Suchergebnisse

A modified TAT measuring achievement (ACH), affiliation, & power (P) motivation (MOT) was given politicians & non-politicians in an Eastern city (random sample of 23 businessmen, ward chairmen & candidates for office, & 18 non-politicians matched in occup, religion, ethnicity, & Ur residence) & in 2 parishes (counties) of La (N=50 or 67% of all elected public officials). Offices rated high in potential for P & ACH attracted S's with statistically signif'ly stronger ACH & P MOT's than low-potential offices. S's in low-potential offices were similar in MOT to matched non-politicians, but S's in high-potential offices had stronger P &.ACH MOT than matched non-politicians. It is suggested that higher P & ACH MOT scores in the eastern group are due to the more important community role, & therefore greater P & ACH opportunity, in eastern, Ur politics. MOT appears to be related to important diff's in the behavior of pol'al leaders. AA.

Is anything enough? The authors of this forum are in agreement that the political incorporation of blacks and Hispanics achieved thus far is not enough. Not only is protest not enough: they question whether any of the political arrangements by which members of these groups have been brought into city governments are sufficient to meet the goals of the civil rights movement—political equality and the alleviation of poverty. They have much to say about ways in which the incorporation of blacks and Hispanics falls short and about the conditions that block further strengthening of their position.Is anytheoryenough—the theory ofProtest Is Not Enough, in particular? The answer to the particular question is partly Yes, but the articles of this forum suggest qualifications and additions; we discuss these below. There are two answers to the general question, both of them No. No, because a theory of variations across cities does not fully meet the need for an understanding of possibilities or of leadership, agenda, and strategy over time in a particular city. And No, because the largest cities must be understood on their own terms, as we would seek to understand a nation or a war on its own terms.Nevertheless, a theoretical structure of the sort inProtestis useful to practitioners and researchers because it focuses attention on a limited number of main factors and relationships, permits systematic and standardized comparisons between groups of cities, provides a way to summarize the main structure of causal factors and conditions in a given city, and allows us to estimate the levels of minority mobilization and incorporation and of governmental responsiveness that we should expect in a city on the basis of the experience in other cities.

Is anything enough? The authors of this forum are in agreement that the political incorporation of blacks and Hispanics achieved thus far is not enough. Not only is protest not enough: they question whether any of the political arrangements by which members of these groups have been brought into city governments are sufficient to meet the goals of the civil rights movement—political equality and the alleviation of poverty. They have much to say about ways in which the incorporation of blacks and Hispanics falls short and about the conditions that block further strengthening of their position.Is any theory enough—the theory of Protest Is Not Enough, in particular? The answer to the particular question is partly Yes, but the articles of this forum suggest qualifications and additions; we discuss these below. There are two answers to the general question, both of them No. No, because a theory of variations across cities does not fully meet the need for an understanding of possibilities or of leadership, agenda, and strategy over time in a particular city. And No, because the largest cities must be understood on their own terms, as we would seek to understand a nation or a war on its own terms.Nevertheless, a theoretical structure of the sort in Protest is useful to practitioners and researchers because it focuses attention on a limited number of main factors and relationships, permits systematic and standardized comparisons between groups of cities, provides a way to summarize the main structure of causal factors and conditions in a given city, and allows us to estimate the levels of minority mobilization and incorporation and of governmental responsiveness that we should expect in a city on the basis of the experience in other cities.

The number of blacks and Hispanics elected to office in American cities has grown dramatically. The media frequently report on their victories in local elections and run features on black and Hispanic mayors. From none in 1960, there are now 27 black and three Hispanic mayors of cities with populations over 50,000 (Joint Center, 1985; National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 1986).The trend is obvious, its significance disputed. Is it likely to continue, or can we already see signs of reversal? How much power do local black and Hispanic officials have? How was it achieved? And what difference does it make in any case? Can blacks and Hispanics in office strike a better bargain with the investors and financial institutions they depend on for development than previous administrations? In a period of fiscal stringency and reduced federal spending, can they carve out a larger piece of the municipal pie for minority populations? Can minority officeholders make any headway against the growing tide of unemployment and poverty, as help from the federal level is dismantled? Although the growing number of minority officials suggests political integration and racial/ethnic succession, do the limited powers of cities in a federal system and a capitalistic society render that apparent gain more symbolic than real?

The number of blacks and Hispanics elected to office in American cities has grown dramatically. The media frequently report on their victories in local elections and run features on black and Hispanic mayors. From none in 1960, there are now 27 black and three Hispanic mayors of cities with populations over 50,000 (Joint Center, 1985; National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 1986).The trend is obvious, its significance disputed. Is it likely to continue, or can we already see signs of reversal? How much power do local black and Hispanic officials have? How was it achieved? And what difference does it make in any case? Can blacks and Hispanics in office strike a better bargain with the investors and financial institutions they depend on for development than previous administrations? In a period of fiscal stringency and reduced federal spending, can they carve out a larger piece of the municipal pie for minority populations? Can minority officeholders make any headway against the growing tide of unemployment and poverty, as help from the federal level is dismantled? Although the growing number of minority officials suggests political integration and racial/ethnic succession, do the limited powers of cities in a federal system and a capitalistic society render that apparent gain more symbolic than real?