The City pp 78-96 | Cite as

Bureaucracy, Politics and the City

  • Brian Elliott
  • David McCrone

Abstract

In the last thirty years or so local authorities, especially the big urban authorities, have been obliged to assume greatly extended responsibilities over many aspects of the collective life of their citizens. Housing, welfare, education, local economic development, physical planning — all these and many other issues are now matters of direct concern to the politicians and officials who make up local administrations. In order to carry out their commitments and meet both the demands of central government and the aspirations of their constituents, local politicians have had to allow or encourage the growth of large bureaucratic departments to deal with housing, highways, social services and the like. These bureaucratic structures with their rational organisation, hierarchy of offices and concern with procedure and universalistic rules have become the means whereby an increasingly large stock of public goods is distributed.

Keywords

Rubber Income Expense Arena Stake 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    P. Dunleavy, Urban Political Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1980) p.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid, pp. 58 and 59.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Social Trends, 11, 1981, table 5.8, ‘People in employment: by sector’, pp 74–76.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Weber, Economy and Society (University of California Press, 1968) p. 991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Weber, ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in W. G. Runciman (ed.), Weber: Selections in Translation (Cambridge University Press, 1978); For discussion of Weber’s views on politics and bureaucracy, see D. Beetham, Max Weber and the Theory of Modem Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1972) ch. 10Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    A. Giddens, Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber (London: Macmillan, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Tom Burns, ‘Sovereignty, Interests and Bureaucracy in the Modern State’, British Journal of Sociology, 31 (4), 1980, p. 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    R. Pahl, ‘Urban Managerialism Re-considered’, Whose City? (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975, 2nd edn) ch. 13.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    M. Lipsky, ‘Towards a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy’, in W. D. Hawley and M. Lipsky, Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Politics (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976).Google Scholar
  10. J. M. Prottas, People Processing; the Street- level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies (Toronto: Lexington Books, 1979).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Prottas, People Processing, p. 87.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Dunleavy, Urban Political Analysis, p. 54.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    J. Dearlove, the Reorganisation of British Local Government: Old Orthodoxies and a Political Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 1979) p. 221.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    P.; Saunders, Urban Politics: a Sociological Interpretation (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979) p. 196.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    C. Cockburn, The Local State (London: Pluto Press, 1977) p. 45.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Ibid, p. 42.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    M. Hill, The Sociology of Public Administration (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972) p. 199.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    K. Newton, ‘Turnout and Marginality in Local Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 2, 1972; and K. Newton, Second City Politics (Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Dunleavy, Urban Political Analysis, pp. 112–19; Hill, The Sociology of Public Administration, ch. 10; T. J. Johnson, Professions and Power (London: Macmillan, 1972).Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    N. Dennis, People and Planning (London: Faber, 1970).Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    W. H. Cox, Cities: the Public Dimension (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976) p. 138.Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    H. H. Heclo, ‘The Councillor’s Job’, Public Administration, 47, 1969, p. 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 20.
    Hill, The Sociology of Public Administration, ch. 11.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    R. J. Buxton, Local Government (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970) pp. 269–70.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    J. M. Lee, Social Leaders and Public Persons (Oxford University Press, 1963) pp. 212–14.Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    L. J. Sharpe, ‘Theories and Values in Local Government’, Political Studies, 18 (2), 1970.Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Cox, Cities, p. 55.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    Dennis, People and Planning; Saunders, Urban Politics, ch. 3; P. Leonard, ‘The Sociology of Community Action’, Sociological Review Monograph, 21, 1975.Google Scholar
  29. N. Wates, The Battle for Tolmers Square (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976).Google Scholar
  30. 26.
    Dennis, People and Planning; N. Dennis, Public Participation and Planners’ Blight (London: Faber, 1972).Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    Jon Gower Davies, The Evangelistic Bureaucrat (London: Tavistock, 1972).Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    S. Damer and C. Hague, ‘Public Participation in Planning: a Review’; Town Planning Review, 42 (3), 1971.Google Scholar
  33. J. Dearlove, The Politics of Policy in Local Government: the Making and Maintenance of Public Policy in Kensington and Chelsea (Cambridge University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    K. Young, Local Politics and the Rise of Party: the London Municipal Society and the Conservative Intervention in Local Elections, 1894–1963 (Leicester University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    B. Elliott, D. McCrone and V. Skelton, ‘Property and Political Power: Edinburgh, 1875–1975’, in J. Garrard et al., The Middle Class in Politics (Farnborough: Saxon House, 1978).Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    Dearlove, The Reorganisation of British Local Government, p. 145.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    Hill, The Sociology of Public Administration, p. 211.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    K. Newton, ‘City Politics in Britain and the United States’, Political Studies, 17, 1969.Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    Cox, Cities, p. 123.Google Scholar
  40. 35.
    Dunleavy, Urban Political Analysis, p. 62, table 3.4.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    Dearlove, The Politics of Policy in Local Government, p. 20.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    For its changing implications for local—central relations, see P. Saunders, ‘Local Government and the State’, New Sodety, 13 March 1980.Google Scholar
  43. 38.
    ‘Tory Bill “Socialist Trojan Horse” ’, The Guardian, 5 February 1980.Google Scholar
  44. 39.
    K. Young and J. Kramer, Strategy and Conflict in Metropolitan Housing: Suburbia versus the Greater London Council, 1965–1975 (London: Heinemann, 1978).Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    Sharpe, ‘Theories and Values in Local Government’, p. 153.Google Scholar
  46. 41.
    C. Reich, ‘The New Property’, Yale Law Journal, 73, 1964; also Elliott, McCrone and Skelton, ‘Property and Political Power’, p. 128.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    Peta Sheriff has provided a valuable bibliography entitled, ‘The Sociology of Public Bureaucracy, 1965–1975’, in Current Sociology, 24 (2), 1976.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    M. Spencer, ‘History and Sociology: an Analysis of Weber’s The City3, Sociology, 11 (3), 1977.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    S. Damer, ‘Wine Alley: the Sociology of a Dreadful Enclosure’, Sociological Review, 22, 1974.Google Scholar
  50. 45.
    For an analysis of that quintessential bureaucratic control mechanism, the queue, see J. Lambert, C. Paris and B. Blackaby, Housing Policy and the State: Allocation, Access and Control (London: Macmillan, 1978) ch. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 46.
    Lipsky, ‘Towards a Theory of Street-level Bureaucracy’.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    Prottas, People Processing, p. 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Brian Elliott and David McCrone 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Elliott
    • 1
  • David McCrone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of EdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations