Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The Royal Commission on Local Government in England argued that size and proximity to an urban centre were important factors in explaining the differing degrees of parish political activity. This paper examines in more detail the reasons for the differing degrees of activity drawing upon my study in the Oxford area for illustrative examples. It must be emphasized at the very outset that the main objective of this paper is to suggest reasons for the variations in activity and not to compare the degrees of political activity in the Oxford area. In particular, I argue that proximity to an urban centre (location within the immediate hinterland) is more important than size and that there are three distinguishing features associated with location within the immediate hinterland. The distinguishing features are the rapidly growing parishes (size); the high expectations of suburban residents with regard to the standard of service provision (expectations); and the under-representation of the immediate hinterland on the County Council and the Rural District Councils (under-representation).
1 Royal Commission on Local Government in England (1966–69) (London:HMSO, 1969).Google Scholar In particular see Vol. 3, Research Appendices, Appendix 8, paras. 37, 41, 57 and 63.
2 The present paper is part of a larger study comparing decision making in Oxfordshire and Oxford city.
3 Davis, K., ed., The World's Metropolitan Areas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Bollens, J. and Schmandt, H., The Metropolis (New York: Harper Row, 1965)Google Scholar; Royal Commission on Local Government, Research Studies I, Local Government in South East England, 418–34 and 490.
4 Research Studies I, pp. 411–569. For their conclusions concerning the Oxford hinterland see pp. 54–5 and maps A and B1 of Appendix 2. Carruthers, W. I., ‘A Classification of Service Centres in England and Wales’, Geographical Journal, CXIII (1957), pp. 371–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Major Shopping Centres in England and Wales’, Regional Studies, 1 (1967), pp. 65–81. Smith, R. D. P., ‘The Changing Urban Hierarchy’, Regional Studies, II (1968), pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGlass, R., ed., London: Aspect of Change (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964), ch. 4, pp. 91–144.Google ScholarGreen, F. H. W., ‘Urban Hinterlands in England and Wales: An Analysis of Bus Services’, Geographical Journal, CXVI (1950), pp. 64–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Urban Hinterlands, Fifteen Years On’ Geographical Journal, CXXXII (1966), pp. 263–6.Google Scholar
5 Sample Census 1966 (London: HMSO, 1968).Google Scholar Workplace and Migration Tables Part 1 Table 2, p. 117.
6 The figures for the parishes were taken from the Municipal Year Book because the census does not give parish population figures and the census tracts were not available to the author. The figures for the Municipal Year Book are obtained by applying the Registrar General's annual estimate of population to the electoral register by parish. The percentage of persons under 21 years of age is assumed to be constant, the figure being that of the last available census. Clearly, this is no more than an estimate but it is satisfactory for my purposes, the degree of error in absolute population size being very small.
7 Research Appendices, Appendix 8, paras. 17, 25, 38, 51 and 57.
8 Research Appendices, para. 63, p. 186.
9 Oxford is not unique in this respect, see: Pomfret, R. Y., ‘Rural Oligarchy or Rural Democracy? The Battle of the Boundaries’, Rural District Review, LXIX (1963), pp. 297–8Google Scholar, ‘The Nelsonian Blind Eye’, Local Government Chronicle, 9 May 1964, pp. 700–1, and ‘Whose Hand on the Reign? The “Horse and Buggy” Outlook in Local Government’, Rural District Review, LXXI (1965), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar For the history of representation in English local government see: Keith-Lucas, B., The English Local Government Franchise (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952)Google Scholar; Lipman, V. D, Local Government Areas 1834–1945 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1949).Google Scholar
10 Alker, H. R. Jr, Mathematics and Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965).Google ScholarAlker, H. R. Jr. and Russett, B. M., ‘On Measuring Inequality’, Behavioral Scientist, IX (1964), pp. 207–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSilva, R., ‘Apportionment in the New York State Legislature’, American Political Science Review, LV (1961), p. 870–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Hart, W. O., Introduction to the Law of Local Government and Administration (London: Butterworth, 1962).Google Scholar
12 Research Appendices, para. 63, p. 186.
13 Research Appendices, pp. 187–93, particularly pp. 191–2.
14 It must be emphasized that size is an important factor but only one of a number. The intention at this point is to emphasize the impact of the other factors.
15 Research Appendices, pp. 181–5.
16 I have already indicated that I am not concerned to compare the differing degrees of parish political activity. I do not give, therefore, any examples of the political activity of rural parishes. On such differences, however, see Research Appendices, Appendix 8. Oxfordshire played a prominent part in the Royal Commission's analysis and was not found to be atypical in any way.
