¹ Dahl, Robert A., “The City in the Future of Democracy,” American Political Science Review, 61 (12, 1967), 953–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Alford, R. R. and Lee, E. C., “Voting Turnout in American Cities,” American Political Science Review, 62 (09., 1968), 796–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nie, Norman H., Powell, G. B. and Prewitt, Kenneth, “Social Structure and Political Participation: Developmental Relationships, Part I,” American Political Science Review, 63 (06, 1969). 361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ As I have argued elsewhere, the size of population aggregated at a place of settlement is the most fundamental and least confounded definitional criterion available. See Fischer, Claude S., “‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’: A Review and an Agenda,” Sociological Methods and Research, 1 (11., 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Urban Experience (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁴ Deutsch, Karl, “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political Science Review, 55 (09., 1961), 493–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sjoberg, G., “The Rural-Urban Dimension in Preindustrial, Transitional and Industrial Societies,” in The Handbook of Modern Sociol-ogv, ed. Faris, R. E. L. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964)Google Scholar; Fischer, Claude S., “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism,” American Journal of Sociology, 80 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, forthcoming.

⁵ Wirth, L., “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology, 44 (1938), 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Fischer, “‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’: A Review and an Agenda.”

⁶ Dahl, , “The City in the Future of Democracy,” p. 957Google Scholar.

⁷ The importance of distinguishing urbanism from size of polity is evident in the current controversy over decentralization of city governments. The metropolitan areas would remain; the cities would shrink.

⁸ Stein, M. R., The Eclipse of Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁹ Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H. discuss this in depth, in Participation in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), chapter 13Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally. 1965)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Campbell, Anguset al., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar; Tarrow, Sidney, “Political Involvement in Rural France,” American Political Science Review, 65 (06, 1971), 341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ward, Robert E., “Urban-Rural Differences and the Process of Political Modernization in Japan: A Case Study,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 9 (10., 1960), 135–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kyoguku, J. and Ike, N., “Urban-Rural Differences in Voting Behavior in Post-War Japan,” Economic Development and Cultural Changet 9 (10., 1960), 167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polls (Autumn, 1967); Inkeles, A., “Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries,” American Political Science Review, 63 (12, 1969), 1120–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nie, et al., “Social Structure and Political Participation: Developmental Relationships, Part I,” pp. 361–378Google Scholar; Muller, Edward N., “Cross-National Dimensions of Political Competence,” American Political Science Review, 64 (09., 1970), 792–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finifter, Ada W., “Dimensions of Political Alienation,” American Political Science Reviewt 64 (06, 1970), 389–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palma, Giuseppe Di, Apathy and Participation: Mass Politics in Western Societies (New York: Free Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Cornelius, Wayne A. Jr., “Urbanization as an Agent in Latin American Political Instability,” American Political Science Review, 63 (09., 1969), 833–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burstein, Paul, “Social Structure and Political Participation in Five Countries,” American Journal of Sociology, 77 (05, 1972), 1087–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Palma, Di, Apathy and Participation, p. 133, n. 6Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Finifter, , “Dimensions of Political Alienation,” pp. 389–410Google Scholar; Burstein, , “Social Structure and Political Participation in Five Countries,” pp. 1087–1111Google Scholar; Nie, et al., “Social Structure,” pp. 361–378Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Kesselman, Mark, “French Local Politics: A Statistical Examination of Grass Roots Consensus,” American Political Science Review, 60 (12, 1966), 963–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dewachter, W., “Gemeenteraadsverkiezingen en Vestedlijking,” Res Publica, 12 (1970), 189–209Google Scholar (Sociological Abstracts, February 1973, #73G0946).

¹⁶ Tarrow, Sidney, “Political Involvement in Rural France,” pp. 341–357Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Kyoguku, J. and Ike, N., “Urban-Rural Differences in Voting Behavior in Post-War Japan,” pp. 135–166Google Scholar.

¹⁸ A similar point with regard to small American communities is made by Scheuch, E. K., “Social Context and Individual Behavior,” in Dogan, Matei and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1969), p. 153Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Verba and Nie, Participation in America.

²⁰ Ecological correlations will usually inflate individual-level associations (see various discussions in Dogan and Rokkan, Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences).

Two other methodological points: (1) By adjusting for individual attributes through pooling the sample of individuals, calculating a common regression equation, and examining residuals, Verba and Nie ran the risk of over-correcting for the control variables when testing Community Type. If the categories of the independent variable (Community Type) differ with regard to the means on the dependent variables (participations) and the control variables (class, race, age), then the following is possible: The within-category slopes (participation on controls) can be shallower than the slope that is drawn by pooling all the cases. The pooled equation may assign some of the variance due to community to the controls. When the corrected scores are then examined within levels of Community Type, they will understate or reverse the effect of Community Type to the degree to which that category is associated with the control variables. We do know that community types (e.g., center-city versus suburb) vary in their distributions on class, age, and race, suggesting that this over-correction may have occurred. The ecological analysis used could then have further amplified the distortion. This may explain why the “large suburb” category was the most affected by the correction procedure. (Note: The simulated analysis of covariance reported later in this paper is subject to the same criticism.)

(2) Further controls (e.g., region, mobility) could have been used at the individual level. Hauser, R. M. (“Context and Consex: A Cautionary Tale,” American Journal of Sociology, 75 [01, 1970], 645–664)CrossRefGoogle Scholar cautions on the necessity of fully controlling for individual-level variables before attributing causality to a context. Also, controls for social composition at the community level could have been imposed.

²¹ Richardson, Bradley M., “Urbanization and Political Participation: The Case of Japan,” American Political Science Review, 67 (06, 1973), 433–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² The 1968 survey has a double-sampling of black respondents. The analysis was over the entire sample, including the extra black interviewees. This procedure might be considered to jeopardize the representativeness of the results. But, given (a) a 77% response rate, and (b) the typical amount of “noise” survey techniques pick up, it is hardly likely that the smaller set would be, in reality, much more “representative” of the nation. Keeping the extra subjects does increase the data base. The other alternative, that of weighting the cases, seems to me to play unnecessarily loosely with the nature of statistical analysis. In any case, I checked the correlation matrix that results from taking a white-only subsample. The structure of those correlations is essentially the same as in the full 1,673-case sample (reported in Appendix B).

²³ A list of specific questions and their coding is available in the author's dissertation, “Studies in the Social Psychology of Urban Life” (Harvard University, 1972)Google Scholar. They are also available from the author, c/o Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley.

²⁴ Certainly, there are feedback effects, but this chain of causality seems prior. See Seeman, M., “On the Meaning of Alienation,” American Sociological Review, 24 (12, 1959), 783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Alienation and Engagement,” in The Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip (New York: Basic Books, 1972), pp. 467–528Google Scholar; Campbell, Anguset al., The Voter Decides (Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1954)Google Scholar; Rotter, J. B., “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcements,” Psychological Monographs, Whole No. 609 (1966)Google Scholar.

²⁵ For a brief discussion of path analysis, see Appendix C.

²⁶ I experimented with a composite scale of all the rankings, but this bulkier construct behaves essentially no differently than does the single item.

²⁷ This analysis is patterned after one reported by Verba and Nie in an earlier draft of Participation in America, and kindly supplied by Professor Verba. It does not, however, appear in the final version of that book.

²⁸ This last finding, though consistent with Verba and Nie, differs from the findings of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, Report, Vol. III: Research Appendices (London: H.M.S.O., 1969)Google Scholar. The Commission found little difference in local interest as a function of whether a town was within or without an urban conurbation. (The Commission results do replicate findings here and elsewhere that localism is greater in rural places.)

In another American study, Hawley, A. H. and Zimmer, B. G. (The Metropolitan Community [Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1971])Google Scholar report supportive findings. Suburbanites, though more educated, were less likely to know their community leaders than were center city dwellers. (Also, replacing the results on Efficacy, suburbanites were more trusting of those- unknown-officials.)

²⁹ Cf. Hawley, A.et al., The Significance of Community in the Metropolitan Setting (Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1974)Google Scholar; Fischer, Claude S., “On Urban Alienations and Anomie,” American Sociological Review, 38 (06, 1973), 311–326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

³⁰ A lengthier account of the replication and a copy of the scales may be obtained from the author. See note 23.

³¹ Armor, D. J. and Couch, A., A Data-Text Primer (New York: Free Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

³² For distinctions, see Finifter, , “Dimensions of Political Alienation,” and Aberbach, J., “Alienation and Political Behavior,” American Political Science Review, 63 (03, 1969), 86–99Google Scholar.

³³ Finifter, “Dimensions of Political Alienation.”

³⁴ Seeman, , “On the Meaning of Alienation,” pp. 783–791Google Scholar.