Suchergebnisse

9 Bosses, & their tollowers & apologists, perennially inquire noNN alternative sources for leadership may be developed in lieu of a boss. A boss is the principal but not the sole leader of a pol'al clique or faction at the top of a monolithic power structure in a community with a monopolistic pol'al style. Alternatives to a boss are a clique or faction, a popularly elected mayor, a city manager, or a pol'al party. Some Fla communities exhibit a monopolistic pol'al style; others, a competitive style. Town with a monopolistic style show a narrow set of econ interests; the entrance of competing econ interests leads to competitive pot. Ruling cliques are of varying kinds & can exist in either amonopolistic or competitive situation. A popularly elected mayor also can function as the leader in either situation. A manager is a source of policy leadership, but several factors condition his leadership. The elected mayor often inhibits the manager. The manager's scope may also be greatly restricted in a monopolistic setting, for he usually has no pol'al base of his own in such a situation. He will often have more scope when competition is the style. A few managers succeed by forming their own bases, ie, that composed of city employees. Party participation is a concomitant of competitive pot in a few Fla cities, but the rise of the Republicans may lead to some local monopolies. Alternative sources of leadership are enhanced by competition. AA.

Bosses, and their followers and apologists, peren nially inquire how alternative sources for leadership may be developed in lieu of a boss. A boss is the principal but not the sole leader of a political clique or faction at the top of a monolithic power structure in a community with a monopolistic political style. Alternatives to a boss are a clique or faction, a popularly elected mayor, a city manager, or a political party. Some Florida communities exhibit a monopolistic political style; others, a competitive style. Towns with a monopolistic style show a narrow set of economic interests; the entrance of competing economic interests leads to competitive politics. Ruling cliques are of varying kinds and can exist in either a monopolistic or competitive situation. A popularly elected mayor also can function as the leader in either situation. A manager is a source of policy leadership, but several factors condition his leadership. The elected mayor often inhibits the manager. The manager's scope may also be greatly restricted in a monopolistic setting, for he usually has no political base of his own in such a situation. He will often have more scope when competition is the style. A few managers succeed by forming their own bases, as, for example, that composed of city employees. Party participation is a concomitant of competi tive politics in a few Florida cities, but the rise of the Republi cans may lead to some local monopolies. Alternative sources of leadership are enhanced by competition.

Pol'al bossism in US cities developed as a pragmatic response to the rise of US urbanism. Its pol'al style developed out of a combination of the new directions of US society as it entered the age of enterprise & of the existing pol'al system which was geared to a Ru, decentralized mode of life. The power structure of bossism was based on a 2-fold relationship maintained by the city machine: the patron-client relation with blocs of voters - esp ethnic minorities - & a brokerage relationship with business. Relations with state gov were directed more toward the maintenance of control over the city than to substantive gov policy. The appropriate pol'al response to an Ur, technological society came with the reorg of nat'l pot by F. D. Roosevelt & the instit of New Deal SE reform. This change affected Ur pot by making it increasingly pluralistic & program-oriented. The new style of Ur pot may be called a cosmopolitan pot, & it strongly affected, if indeed it did not dominate, state pot in most places. The city of New Orleans is a special case of the development of a cosmopolitan style of Ur pot out of an earlier bossism within a state which has not yet assimilated to cosmopolitan pot. AA.

Political bossism in American cities developed as a pragmatic response to the rise of American urbanism. Its political style developed out of a combination of the new direc tions of American society as it entered the age of enterprise and of the existing political system which was geared to a rural, decentralized mode of life. The power structure of bossism was based on a twofold relationship maintained by the city machine: the patron-client relation with blocs of voters—par ticularly ethnic minorities—and a brokerage relationship with business. Relations with state government were directed more toward the maintenance of control over the city than to sub stantive government policy. The appropriate political response to an urban, technological society came with the reorganization of national politics by Franklin Roosevelt and the institution of New Deal economic and social reform. This change affected urban politics by making it increasingly pluralistic and program- oriented. The new style of urban politics may be called a cosmopolitan politics, and it strongly affected, if indeed it did not dominate, state politics in most places. The city of New Orleans is a special case of the development of a cosmopolitan style of urban politics out of an earlier bossism within a state which has not yet assimilated to cosmopolitan politics.

Though it is assumed by some that local gov's are having a constantly decreasing role, the evidence is not conclusive. The manner in which local elective officials exercise leadership will be determining. Changing demands on the traditional functions of local gov & changing complexities of the technological age result in unprecedented responsibility for local elective officals. The leadership role, including planning which encompasses all activity of local gov, demands new, additional personal characteristics to cope with new technology & lifestyles. Modified HA.

Observers of city politics have often stated that political leadership—usually mayoral leadership—is a crucial ingredient in a city's ability to deal with its problems. And studies of successful leaders in urban systems have led to the formulation of a model of the "political entrepreneur" who is adept at accumulating political resources and pyramiding them to gain increased influence. Based on four years of observation of politics in Oakland, California, this study suggests that successful mayoral leadership and resource-pyramiding may be limited by governmental structure, the personality of the mayor, and the nature of the political system.In Oakland, fragmented institutional authority and the council-manager form of government have created obstacles for elected officials. A privately oriented, "nonpolitical" mayor has avoided publicity and has tended to underutilize, rather than pyramid, his resources. Finally, in an amorphous political system characterized by a lack of group and party activity, a mayor is denied both information and support. By examining the ways in which the performance of Oakland's mayor diverges from a model of political leadership, we can identify some of the factors that support or limit such leadership.