Abstract
A middle-range conceptualization of power is developed, focusing principally on the local community. 15 dimensions of indirect influence, value distribution among actors, scope & importance of issue areas, visibility of power situations, bases of power, efficiency of converting bases of power into influence, the 0-sum problem & the allocation of resources, stratification of power bases & of influence. As most formulations of the concept tend to neglect one or more of these dimensions, they may be used as a checklist of problems that analysts of power-studying communities, org's, small groups, or other soc systems-should deal with. COMMENT BY A SOCIOLO- GIST, by Richard L. Simpson (U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) notes that 4 basic questions about power are: (1) What programs, in whose interest, does gov undertake? (2) Who decides this? (3) Through what decision processes? (4) What causes variations in (1), (2), & (3)? Of the 15 dimensions of community power which Clark identifies, most concern questions (2) & (3). More study of questions (1) & (4) is needed. Suggestions toward this end are offered. COMMENT BY A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, by David M. Olson (U of Georgia, Athens) states that the generic concept of power structure is applicable to a wide range of phenomena, at both local & nat'l levels, & incorporates many specific theories, methods, & types of data. Several relatively neglected questions in the study of community leadership include (a) external linkages, (b) the nondecision, (c) stage of issue development, (d) measurement of the latent issue, & (e) issue selection. To explore these & other questions, the major need is for comparative res. If comparative data-even if only statistical & reputational-are available, categories of communities may be developed within which specific cities may be selected for intensive case studies. AA.