Writing the Rules to Win the Game

Abstract

Every student of city politics knows the class theory of city government—that middle-class voters supported municipal reform and working-class voters supported machine politics. Although historical narratives support this theory, systematic evidence has been elusive. Historians and political scientists alike have recognized very strong regional differences in styles of city government but lacked an explanation. The authors argue that the class theory, historical narratives, and regional differences may be reconciled. Presence of immigrants and turnout account both for adoption or rejection of reform and for the regional pattern of those decisions.

Take Two on Race and Politics

“…She argues that reform leaders were successful in the Southwest due to the lack of party attachment among the middle and upper class citizens, lack of party organization and lack of competitive elections. In another analysis of city-manager adoption in the southwest, Bridges and Kronick (1999) conclude that cities with a large immigrant population and high turnout rates were less likely to adopt city-manager plans. In contrast, city-manager plans were adopted in areas where the turnout rates and the immigrant populations were low.…”

“…Nativist biases against foreign-born, non-white groups influenced Progressive leaders' efforts to reform the existing institutions. Reform leaders argued that the middle and upper class citizens were ideal constituents because they held few interests that did not require the redistribution of wealth Bridges and Kronick 1999). In contrast, working class, immigrant and racial groups had multiple interests that competed against those of the middle and upper class citizens in urban areas.…”

“…Other reform leaders focused on changing the governing institutions, specifically, political party machines Bridges and Kronick 1999;Burnham 1977;Cutright 1968;Gould 1974;Jones 1976;Lineberry and Fowler 1967). Political party machines were problematic for several reasons.…”

“…Several conditions that were favorable for adopting nonpartisan elections included cities in noncompetitive states, weak party attachment, one-party rule, and the lack of class and religious cleavages (Cutright 1968). Because these factors varied across regions, nonpartisan reforms were not uniformly adopted Bridges and Kronick 1999). Reforms were not adopted in northern and midwestern cities due to the large number of immigrant groups, strong attachments to the political parties, and high rates of political participation among the cities' residents.…”

“…Several conditions allowed Progressive leaders to successfully adopt city-manager plans Bridges and Kronick 1999;Cutright 1968). Cutright (1968) finds that city-manager plans and other nonpartisan reforms were challenged in cities with competitive elections and high levels of party loyalty.…”