Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:50:06.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing the Bosses Back in: The Irish Political Machines and Urban Policy Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Steven P. Erie
Steven P. Erie
Affiliation:
Department ot Political ScienceUniversity of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently historians have ventured a multifaceted critique of boss rule, suggesting that the very existence of the political machine has been exaggerated, that machines did not materially affect patterns of political mobilization, had only a limited role in the making of public policy, and (contrary to pluralist theory) did little to improve the welfare of the ethnic working class. For these revisionists the boss was really a bit player in the era when he allegedly held center stage. As Terrence McDonald argued the case in the last installment of this annual, “ethnicity, patronage, and the machine” represent unduly narrow ways of viewing urban political development. According to Jon Teaford and David Thelan, urban political history needs to replace the party boss and his ethnic clientele with interest groups—business, labor, taxpayers, and consumers of municipal services—and their impact on local policies concerning economic development, taxation, and service delivery. In their view, the study of public policy making must take precedence over the allocation of party patronage.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 4 , Spring 1990 , pp. 269 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank Vanessa Cunningham, Harold Brackman, Amy Bridges, Victor Magagna, and the anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.

1. McDonald, Terrence J., “The Burdens of Urban History: The Theory of the State in Recent American Social History,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Katznelson, Ira, “The State and the City: Burdens in the Analysis of American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989)Google Scholar. Also see McDonald, , “The Problem of the Political in Recent American Urban History: Liberal Pluralism and the Rise of Functionalism,” Social History 10 (3):323–45 (10 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Teaford, Jon C., “Finis for Tweed and Steffens: Rewriting the History of Urban Rule,” Reviews in American History 10(4): 133–49 (12 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thelen, David P., “Beyond Bosses and Reformers,” Reviews in American History 7(2):406–12 (09 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Lowi, Theodore J., “Machine Politics—Old and New,” The Public Interest (Fall 1967):83–92Google Scholar.

4. For an analysis of the urban machine's role in retarding ethnic political and economic assimilation, see Erie, Steven P., Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

5. Wolfinger, Raymond E., “Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts,” Journal of Politics 34 (2): 365–98 (05 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. As early as the 1890s, for example, the Irish held 69 percent of the seats on Chicago's Democratic party committee, 61 percent of New York's famed Tammany Hall, and 58 percent of the positions on the San Francisco Democratic central committee. The other machines studied, particularly Jersey City and Albany, featured similar patterns of Irish control of the party hierarchy. See Erie, Rainbow's End, 27–28.

7. Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles, “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17 (3):587–612 (Winter 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Yearley, Clifton K., The Money Machines: The Breakdown and Reform of Governmental and Party Finance in the North, 1860–1920 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972), 3–35Google Scholar.

9. Nordhoff, Charles, “The Misgovernment of New York—A Remedy Suggested,” North American Review 113 (10 1871): 321Google Scholar.

10. Godkin, Edwin L., “Criminal Politics,” North American Review 151 (1890):706–23Google Scholar.

11. Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. (New York: Free Press, 1968), 125–36Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955)Google Scholar; and Handlin, Oscar, The Uprooted (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1951)Google Scholar.

12. McDonald, Terrence J., The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Socioeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

13. Shefter, Martin, “New York City's Fiscal Crisis: The Politics of Inflation and Retrenchment,” Public Interest 48 (Summer 1977):98–127Google Scholar, especially 101–5; Yearley, The Money Machines, 3–74.

14. Werner, M. R., Tammany Hall (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1928), 276Google Scholar; Myers, Gustavus, History of Tammany Hall (New York: Dover, 1971), 254–56Google Scholar (originally published in 1917); Bullough, William A., The Blind Boss and His City: Christopher Augustine Buckley and Nineteenth-Century San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 92, 136Google Scholar.

15. Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N., “Bosses, Reform, and the Socioeconomic Bases of Urban Expenditures, 1890–1940,” in McDonald, Terrence J. and Ward, Sally K., eds., The Politics of Urban Fiscal Policy (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), 69–99Google Scholar.

16. See Clark, Terry Nichols, “The Irish Ethic and the Spirit of Patronage,” Ethnicity 2 (1975):327–43Google Scholar.

17. U.S. Census Office, Special Reports: Wealth, Debt, and Taxation, table 86 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 452–612Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population Over 100,000, 1932, table 18 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1934), 176–79Google Scholar.

18. Warner, Sam Bass Jr, Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Teaford, Jon C., City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850–1970 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), 77, 90–94Google Scholar.

19. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1920, vol. 2, table 7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1922–1923), 1288Google Scholar.

20. Yearley, The Money Machines, 27–28. For further evidence of the limited ability of landlords to shift property taxes to renters, see Becker, Arthur P., Land and Building Taxes: Their Effect on Economic Development (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 21–22Google Scholar; and Heilbrun, James, Real Estate Taxes and Urban Housing (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 48, 91Google Scholar.

21. Mollenkopf, John H., The Contested City (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 28–36Google Scholar.

22. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1950, table 908 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), 759–60Google Scholar; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing, 1980, vol. 1, chap. A, table 18 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982)Google Scholar.

23. O'Connor, Len, Clout: Mayor Daley and His City (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1975), 149, 170–76Google Scholar; and Royko, Mike, Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago (New York: Signet, 1971), 129–32Google Scholar.

24. Robinson, Frank S., Machine Politics: A Study of Albany's O'Connells (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1977), 139–40Google Scholar; Miller, Alan C., “Corning: From the Shadow to ‘Absolute King’,” Albany Times Union (21 10 1979), A-19Google Scholar.

25. Kasperson, Roger E., “Toward a Geography of Urban Politics: Chicago, A Case Study,” Economic Geography 11(2):95–107 (04 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whitehead, Ralph Jr “The Organization Man,” American Scholar 46 (Summer 1977): 355–56Google Scholar.

26. O'Connor, Clout, 134; Whitehead, “The Organization Man,” 352.

27. Hawkins, Frank, “Lawrence of Pittsburgh: Boss of the Mellon Patch,” Harper's Magazine 213 (08 1956):57–61Google Scholar.

28. Weiss, Nancy Joan, Charles Francis Murphy, 1858–1924: Respectability and Responsibility in Tammany Politics (Northhampton, Mass.: Smith College, 1968), 81–85Google Scholar; Huthmacher, J. Joseph, “Urban Liberalism and the Age of Reform,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 49 (09 1962): 234–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Foster, Mark S., “Frank Hague of Jersey City: The Boss as Reformer,” New Jersey History 86 (Summer 1968): 106–16Google Scholar.

29. Howard, Donald S., The WPA and Federal Relief Policy (New York: Russell Sage: 1943)Google Scholar; Erie, Rainbow's End, table 13, p. 130.

30. Hirsch, Arnold R., Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Royko, Boss, 136–44.

31. Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), 242–43Google Scholar; Royko, Boss, 138.

32. Brown, Michael K. and Erie, Steven P., “Blacks and the Legacy of the Great Society: The Economic and Political Impact of Federal Social Policy,” Public Policy 29(3):299–330 (Summer 1981)Google Scholar.

33. McDonald, “The Burdens of Urban History.”

34. Henry Carter Adams, quoted in Yearley, The Money Machines, xi–xii.