Table Of ContentREPRESENTATION AND URBAN COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATION AND
URBAN COMMUNITY
Andrew D. Glassberg
To my parents
©Andrew D. Glassberg 1981
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition 1981 978-0-333-28878-8
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without permission
First published Ig8I by
THE ~IAC:\IILLAN PRESS LTD
London and Basingstoke
Companies and representatives
throughout the world
ISBN 978-1-349-05463-3 ISBN 978-1-349-05461-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-05461-9
Photoset in Great Britain by
ROWLAND PHOTOTYPESETTING L TO
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Contents
Page
List of Tables
Vll
Acknowledgements
\'111
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNITY REPRESEN-
TATION 5
A A Theoretical Problem-The Distinctiveness
of Community Representation 6
B Council Styles and Council Policies-The
"Dependent Variables" 13
C Borough Background, Leadership Preferences,
Rank-and-File Councillor Attitudes-The
"Independent" Variables 14
D Evaluation 17
2 THE THREE BOROUGHS 26
A The Appearance of the Boroughs 27
B The People of the Boroughs 39
C Conclusion 46
3 BOROUGH LEADERSHIP: EVOLUTIONS OF
STYLE 48
A Changes in the Boroughs 50
B Changes in the Leaders 58
C Summary 77
Contents
VI
4 RANK-AND-FILE COUNCILLORS: PATTERNS
OF DISTINCTIVENESS 79
A The Classic Parochial 85
B Ideology of Localism Councillors 95
C The Traditional Rank-and-File I05
D Traditional Aspirants 109
E Conclusion 3
I I
5 WHAT THE COUNCILS DO: STYLES AND
POLICIES I I6
A Council Styles 7
I I
B The Linkage to Policy 55
I
C Conclusion 75
I
6 IMPLICATIONS 78
I
A The "Urban" Component 79
I
B Lessons for Urban America 8
I I
C A Final Word I90
Appendix I Councillor Interview Schedule 193
Appendix 2 London Maps and Map Codes I99
Notes 205
Bibliography 22I
Index 229
List of Tables
4· 1 Borough councillor classification schema 8o
4.2 Councillor type by party 82
4·3 Councillor type by borough 83
4·4 Councillor type by ward type 83
4·5 Councillor type by councillor social class 84
4.6 Ideology of localism councillors by party and
borough 95
Acknowledgements
This study relies heavily on interview data with members of
three London Borough Councils-Bromley, Islington, and
Tower Hamlets councils. Their willingness to participate in this
effort, and give freely of their time and hospitality, is what made
this study possible. Their assistance was fundamental. In
addition, I must make special mention of the leaders of the three
Borough councils I have studied in this research. They also gave
freely of their time, and provided me with access to their
colleagues.
In addition to the elected members, officials of the three
boroughs provided many helpful insights. I should make special
mention of the library staffs of the Bromley Borough Library,
the Islington Borough Library, the Tower Hamlets Borough
Library, and the Greater London Council libraries at County
Hall.
This study is a revised version of a Ph.D. dissertation in
political science prepared for Yale University. My advisers at
Yale, Professors Stanley Greenberg, David Mayhew, and
Douglas Yates, provided encouragement to initiate, continue,
and now to complete this work. My debt to them is considerable.
My colleagues in the political science departments at Lehman
College, City University of New York and at the University of
Missouri-St Louis have provided continuing intellectual and
emotional support for this work. They too receive my gratitude.
Friends and colleagues in London, from academia and local
government, provided me with insights into the workings of
London politics and society without which this study would be
far poorer.
Acknowledgements IX
But despite the range of assistance I have had in completing
this work, I remain responsible for all interpretations (and
errors of interpretation) that are presented here.
Introduction
This is a study of urban politics and urban politicians at the
"neighbourhood" level. It is set in three London Boroughs, and
is based on interviews with actors in these three boroughs' local
political systems, and examination of published material about
the three boroughs' current political life and political history.
My interest in examining the functioning of units of govern
ment such as these grew out of policy arguments in the United
States, debating the utility of "neighbourhood governments" in
large metropolitan centres.
One of the fundamental problems in examining neighbour
hood government in the US is its experimental quality. Because
of this, all organizations which can be studied are primarily
concerned, almost by definition, with institutional survival. Any
assessment of the long-term impact of this governmental form,
therefore, needs to look at political environments where the form
has become a regularized feature of the political landscape.
London provides an opportunity for such an examination, which
American cities do not. 1
In concluding his study of "neighborhood democracy in the
United States", Douglas Yates suggests that one of the effects of
the experiments he examines is "that it increases pluralism in
urban democracy. In promoting 'local solutions' to neighbor
hood problems, decentralization permits the articulation of
more diverse preferences and interests and thus enhances local
self-determination. "2 This study is an effort to examine this type
of proposition in an explicitly non-experimental setting. London
provides a locale where this is possible. I shall return at the
conclusion to a discussion of what the evidence from London can
