Suchergebnisse

An assessment of certain problems attendant to the measurement of power, particularly at the community level, followed by suggestions for the improvement of available techniques. All conventional techniques for studying power are seen to suffer from exclusive attention to the individual as the unit of analysis. This focus neglects the soc org'al & soc structure context of power. 4 specific suggestions are made to overcome this problem of individualistic bias involving: (1) a specific, manageable definition of power & its entailed aspects; (2) a statement of independent & dependent variables; (3) a comparative framework; (4) delineation of the soc structural context & authority relationships within which power operates. 6 specific aspects of data collection procedures are described in this context. The method described was applied to a comparative study of decision-making & ED conducted in 4 Latin Amer localities (see SA 0715/F1541). Following the above criteria, a universe of 'positional subleaders' knowledgeable in the area of regional ED was specified & interviewed. It included chief executive officers of relevant org's in the public & private sectors. The questionaire employed dealt with perceptions of influential persons & org's in the area of ED & the most important projects or activities which, in recent yrs, had contributed to the econ growth of the region. The major org's from which influentials came were identified. Then case study analyses were made of 5 activity areas in each region which subleaders & influentials regarded as most important in recent efforts to promote ED (eg, work of the state U, regional development, econ planning, industr promotion, etc). A comparison of the lists of influentials within the pools of activity participants provided a new & complementary view of the exercise of power. It also indicated the effects of increasing interdependence between local communities & their carrying societies through org'al linkages. 5 Tables. M. Maxfield.

A reply to Roland Warren (see SA 2317/D3820), who had commented on the author's paper SA 2317/D3820. Warren's objections are discussed & some of them are at first accepted & then rejected esp those on the relevance of normative order. It is explained that the local normative order Walton referred to consists of collective evaluations, expectations, &/or reactions re behavior that affects or is intended to affect the local decision-making process (public policy). It is stated that Warren's simplification of the author's explanation would exclude important aspects of the process by which power arrangements are maintained & altered, & it would eliminate a number of theoretical possibilities that the propositions at the end of Walton's paper sought to establish. M. Maxfield.

Proceeding from a secondary analysis of the existing body of community power studies, an explanation of local power arrangements is advanced based on R. L. Warrens' verticle axis of community org or the interdependence of the local community & extra community instit's. Earlier studies indicate that the following variables are associated with competitive power structures: absentee ownership, adequate econ resources, satellite status, & pol'al party competition. Each of these is interpreted in terms of greater community interdependence. According to the theoretical argument developed, interdependence tends to produce a fragmentation of local normative order as well as the introduction of new resources & sanctions, leading to a more competitive power arrangement. Implications of the explanation are drawn with reference to future res. COMMENT by Roland L. Warren (Brandeis U, Waltham, Mass), notes that Walton's analysis is important because it 'suggests a theoretical explanation for competitiveness in power structures which is both plausible & frought with substantive implications.' However, greater clarification in the theoretical explanation of the data is found to be necessary, esp re the concept of fragmentation of normative structures. It is also noted that certain variables can be maximized only at the expense of others, eg, viability at the expense of autonomy. Autonomy in a community, with a monolithic power structure, is opposed to a more dependent community, with a democratically broad distribution of power. This issue requires fuller delineation & analysis of the kind Walton has produced. Modified AA.