From the 1830s through the first two decades of the twentieth century, urban government in America witnessed a steady evolution of "machine politics" or what James MacGregor Burns refers to as "transactional politics" (Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Keller, 1992; Harrigan, 1993). Simply put, transactional politics meant "if you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours." With respect to urban economic development, machine politics meant economic elites were able to control local politicians and administrators, and use urban development for their own benefit. Their capacity for political control extended from their wealth, which provided the bread and butter, or "spoils" if you will, of transactional politics.
The early 1920s witnessed a revolution, of sorts, in urban politics. Most texts refer to this as the "reform" movement. However, few texts distinguish the structural from the social reformers, a distinction I find quite useful. The structural reform agenda included two basic items: (a) breaking the control of the party bosses over the electoral process; and, (b) restructuring and administering city government more efficiently and more honestly (Harrigan, 1993: 103).
Historian Samuel P. Hays (1964) concludes that the major proponents of structural reform came from the cities top business leaders and its upper-class elite. According to Hays, the structural reform movement "constituted an attempt by upper-class, advanced professional, and large business groups to take formal political power from the previously dominant lower- and middle-class elements so that they might advance their own conception of desirable public policy."
At base, the structural reformers attempted to change the "rules of the game" by divorcing municipal government from the spoils system. Development contracts, for instance, which had been let on the basis of reciprocity, were subsequently let on the basis of credentials, merit and/ or ability. These and other presumably "neutral" criteria dominated all others since they reflected the nations sweeping infatuation with Taylorism and capitalism. For these reformers, merit was indicative of "science" which was as removed from "dirty politics" as one could get. Their reforms included direct primaries, at-large elections, non-partisan elections, open primaries, short ballots, proportional representation, initiative, referendum, as well as the council-manager and commission forms of government.
Structural reforms provided local government an additional benefit being able to operate at considerably less expense. But, rather than channelling their savings into equity-enhancing or redistributive types of policies, structural reformers were more inclined to cut payrolls, renege on city contracts, and cut back on school expenditures. They were so captured by the proverbial "three Es of business" (i.e., economy, efficiency and effectiveness), that they became callous to the politics of distributing the costs of government.
Author: Steven A. Maclin, Ph. D.
About the Author: Dr. Maclin has been a university professor of public administration and policy since 1994. Recently, from 1998 - 2004, he lived and worked with American military troops in Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea. He has previously edited and published dozens of articles in professional administrative journals and recently, in his ‘spare time,’ he’s been building websites for distributing materials to his graduate students. Hes now stateside, teaching graduate students online, writing articles and developing a small online business (see
http://buyfromart.com); he can be reached at info@buyfromart.com.