¹ Long, Norton E., “Political Science and the City,” in Urban Research and Policy Planning, Schnore, Leo F. and Fagin, Henry, editors (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1967), p. 254Google Scholar.

² Total expenditures by all levels of U.S. government rose from 12.8 per cent of GNP in 1945-1950 to 22.4 per cent in 1966–1970. State and local government spending almost doubled, increasing from 5.9 per cent of GNP in 1946–1950 to 11.5 per cent in 1966–1970. See O'Connor, James, The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martins Press, 1973), p. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Long, Norton, “Political Science and the City”, pp. 253–255Google Scholar.

⁴ Thompson, Wilbur, A Preface to Urban Economics (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965), pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

⁵ See Holden, Matthew, “The Governance of the Metropolis as a Problem in Diplomacy,” Journal of Politics, 26 (August, 1964), 627–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jacob, Philip E. and Toscano, James V., eds., The Integration of Political Communities (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁶ See Tiebout, Charles M., “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” The Journal of Political Economy, 64 (October, 1956), 416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ostrom, Vincent, Tiebout, Charles and Warren, Robert, “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry,” American Political Science Review, 55 (December, 1961), 831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warren, Robert, “A Municipal Services Model of Metropolitan Organization,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 30 (August, 1964), 193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bish, Robert L., The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas (Chicago: Markham, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁷ Long, Norton, “The Local Community as an Ecology of Games,” American Journal of Sociology, 44 (November, 1958)Google Scholar.

⁸ Williams, Oliver, “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization in Metropolitan Areas,” Social Science Quarterly, 48 (December, 1967), 299–310Google Scholar. This idea is developed somewhat further in Williams, Oliver, Metropolitan Political Analysis: A Social Access Approach (New York: The Free Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁹ Lenski, Gerhard, Power and Privilege (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 3Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This is a modified version of the definition of stratification provided by Pease, John, Form, William H. and Rytina, Joan Huber, “Ideological Currents in American Stratification Literature,” The American Sociologist, 5 (May, 1970), 128Google Scholar. It is worth noting that this definition emphasizes the institutional bases of structured inequality among collectivities in contrast to the more “individualistic” opportunity structure approach characterizing much of the current research on social stratification in the United States.

¹¹ Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960), p. 71Google Scholar.

¹² Parkin, Frank, Class Inequality and Political Order (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), p. 25Google Scholar.

¹³ According to Weber we may speak of a class situation when: “(1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commondity or labor markets.” The term class, according to Weber, refers to any group of people in the same class situation. See Weber, Max, “Class, Status and Party” in From Max Weber, Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. Wright, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 182Google Scholar. Within a mature capitalist society there are essentially two class-based sources of inequality. First, inequality is associated with the differential ownership and control of property. Second, within the broad structure of property relations, inequality is associated with the division of labor. Differential possession of services offered in the labor market gives rise to inequality associated with occupational positions.

¹⁴ Following Weber, we view status as a mode of domination predicated upon the distribution of social honor among collectivities distinguished from one another by dress, speech, social conventions, values—in essence, by styles of life. See Weber, Max, “Class, Status and Party,” pp. 186–194Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Norton Long, “Political Science and the City” for a lucid discussion of the interlocking components of the structure of urban inequality and the failure of political science to fully address the issues stemming from “social politics” in the metropolis, pp. 254–256.

¹⁶ Anton, Thomas and Williams, Oliver P., “On Comparing Urban Political Systems: Residential Allocations in London and Stockholm,” Paper prepared for delivery at the 1971 Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September 7–11, p. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Wood, Robert C., “Metropolitan Government: 1975: An Extrapolation of Trends,” American Political Science Review, 52 (March, 1958), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Metropolitan America: Challenge to Federalism (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 4Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Williams, Oliver P., “Life-Style Values and Political Decentralization in Metropolitan Areas,” in Community Politics, A Behavioral Approach, Charles Bonjean, Clark, Terry and Lineberry, Robert, eds. (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 59Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Fusfeld, Daniel R., “The Basic Economics of the Urban and Racial Crisis,” Conference Papers of the Union for Radical Political Economics (December, 1968), pp. 55–66Google Scholar.

²² Birch, David L., The Economic Future of City and Suburb (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1970)Google Scholar.

²³ Fusfeld provides a striking illustration of this process at work in the inner city of Detroit. In the census area surrounding conflict-ridden Twelfth Street, the number of families and unrelated individuals counted by the census fell by about 4,700 between 1950 and 1965. But the number of children of school age increased by 20,900 in the same period. As Fusfeld notes (pp. 55–56): “Even with all the good will in the world, in the absence of vastly increased resources the school authorities could do little but watch the quality of education deteriorate. Unable to provide the funds needed, school officials have presided over the breakdown of the educational system of the central cities. The people who needed the best got the worst.”

²⁴ See Farley, Reynolds and Taeuber, Karl E., “Population Trends and Residential Segregation Since 1960,” Science, 159 (March 1, 1968), 953–956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

²⁵ Fusfeld, Daniel R., “The Basic Economics of the Urban and Racial Crisis,” p. 56Google Scholar. For evidence on these issues for the late 'sixties see Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1968)Google Scholar.

²⁶ There are essentially two threads in the research on city-suburb socioeconomic differences. One line of research grows out of the attempts of human ecologists to test and build upon Burgess's concentric zone theory of urban growth. See Schnore, Leo F., The Urban Scene (New York: The Free Press, 1965)Google Scholar; and Schnore, Leo F., Class and Race in Cities and Suburbs (Chicago: Markham, 1972)Google Scholar. The second line of research focuses more explicitly on intergovernmental relations in the metropolis and grows out of the interest of political scientists and others in the growing fiscal disparities between central cities and suburbs. See Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Metropolitan Social and Economic Disparities: Implications for Intergovernmental Relations in Central Cities and Suburbs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965)Google Scholar; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, vols. 1 and 2 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967)Google Scholar; Campbell, Alan K. and Sacks, Seymour, Metropolitan America: Fiscal Patterns and Governmental Systems (New York: The Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

²⁷ In a series of empirical studies Schnore and his colleagues have found that older, larger, more urbanized areas with high levels of manufacturing activity, high percentages of unsound housing in the central city and low rates of annexation activity tend to have higher status populations in the suburbs relative to the central city. See Leo F. Schnors, The Urban Scene.

²⁸ See Berger, Bennett, Working Class Suburb (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Schnore, Leo F., “Satellites and Suburbs,” Social Forces, 36 (December, 1957), 121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Fiscal Balance in the Federal System, vol. 2, p. 6Google Scholar.

²⁹ “Where the Votes Are: Unions' Political Arm Joins Trek to the Suburbs,” Wall Street Journal (August 29, 1967)Google Scholar.

³⁰ For evidence bearing on this point see Richard Hamilton's insightful discussion of the residential location of blue-collar workers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in his recent book, Class and Politics in the United States (New York: John Wiley, 1972)Google Scholar, chapter three.

³¹ Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, volume 2, p. 6Google Scholar.

³² Riew, John, “Fiscal Disparities in the Milwaukee Area,” in Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, vol. 2, p. 296Google Scholar.

³³ Williams, , “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization”, p. 62Google Scholar.

³⁴ The standard deviation consists of the square root of the average squared deviations from the mean of a frequency distribution. As a measure of inequality it suffers from one basic weakness; it is unusually sensitive to values lying at the extremes of a frequency distribution so that the presence of a few extreme values may have a somewhat disproportionate impact on the size of the standard deviation. See Alker, Howard R. Jr.,, and Russett, Bruce M., “Indices for Comparing Inequality”, in Comparing Nations, Alker, Howard R. Jr., and Russett, Bruce M., eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 356–357Google Scholar.

³⁵ Bollens, John C. and Schmandt, Henry, The Metropolis (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), p. 104Google Scholar.

³⁶ The following sources of data were utilized in constructing the standard deviation: (a) the list of names of all municipalities with populations of 2500 and above in metropolitan areas is provided in the 1962 Census of Governments, Table 14 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office)Google Scholar; (b) the income data for each municipality were coded from the 1960 Census of Population, vol. I: Characteristics of Population, Tables 32–34 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Hill, Richard Child, “Urban Income Inequality (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1973)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Jiobu, Robert and Marshall, Harvey, “Urban Structure and the Differentiation between Blacks and Whites,” American Sociological Review, 36 (August, 1971), 638–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Taeuber, Karl and Taeuber, Alma, Negroes in Cities (Chicago: Aldine Publishers, 1965), pp. 39–41Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Hill, Richard Child, “Residential Segregation in the Metropolis: The Ecology of Class” (unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ In this analysis the South includes metropolitan areas in the following states: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

⁴² Williams, , “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization,” p. 62Google Scholar.

⁴³ See Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958)Google Scholar; and Wirth, Louis, “Urbanism as a Way of Life”, American Journal of Sociology, 44 (July, 1938), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ See U.S. Department of Commerce, The Social and Economic Status of Negroes in the United States, 1970 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 36–37Google Scholar; and Miller, Herman, Rich Man Poor Man (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971), pp. 75–79Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ See Brown, William H. Jr., “Access to Housing: The Role of the Real Estate Industry,” Economic Geography 48 (January, 1972), 66–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Helper, Rose, Racial Policies and Practices of Real Estate Brokers (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969), pp. 277–301Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Thompson, , A Preface to Urban Economics, pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ In essence these are the metropolitan areas in 1960 with five or more municipalities with populations of 2500 and above, outside of New England, with metropolitan populations in excess of one quarter of a million people.

⁴⁸ See Guest, Avery M., “Retesting the Burgess Zonal Hypothesis: The Location of White Collar Workers,” American Journal of Sociology, 76 (May, 1971), 1094–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ In research not reported here I found that as whitecollar groups and sound housing becomes more decentralized—as larger proportions of white-collar groups and sound housing become located at increasing distances from the center city—inequality among municipalities tends to increase.

⁵⁰ Williams, , “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization,” pp. 58–59Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Grodzins, Morton, The Metropolitan Area as a Racial Problem (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1958), pp. 7–9Google Scholar.

⁵² Number of governments and density of governments are quite different properties of the government structure of metropolitan areas. The concept of government fragmentation requires elaboration and refinement to take account of it's several component dimensions.

⁵³ The same pattern of correlations exists for other forms of government in the metropolis. Number of school districts (r = .261), number of special districts (r = .171) and number of governments of all types (r = .228) are all positively associated with inequality among municipalities in the metropolitan community.

⁵⁴ Williams, , “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization,” p. 58Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Long, “Political Science and the City,” pp. 255–256Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Williams, , “Life Style Values and Political Decentralization,” p. 62Google Scholar.