Multidimensional Aspects of Local Political Systems: a Conceptual Approach To Public Policy

THE LAST DECADE of political science research is characterized by the development of empirical theory.' The behavioral mood and its emphasis on observable phenomena was the immediate predecessor of current attempts to develop systematic statements of relationships. The normative philosopher was viewed as a consumer of the past, yet the early social science attempts to "explain" behavior were equally inadequate in their emphasis on raw empiricism. The current renaissance of political theory attempts to build bridges between divergent schools of thought2 within a context of common concern for political action. In the process, conflicts over theory and methods, philosophy and empiricism, have seriously constrained our search for knowledge about local political systems." Research on local politics has progressed from a social engineering to a political analysis approach. Further developments await the meshing of approaches into theoretically meaningful, empirical statements about normative ends (public policy). The reformist approach to local politics emphasized "specialized reporting,"4 and shortly before this decade we were able to categorize the literature on local systems into such classes as history, municipal reforms, law, government structure, politics (e.g., histories of partisan activity), management, and power.5 A category emphasizing empirical-theoretical concern for systematic statements of relationships was impossible. In 1957, Daland described this stage as follows: "The technique is normally to describe existing governmental arrangements, measure them against a set of 'principles' or basic considerations, and prescribe a remedy which involves greater integration in one form or another." 6 The need for comparative studies is now occupying political scientists,7 and there is an increasing concern for theoretical constructs.8 The goal is to maximize

the use of available data within theoretical frameworks upon which there is some agreement.9 9 While normative'° and empirically related theories&dquo; have received some attention, the need for conceptions of phenomena becomes evident. For example, Gutman comments: &dquo;These conceptual orientationsor modelshave the purpose not only of explaining the phenomena or problems about which research is conducted, but perhaps more important, the models constitute the major resources for defining the nature of the phenomena so that scholars and scientists can be relatively certain about what it is they are trying to observe and analyzes The following is a brief attempt to categorize theory building about local political systems. Subsequently, a conceptual scheme is presented which, within broad gauge methodology, attempts to ask questions 13 about the local system in the context of the ends of that system. There has been a common concern for those ends viewed as political action. The political philosopher focuses on the moral quality of action, and the empiricist attempts to explain that action. 14 These ends, actions, and outcomes have led to a renewed emphasis on public policy,' which can serve as a bridge-builder between normative and empirical approaches. An ultimate function of social science knowledge is the explanation of human and societal consequences of alternative goal choices SYSTEMS AND FUNCTIONS A systems theory approach to local politics focuses on predictable interactions between sets of local variables:~7 An interest in ecology represents environmental concerns, studies of groups suggest their role in aggregating and articulating demands and supports, decision-making studies attempt to explain the &dquo;black box,&dquo; and public policy studies focus on outputs. However, there have been few instances where local activity is viewed as a total system of action for theoreti-9 Henry J. Schmandt, "Toward Comparability in Metropolitan Research," Dye, op. cit., p. 7. 10 See Morton White, "The Philosopher and the Metropolis in America," Hirsch, op Cities have been conceptualized as social systems composed of citizens interacting with an environment within a planning framework.~9 System maintenance is attained through coercive, bargaining, legal-bureaucratic and identification mechanisms. Wood suggests that the urban political process is a system of components : social mobilization, need expression, the effectuation of responses to needs, issue resolution (ordering of needs), issue validations (institutions and authority), externalized relations (e.g., suburbs), and oUtpUtS.20 Although case studies usually take a &dquo;qualitative generalizations&dquo; approach and lack unifying frameworks,22 Mowitz and Wright23 suggest a scheme of physical, biological, scientific, institutional, and value variables. Research has also been conducted on local correlates of expenditures treated as policy outputs.2¢ In general, there has been concern for the relationship between the environment of the local system and its resultant impact on behavior .25 Although it is infrequently couched in systems terminology, a body of ecologically related studies treats the relationship between the environment and elements of the system. 26 For example, government structure and demographic characteristics are related, 27 and community structure has been treated spatially in order to build theory from ecological concepts .2&dquo; The idea of a metropolitan system with functionally interdependent economic and social subsystems developed coterminously with the use of social area analysis, a means for measuring total differentiation based on, e.g., social rank, life style, and ethnicity.2s 20 Wood, op. cit. 21  Interest in the outputs of the local system has led to greater concern for the functional aspects of public policy. Oliver Williams suggests functional categories of promoting economic growth, securing life's amenities, maintaining traditional services, and arbitrating conflicts, plus a typology of local governments based upon the unitary and the pluralistic conceptions of the public good.3° System maintenance mechanisms are further defined as communication systems, utility systems, and central facilities.31 Equality, liberty, and welfare have, in effect, been defined as system goals,32 and functional fields include services, politics, and development.33 Local system interrelationships have been compared on the basis of shared functional interests in the context of metropolitan systems theory,34 and the political integration focus suggests an application of Parsonian functional analysis to local systems.35 Harold Kaplan, in his study of metropolitan Toronto,36 employs the system categories of non-political inputs (e.g., suburban exodus) and political inputs 37 (e.g., dissatisfaction with services) and relies upon functional analysis in order to view policy output as a means for maximizing internal support for the system and for coping with the environment.
Social science attempts to apply functional frameworks to local systems are presumably based upon explanatory goals. Nevertheless, its usefulness as a heuristic tool can assist us in viewing the local system comprehensively. For example, Schmandt comments that &dquo;research could attempt to establish empirically the functions of area-wide concern that must be performed to keep the system viable, and then compare by what structures and actions, through what interactions and processes, and with what results these are performed in different S~MSA's.&dquo; 38 GAME THEORY Gaming has been employed to some advantage in the study of international relations, and the methodological analogy enjoys some popularity at the local level. Despite the substantive implications and the local factors which seem to make them Walter C. Kaufman and Scott Greer, "Voting in a Metropolitan Community: An Application of Social Area Analysis," Social Forces, 38  irrelevant (e.g., common economy, fluid boundaries, and interdependent units3s), the analytic technique enables the identification of actors, their interactions, and their spheres of influence. Both Long and Smith have applied game concepts to distinguishing local factors. The former recognizes the existence of fluid system boundaries, interactions within and between agencies and structures, undirected cooperation within the local territorial system, and the functional consequences of various games. For example, &dquo;coordination is largely ecological rather than a matter of conscious rational contriving,&dquo; 4° and the social game &dquo;patterns the culture of the territorial ecology and gives all the players a set of vaguely shared aspirations and common goals.&dquo; 41 The latter employs the concepts of players, rules, payoffs, and strategies and discusses the role of professional, political, and business games in the final allocation of values.42 Although differences between the international and local system have been cited, a strong case has been made for organizational similarity.43 Further developments have treated the local system as a diplomatic system.~4 Nevertheless, a game-oriented approach free of the substantive and semantic difficulties inherent in the international relations model has been appliedthe economic market model. 45 Governmental units are treated as private firms in competitive interactions : &dquo;The market place theory of metropolitan relations treats each unit as a competitor for customers, in effect, it consciously manipulates the market of locational choices by creating preferred locations for particular activities.&dquo;46 Some localities, therefore, play the industrial park game.

COMMUNICATIONS THEORY
As an outgrowth of cybernetics, communications theory as a framework of analysis emphasizes the functional necessity of message transmission in any system. A basic characteristic of the system is the mapping of information flows within it and the mapping of networks which are composed of these channels. Although its application in political science has been confined largely to national and international behavior, information flows on the local level have been used as analytic devices for the study of local integration47 and growth .48 The concept involves a 39 Williams, "A Framework for Metropolitan Political Analysis." self-controlling system maintained by transactions and social communication necessary for integration. Transaction flow analysis is used as an indicator of communication in the context of political cohesion. For example, a study of intergovernmental agreements in a metropolitan region &dquo;point to certain societal attributes as enhancing the stability of some types of functional integration.&dquo; 49 The concept of &dquo;neighboring&dquo; has also been described in communications terms: Zoning is a devise [sic] for maximizing rewarding message exchanges and minimizing unpleasant ones through assuring spacial contiguity of compatible message generating units.&dquo; 5°O THER EMPIRICAL THEORY APPROACHES Several approaches which form part of the body of empirical theory in political science remain to be considered: group theory, role theory, and empirical modifications of democratic theory. The earliest research on local political systems employed a group concept, implicitly or explicitly. This includes a large body of writing about political parties, organizations, and the urban machine.51 Although many works have employed a number of group concepts,52 partisan political structures have been the primary focus of group research.53 Negro politics,54 ethnic groups,55 business,56 and labor57 have also received attention, yet the lack of any 49 James V. Toscano, "Transaction Flow Analysis in Metropolitan Areas: Some Preliminary Explorations," in Jacob and Toscano, eds., The Integration of Political Communities, p. 119. &dquo;theory&dquo; or even reliable data on groups at the local level is evident. Sayre and Polsby comment that &dquo;political scientists are just beginning to learn their precise identity, their internal dynamics and government, their resources and incentives, their individual strategies, and their capacities in building and rebuilding alliances. Their political roles are still more a matter of legend than knowledge.&dquo; '8 Role analysis based upon sets of expectations in the local community has been utilized in the study of leadership patterns.59 This frequently involves attempts to identify the ideological sets of leaders, their perception of responsibilities and authority, and their expectations with respect to general patterns of behavior. For example, Kammerer develops a typology of role behavior on the basis of decision control using adaptive and innovative categories. It is concluded that a city manager's role diversity is dependent upon the institutional-structural arrangements of government as well as political style in the community.60 The roots of empirical theory in political science are firmly implanted in an early discrepancy between empirical findings and normative democratic theory. Such discrepancies became evident in the voting studies literature which, for the most part, is undeveloped at the local level. The exception is a body of survey research conducted in local systems described later in a political culture dimension. Although community power studies focus narrowly on decision-makers and lack a unified means for empirical theory building, they can be treated as a local systems attempt to modify normative assumptions. Irrespective of methodological controversies, they have focused on the nature of the American ethic of grass roots democracyan ethic which emphasizes participation, information, personal interaction, closeness to power, communal awareness of problems and issues, and a belief that the small community breeds democracy. However, power studies of both the elitist and pluralist schools cast serious doubts on normative assumptions: elections are no longer lively centers of public interest; issues are blurred; there is general apathy and repugnance to politics; 61 the individual lacks a voice in policy making and leaders are reluctant to open doors to participation ;62 politics is merely Gray and David Greenstone, "Organized Labor in City Politics,'' in Edward C. Banfield, ed., Urban Government ( personality oriented ;63 politics is not salient for the individual ; 64 there is no large mass of citizens whose policy views prevail; 65 and private decisions (e.g., hospital fund) attract more participation than public decisions (e.g., housing authority) .66 It has been suggested that underlying assumptions need modification, and various prescriptions based upon empirical observations have been offered to achieve that modification. ,17 A remaining question for consideration is the extent to which normative and empirical concepts can be combined to assist us in making generalizations about local systems with a focus on the action consequences of that system -public policy.

THE LOCAL POLITICAL SYSTEM AS A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPT
The isolation of analysis dimensions is a crucial step in the process of theorybuilding. The argument over the extent to which the dimensions discussed below are classificatory schemes, typologies, conceptual frameworks or models remains to be resolved (or non-resolved) by the philosophers of social science. Conceptualization involves classification, 68 and when conceptualizations and classifications are developed into models of the perceived world, theories begin to emerge.119 Theory is symbolic construction,7° and it involves systematic statements of relationships between observable phenomena .71 Problems of recognition, definition, and classification abound in the social scienceS,72 yet even our meager attempts are necessary for theory and generalization. Although the semantics of the philosophy of science prevent a rich understanding of the meaning of theory, its instrumental nature has been recognized. Theory provides criteria of relevance,73 it guides the search for data,74 and when viewed instrumentally, it is a framework which gives meaning to the real world. 75 Although the study of local political systems has been criticized for weak linkages between the efforts of empirical research, on the one hand, and model building, on the other,76 it has been particularly weak in the latter. The theoretically oriented literature discussed earlier is an exception and not the rule. This paper is not a research report; however, it attempts to bring empirical research and model building together. The ultimate goal must represent a confluence of theoretical concern for the relationships between variables and taxonomical concern 77 for establishing categories for data collection. A dimensional approach can serve as a guide to the way in which events and processes are explained within classificatory schemes. The approach developed below attempts to be sufficiently overarching so as to bring together a comprehensive body of systematic statements that will lead to generalizations about local systems.
It has been suggested that political science shift its research focus in local political systems toward new objectives of analysis and new levels of analysis.~8 The suggested new objectives have focused on the primary functional consequence of local politicspublic policy. The new levels must include the individual, the group, and the total system. Goal (policy) oriented comparative research is the end in mind. Despite difficulties in distinguishing policy theory from normative theory and futuristic theory, it is necessary that policy categories be developed and related to other phenomena if we are to proceed with scientific inquiry.79 The detailed studies about particular structures, particular issues, and particular participants have not attempted to explain the totality of the policy-making system and its subsystems. The framework suggested here aims at bringing together the comprehensive functions of power contesting and policy making and theoretical concerns, which are both normative and empirical, to enable the parsimonious reduction of masses of data in order to base theory on observable phenomena. _

BOUNDARY PERMEABILITY OF POLICY SUBSYSTEMS AND GROUPS
The first dimension is an involvement dimension 80 which yields a typology of local policy subsystems based upon empirical criteria and referred to normatively as democratic, pluralist, elitist, and corporatist. The categories are then conceptualized in N-dimensional space in the context of other selected dimensions. That is, types of policy are placed along other dimensions described later. Involvement deals with the character of policy subsystem boundaries and the nature of group boundaries, both of which can be either permeable or impermeable. A permeable policy boundary involves intergroup activity and an impermeable boundary, intragroup activity. A permeable group boundary is characterized by spontaneous involvement and an impermeable group boundary by manipulated involvement. The result is a four-fold typology of policy subsystems (Figure 1 ) . Let us call a policy subsystem which has permeable boundaries and permeable group boundaries democratic. This system is characterized by spontaneous involvement and intergroup activity. It includes the concepts of day-to-day involvement in the affairs of government, spontaneity, open access to all, and popular involvement on issues. Open groups of individuals make proposals, and through the process of political communication they are articulated to decision-makers, the issues are defined, and policy results. It assumes that the individual realizes his own being by interacting with other unique beings when political action is spontaneous. Involvement is based upon interest (versus manipulation) and groups whose usual sphere of interest is outside a particular policy area (or issue area) coalesce on one policy outcome. For example, individuals comprising the local P.T.A. move from the education policy subsystem into the health policy subsystem to interact (intergroup) with individuals comprising the local branch of the American Dental Association in order to effectuate fluoridation policy. Figure 1 depicts this kind of involvement where individuals are numerous data points in space and where both group and policy boundaries are permeable.
A pluralist type of policy subsystem emphasizes combinations and social factors : one's desires are fulfilled in social groups representing a multiplicity of private interests. The individual tends to be self-oriented, lacking the qualities of rationality, issue orientation, knowledgeability, and the psychological capacity to become involved. Although this pluralistic picture is familiar, it is characterized here by policy subsystem boundaries which are impermeable and group boundaries which are permeable. Groups are organized within one policy area and have difficulty transcending the subsystem boundaries; therefore, it is characterized by intragroup involvement. Nevertheless, group boundaries are sufficiently permeable to enable spontaneous and voluntary involvement. Leaders and followers emerge, there is a multiplicity of groups; and there are different groups, different salient issues, and different leaders. Local influentials tend to be specialized (a reflection of the larger society) in their participation in decisions and citizen involvement is structured through organized interest groups. The former frequently fall into two types of intragroups: local agencies and local committees, whereas the interest groups are clienteles. The boundary of each group is permeable, however, the impermeable policy subsystem boundaries characterize the activity as intragroup, i.e., within one policy area. Figure 1 depicts the nature of these boundaries and the type of involvement. An example would be interaction between a local education &dquo;agency&dquo; and/or committee with local education clientele. However, this action is intragroup because it occurs within one policy subsystem where specialized groups make one specific type of policy.
If the policy subsystem is closed to spontaneous involvement and if there is group involvement outside one policy area, it is characterized as elitist. There is a filtering toward leadership and the ruled are bound by social and institutional constraints, e.g., the group boundaries are impermeable and manipulated. Many citizens are not effectively involved and leadership interaction is based on a probability level considerably above chance. However, the policy subsystem boun-daries are sufficiently permeable to enable intergroup activity. There is cooptation of influentials' support, but in different areas. The support of interests is attained through manipulation; however, groups outside one policy area are involved in making one policy decision. It is competitive 8'-in that leaders engaged in one decision are likely to be engaged in other decision areas at different points in time. This quadrant of Figure 1 depicts fewer data points than the previous quadrants based on spontaneous involvement -it represents a tendency toward leadership, and the impermeable group boundaries represent manipulated involvement. The permeable policy boundaries indicate that groups transcend from one issue area to another in order to coalesce on one decision (leaders have generalized interests). For example, labor leaders become involved in educational policymaking.
When group boundaries are impermeable (support attained through manipulation) and when the policy subsystem boundaries are so impermeable as to prevent intergroup activity, the policy subsystem is classified as corporatist. Elitist leadership tendencies prevail and group involvement occurs within one policy area. There is less competition between groups (leaders) and interaction is premeditative. Cooptation of support occurs within a singular policy structure. Activity occurs within a closed triad of, e.g., agency, committee, and clientele leaders. Clientele groups become influential in policy.-making, and there is a subsequent allocation of public authority to private groups.82 In doing so, the groups loose their separateness. Although their external boundaries are impermeable, the boundaries between the groups vanish through cooptation.83 This type of policy subsystem is characterized by a committed elite, a structurally constrained organization, and a malleable public.84 A local policy arena characteristic of impermeable boundaries may be evidenced in types of involvement in land use policy, e.g., between decisionmaking leaders, planning and zoning commissioners, and real estate clienteles.

SUBSTANTIVE POLICY TYPOLOGIES
Whereas the above scheme categorizes policy subsystems on the basis of boundary characteristics of those subsystems, there have been attempts to categorize policy functionally. Such attempts are not irrelevantthe involvement dimension can be subsumed under them. Further developments should enable us to answer the following question: What kinds of policy (functionally) are associated with particular patterns of involvement (based on group and subsystem boundaries) such as pluralism or corporatism?$5 Two recent classification attempts indicate 81 Ibid., pp how this may be accomplished theoretically. Oliver Williams describes system maintenance mechanisms as communications subsystems (e.g., telephone, transportation), utility systems (e.g., water, waste), and central facilities (e.g., hospital, library) .86 Municipal functions are classified into life style policies and system maintenance, and policies are arrayed along this continuum. For example, land use regulation and education are most expressive of life styles, and recreation, police, and libraries less so. Health and welfare are at midpoint, with communications, utilities, and transportation on the system maintenance end of the continuum. Other existing typologies can be used in this context: 117 style and position iSSUeS,118 material and symbolic,89 strategic and structural; 90 and distributive, regulatory, and redistributive.91 Froman suggests that we view policies as either areal, affecting the total population with a single action (e.g., fluoridation, education) or segmental, affecting small proportions and different people at different times (e.g., urban renewal) .92 From these we may begin to inquire about patterns of relationships useful in theory construction. For example: Are areal policies most likely to be characterized by spontaneous involvement? What boundary attributes (involvement dimension) are associated with distributive versus regulatory policies? Are symbolic satisfactions more prevalent in democratic and pluralist policy subsystems ? a What are the characteristics of policy subsystems when the policies are substantively and functionally areal, and at the same time stylistic, symbolic, structural, and distributive? a A fundamental question remains: What are the correlates of the four-fold typology of boundary permeability? The above questions focus on the substantive policy correlates, but what are the environmental correlates?
The dimension discussed above leads to a typology of policy subsystems, but in turn, an encompassing view of the local policy system necessitates the alignment of subsystems along several dimensions. These dimensions can be conceptualized in N-dimensional space with particular types of policy subsystems intersecting other dimensions at different points or levels. These dimensions (Figure 2) are categorized in four groups: structural aspects of the community and the political system, leadership and decision characteristics, development dimensions, and the underlying political culture. It is suggested that the tools of modern social science are sophisticated enough to enable some degree of measurement along the dimensions. In fact, aspects of several dimensions have been operationalized in other contexts. The present goal is to refine concepts and categories in an exploratory fashion.  Several efforts toward agenda-making in the study of local political systems suggest that we need data and theory on the relationship between structural characteristics and policy outcomes.~3 Advances on the state level have developed rapidly 94 because, as Dye contends, &dquo;distinctive types of political systems can be more easily identified and the conditions associated with model types can be 93 Ibid., and Schmandt, op. cit. described.&dquo; 95 There have also been attempts to relate these structural factors with independent demographic variables, 96 as well as attempts to relate substantive policies to underlying demographic and political factors at the local level.97 Froman has suggested that &dquo;policy theory&dquo; is &dquo;an effort to find out what particular things are associated with what particular policies for the purpose of developing theoretically interesting propositions about differences in public policies and variables which are related to these differences.&dquo; 9$ Policy theory factors are related to the above scheme to the extent that they are independent variables for the substantive types of policy superimposed on the typology of policy subsystems based on involvement and boundary characteristics. Of immediate concern are the particular structural dimensions in the community and political system. Several dimensions are suggested, along which the typology of policy subsystems can be arrayed. Borrowing from Froman99 and Williams,~oo a homogeneity-heterogeneity dimension can be identified. This represents a continuum of community characteristics ranging from low social and economic diversity to high diversity, composed of specialization dimensions involving status, wealth, religion, and land use specialization.101 Further research efforts may suggest that corporatist and elitist policy subsystems are located toward the homogeneous end of the scale. Other dimensions include partisanship factors, forms of government, institutionalized structure, centralization of structure, and horizontal and vertical cooperation between structures. As partisan rather than nonpartisan structures may lead to certain types of substantive policy (e.g., fluoridation 102) , they may also be related to types of policy subsystems (elitist?). As strong mayor (versus weak mayor) forms of government tend to encourage federal money but less participation by the poor/03 they may also be associated with types of involvement. We know little about the impact of centralization or decentralization at the local level except what has been gleaned from reformist-oriented political scientists. Schmandt has commented that &dquo;we know little about the possible relationship of this variable to policy and to the goal achievements of metropolitan areas as a whole and of their subparts.&dquo; 1M He also suggests means by which the concept can be operationalized.
To what extent will the rhetoric of decentralization be supported when we array the policy subsystem typology along the centralization-decentralization dimension?
An institutionalized-noninstitutionalized structural dimension may suggest that structures developed over time around an issue tend to encourage corporatism and pluralism, whereas diffuse structures, responding to new demands, may encourage elitist and democratic policy subsystems. Further attempts may incorporate other electoral structures and such factors as size of district and type of ballot A final set of structural dimensions are related to governmental boundaries and intergovernmental cooperation. Horizontal communication suggests an intermunicipal cooperation-conflict continuum,1°6 and a vertical dimension delineates conflict between the locality and the state or federal government,1-07 This suggests that local system boundaries range from permeable to impermeable in relationship to structures at the same level and at higher levels. Just as intermunicipal cooperation has been related to small social and economic distances between structures,&dquo;08 local structural permeability may be associated with pluralistic policy subsystems. Vertical impermeability, such as resistance to demands to integrate schools,1°9 may indicate the elitist typology.

LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS
A partial function of leadership roles is included in the four-fold typology. However, there are other aspects of leadership which are important for policy subsystems aside from the role of leadership in making group boundaries impermeable. It is leadership that plays a crucial role in determining accessibility to policy-making and it is leadership which is held accountable. Both an accessibility to policy-making dimension and a leadership accountability dimension may locate elitist and corporatist subsystems along the low end of these dimensions.
Further dimensions, those of leadership structure, have been developed by Bonjean and Olson.1lo In the context of the typology developed here, there are two dimensions which represent the way in which community power studies are useful research tools. The first represents a legitimacy dimension between situations where no decision-makers occupy formal structural positions and where all decision-makers occupy governmental positions. Elitist and corporatist forms of policy involvement are most likely to be located at the non-positional end of the continuum. The second is a scope of influence dimension between general and specialized influence, i.e., leadership influence is extensive or it relates only to formal position. The specialized end is most similar to intragroup involvement (e.g., corporatism). The accessibility and accountability dimensions can be seen as functions of a visibility continuum which represents a range between points where decisions and decision-makers are not visible to the community at large (covert) and where all decisions and decision makers are visible (overt). It is hypothesized that high visibility, high accessibility, and high accountability are positively related to permeable group boundaries (democratic, pluralist) . 111 The distribution of leadership values is a dimension which has remained relatively undeveloped in research and theory. Empirically, we have begun to look at the &dquo;policy maps&dquo; of leaders~~2 and theoretically we can identify a distribution of leadership values between a consensus on values and a divergence on values.113 Is a value consensus coterminous with a cooptative-corporatist policy subsystem?

DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS
The concept of policy development has appeared recently, referring to &dquo;a set of policy outcomes that follow each other sequentially through time.&dquo; 114 A dimension of policy development can be identified from the theory and research of Eulau and Eyestone. The dimension is based upon two situations: where annual outcomes are similar and occur along a continuum from retarded to advanced and where policies are sequential but dissimilar, they range from an emergent to a maturing phase. The dimension therefore includes five points: retarded, emergent, transitional, maturing, and advanced, based upon operational measures of amenities and planning expenditures. This may be a means by which we begin to ask questions about the relationship between group and policy subsystem boundaries on the one hand, and the sequential and similar nature of certain policy outcomes on the other. We may indeed find that the character of group boundaries (e.g., impermeable) is more important for policy development than the character of policy subsystem boundaries, e.g., sequential and similar policy outcomes may necessitate elitist or corporatist involvement.
Related to the above consideration is a question about what levels each of the policy &dquo;stages&dquo; or &dquo;phases&dquo; are in. That is, is policy on a formative level or has it attained the conflict-cooperation level? This dimension may suggest that formative levels are aligned closely with democratic or pluralist types of involvement. Other development dimensions would locate the local system in terms of economic development and social development. 115 S These can be based on such measures as private investment and familism. A cultural development dimension which characterizes the nature of subcultural norms ranges from high prescription and proscription to low prescription and proscription. We may find pluralist and democratic types of involvement in areas where subcultural norms are flexible.
The question of cultural norms reminds us that research on local political systems has tended to avoid the individual and the political culture.

DIMENSIONS IN THE POLITICAL CULTURE
Group oriented phenomena such as party organization, pressure groups, and power structures have created a void about the relationship between the individual and the system.&dquo;&dquo; The concept of political culture attempts to fill this theory and research gap. Although it has remained undeveloped at the local level,&dquo;7 the concept has been given meaning in other contexts x1g It focuses on the distribution of attitudes toward the local system and the role of the individual in that system.&dquo;9 The paucity of survey research on this level has been cited/20 yet Wilson comments that &dquo;the city is the best place to explore the kinds of attachments citizens have to the politytheir sense of obligation or duty, their conception of the public interest, and the extent to which (or the circumstances in which) their preferences in community programs are the product of rational self-interest or of learned cultural norms.&dquo; 121 Attitudinal impact upon policy has remained undeveloped in theory and in research; nevertheless, the impact is crucial. For example, an assumed normative value on the part of voters, i.e., their rational response to efficiency and economy arguments, prevented public support for the policy subsystem involving questions of reorganization. 122 Survey studies have been conducted on reorganization and referenda,123 yet we know little beyond these issues. Answers to traditional questions, such as the relationship between structural fragmentation and life styles, 124 are impossible without value information.
Political culture dimensions are described in two categories: the substantive aspects of attitudes toward the local system and the patterns of attitudinal expression. Attitudes toward objects in the local system can have substantive meaning along several dimensions: ( 1 ) Perception of efficacious involvementalong the continuum from high to low efficacy, we could expect despair on the part of citizens confronted by impermeable group boundaries.
(2) The salience of politicsthe extent to which &dquo;politics&dquo; is important to citizens should reflect boundary characteristics.
(3) Alienationthe extent to which locals feel normless, meaningless, powerless, and estranged should be related to types of policy subsystems at one point in time. 125 (4) Tolerance for non-conformity 126 -traditional research suggests that tolerance for non-conformity will be intersected at the high end by the typology dimension representing democratic policy subsystems. (5) Participantsubject orientations'~27 -attitudes toward authority ranging from submissive to nonsubmissive may characterize different substantive policy areas as well as those delineated by boundary attributes. (6) Awareness of public needs and problems it may be that low awareness is most characteristic of corporatist systems. Wood suggests hypothetically that &dquo;the great bulk of the urban population neither is conscious of its public needs nor anticipates that urban governments will fulfill them.&dquo; 128 ( 7 ) Intensity of opposition or supportthe most rigid (versus adap-tive) policy opposition and support may coalesce on policy subsystems which are corporatist or elitist.
The second category of political culture dimensions relates to the patterns of attitudinal expression and the structural characteristics of them. ( 1 ) Life style rigidityit has been hypothesized that patterns of government tend to protect life style values and that flexible (versus rigid) attitude structures encourage integration and cooperation.12' To a certain extent this dimension involves an ideology factor or what may be called &dquo;political style.&dquo; 130 (2) The nature of ideological commitmentas subcultures can be compared in terms of the extent to which they incorporate ideology,1.31 so may they be compared as to the consensual or dissensual nature of this ideology. A rigid life style and a consensual commitment to these values may be the ideal of corporatism. (3) Alignment of forcesthe forces involved in policy dimensions may be polarized or fragmented. (4) Type of conflictconflict over policy may be pervasive and expanding (socialized) or confined (privatized) 132 the latter being intersected by elitist and corporatist involves ment. (5) Patterns of cleavage -when dissensus exists on public policy, are the attitudinal alignments congruent or noncongruent?L33 The rhetoric of political science suggests that the latter are associated with pluralistic involvement. (6) The nature of cultural authority patternsalthough the factors of congruent or noncongruent authority patterns have been related to stability,134 they may also have an impact on the nature of group and policy subsystem boundaries.
The above scheme suggests a way of viewing the local political system comprehensively, with the outcomes of that system in mind. The sets of variables for consideration include the characteristics of group and policy subsystem boundaries, the functional-substantive aspects of public policy, the structural attributes of the community, the role and accessibility of leadership, the nature of policy development, and aspects of the political culture. A broad research perspective suggests that we investigate, e.g., the relationship between policy subsystems and the total system, the prevalence of public and private decisions; bases of support independent of the local system; the extent to which the system is open or closed, innovative or caretaker, competitive or noncompetitive; intercommunity differences in policy making, the attitudinal components of the political culture; and the linkages between local policy subsystems and other levels of decision-making.
Although the operationalization of measures is a focus for further research, categories of empirical theory are useful in the formative stages. A community power focus can assist in gathering leadership information and determining the degree to which group boundaries are closed. Gaming and coalition formation enable statements of the extent to which groups or leaders make use of other groups and leaders. The way in which leaders and the public perceive each other's role and its effect on subsystem boundaries is a consideration for role analysis. Group theory can provide a framework for determining which mutual group characteristics lead to impermeable group boundaries. Communications theory assists in the conceptualization and measurement of transactions between groups and between policy subsystems. A functional approach suggests that such dimensions as accessibility and accountability may vary in direction between policy areas performing different functions. Finally, systems theory and political culture can assist in viewing the nature of the underlying culture and the character of policy as it reflects the demands and supports from that culture. These empirical approaches, accompanied by data gathering within the categories of conceptual frameworks, will enable theory building and statements of systematic relationships at the local level.