Bringing the Bosses Back in: The Irish Political Machines and Urban Policy Making
Recently historians have ventured a multifaceted critique of boss rule, suggesting that the very existence of the political machine has been exaggerated, that machines did not materially affect patterns of political mobilization, had only a limited role in the making of public policy, and (contrary to pluralist theory) did little to improve the welfare of the ethnic working class. For these revisionists the boss was really a bit player in the era when he allegedly held center stage. As Terrence McDonald argued the case in the last installment of this annual, “ethnicity, patronage, and the machine” represent unduly narrow ways of viewing urban political development. According to Jon Teaford and David Thelan, urban political history needs to replace the party boss and his ethnic clientele with interest groups—business, labor, taxpayers, and consumers of municipal services—and their impact on local policies concerning economic development, taxation, and service delivery. In their view, the study of public policy making must take precedence over the allocation of party patronage.
Review: The Fragmented State: The Political Geography of Power, Power and Crisis in the City: Corporations, Unions and Urban Policy, Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in Europe and America, across the Border: Rural Development in Mexico and Recent Migration to the United States, US Immigration and Refugee Policy: Global and Domestic Issues, Butterworths European Series. Political Forces in Spain, Greece and Portugal, La Décentralisation Urbaine en Suisse, European Regional Incentives: 1982. A Survey in Regional Incentives in the Countries of the European Community. Portugal, Spain and Sweden, the European Community Transport Policy: Towards a Common Transport Policy, Financing the 1980 Election
