See also the commentary on the significance of these variables in Agger, Robert E., Goldrich, Daniel and Swanson, Bert E., The Rulers and the Ruled (New York: Wiley, 1964), pp. 73–8.Google Scholar

²² Lowi, , ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, p. 707.Google Scholar

²³ In elaborating this aspect of Lowi's scheme, I am particularly indebted to Peterson, Paul E.'s ‘An Overview of the Politics of Education in Western Europe and the United States’, (paper prepared for the Seminar on the Changing European Secondary School, Kent, Ohio, 1969).Google Scholar

²⁴ Mills, , The Power Elite, Chap. 1.Google Scholar

²⁵ As Mills has suggested, those who occupy ‘command post’ positions derive power by virtue of a ‘coincidence of objective interests’ between key status-group institutions: Mills, , The Power Elite, p. 296Google Scholar. Of course. Mills hardly thought of party politicians in the commanding roles outlined here; in his analysis of the American case he relegated American party politicians to the so-called ‘middle levels’ of power. But, as argued below, the importance of social class and party politics in Britain makes his commentary appropriate.

²⁶ This excludes students attending independent schools in the private educational sector.

²⁷ See Parkinson, Michael, The Labour Party and the Organization of Secondary Education, 1918–1965 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970).Google Scholar

²⁸ For educational purposes the outer London boroughs and counties are called Local Education Authorities.

²⁹ Circular 10/65.

³⁰ Peterson, , ‘British Interest Group Theory Re-Examined’.Google Scholar

³¹ They comprise the Associations of Head Masters, Head Mistresses, Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses.

³² British parents, however, do not have a tradition of organized participation in British education.

³³ This was most striking in Brent and Newham, the two Labour-controlled authorities. Even though the councillors were presiding over new electoral constituencies – all three authorities are amalgamations of smaller metropolitan boroughs which were consolidated in 1964 by the Government of London Act of 1963 – the decision in Brent was speedily taken at the first council meeting of the new borough; in Newham comprehensive education was quietly voted in within weeks after the council's formation. Although Havering's decision came less soon because of the lack of a solid governing majority on the local council, Labour and Ratepayer councillors were eventually able to force the education committee to plan for school reorganization and simply announce this move to the local press.

³⁴ For similar observations see Newton, ‘City Politics in Britain and the United States’. In the case of London, see, for example, Rees, A. M. and Smith, T., Town Councillors (London: Acton Society, 1964).Google Scholar

³⁵ In fact the two ‘modern’ school unions, the NUT and the NAS have moved closer to the Labour party in recent years by joining the Trades Union Congress.

³⁶ For similar data on the relationship between party control and comprehensive education see Batley, Richard, O'Brien, Oswald and Parris, Henry, Going Comprehensive (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970)Google Scholar. Hampton's narrative on comprehensive education in Sheffield seems to parallel this discussion, but his conclusions differ. See Hampton, William, Democracy and Community (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 233–45.Google Scholar

³⁷ Boaden, and Alford, , ‘Sources of Diversity in English Local Government Decisions’.Google Scholar

³⁸ Alt, James E., ‘Some Social and Political Correlates of County Borough Expenditures’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Boaden, , Urban Policy Making, especially p. 112.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Alford, Robert A., Party and Society (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963)Google Scholar; and Sharpe, , Voting in Cities.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sharpe, , Voting in Cities, p. 303.Google Scholar

⁴² For general comments on this point cf. Ranney, Austin, Pathways to Parliament (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965)Google Scholar and Hampton, , Democracy and Community, Chap. 8Google Scholar. On party ideology see Beer, , British Politics in the Collectivist AgeGoogle Scholar. However, class related party differences, though fundamental, should not be exaggerated. Cf. Kornberg, Allan and Frasure, Robert C., ‘Policy Differences in British Parliamentary Parties’, American Political Science Review, LXV (1971), 694–703.Google Scholar

⁴³ This point is elaborated in Kantor, , ‘The Governable City’.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), Chap. III.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Lowi, , ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, 695–703.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Sayre, and Kaufman, , Governing New York City, Chap. XIX.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Pedley, Robin, The Comprehensive School (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1963).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ However, this is not to say that all the different forms of comprehensivization have no ideological implications; some plans could be devised in order to avoid the comprehensive principle. In the latter case the policy arena would hardly remain very pluralistic.

⁴⁹ Merton, Robert K., ‘Types of Influential: The Local and the Cosmopolitan’, reprinted in Banfield, Edward C., ed., Urban Government (New York: The Free Press, 1961), pp. 390–400.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The significance of these ‘latent’ role orientations for democratic theory are discussed in Kantor, , ‘The Governable City’Google Scholar. For a discussion of the concept of ‘latent’ social roles see Gouldner, Alvin W., ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 11 (1957–58), 281–306.Google Scholar

⁵¹ That consumer groups were severely discriminated against in favor of educational producers is almost an understatement. This is discussed in Peterson and Kantor, , ‘Political Parties, Citizen Participation and Democratic Theory’, pp. 18–23.Google Scholar

⁵² In Havering and Newham officials agreed to meet with representatives from some single-sex schools which were slated to become co-educational comprehensives. There is a long tradition of single-sex education in Britain and officials are wary of failing to provide this kind of schooling in areas where it is popular.

⁵³ The following discussion of the party groups draws upon Kantor, , ‘The Governable City’, pp. 16–17Google Scholar, but makes a distinctly different point.

⁵⁴ The ‘group’ caucus and party discipline on the council has been formally adopted by the Labour party in its Model Standing Orders. While Conservatives do not support disciplined partisanship in theory, Tory councillors follow Labour's lead.

⁵⁵ See, for example, Gittell, Marilyn, Participants and Participation (New York: Praeger, 1967)Google Scholar and Bellush, and David, , Race and Politics in New York City.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ This subject is discussed in detail in Peterson, Paul E. and Kantor, Paul, ‘Political Parties and Citizen Participation in British City Polities’ (forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Wilson, James Q., ‘We Need to Shift Focus’Google Scholar, in Banfield, , ed., Urban Government, revised edn., p. 31.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Lowi, , ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, passim.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Newton, K. and Morris, D. S., ‘British Interest Group Theory Examined Again: The Politics of Four and a Quarter Thousand Voluntary Associations in a British City’Google Scholar, undated research report. This study forms part of Newton's forthcoming Second City Politics: Political Processes and Decision Making in Birmingham.

⁶⁰ Critics of administrative influence in British local government are legion. But for a most thorough examination see Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government (Maud Report), Vols. I–IV (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 4040, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶¹ This is, of course, not necessarily to suggest a critical electoral realignment, though these types of issues (if they become cumulative) are probably associated with this phenomenon. Cf. Burnham, Walter Dean, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970)Google Scholar and Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (New York: St Martin's Press, 1971)Google Scholar, especially Chaps. 6 and 7.

⁶² Katznelson, Ira, Black Men, White Cities (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), Part III.Google Scholar

⁶³ Katznelson, , Black Men, White Cities, Chap. 10.Google Scholar