Extension Bulletin E-1551 July 1989 (Reprint) $1.00

POWERin the

Community

FILE COPY

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE • MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

A ckno wledgementsThe author wishes to acknowledge the contributionsof RocheJle EJstein, who spent many hours helping toedit and re-edit manuscripts for this publication anddid much of the usual necessary detail work as-sociated with its production. Appreciation is also ex-tended to Jan Van Cleve and Karen Bean for theartwork and to Don Gregg for his many helpfulsuggestions regarding layout and design. Partial sup-port for the production of this publication came froma grant of funds from Title V of the Rural Develop-ment Act of 1972.

Table of ContentsPage No.

Introduction 3Social Power 4

Sources of Social Power 4Why Do Only A Few Participate? 5How is Social Power Exercised? 6

Power Actors 7Who Are Power Actors? 7Some Comments About Power Actors 7

Power Structures 9Kinds of Power Structures 9Some Characteristics of Power Structures . . . 11Identifying Power Actors and

Power Structures 12The Positional Method 12The Reputational Method 12The Event Analysis or Decisional Method . . . 12The Social Participation Method 12

Power Actors, Power Structures, andCommunity Decision Making 14

Selected Readings 15

2

POWERin the

Communityby Manfred Thullen

Extension Specialist, Community Development, Department ofResource Development

INTRODUCTIONPOWER — who has it, who uses it to shape the futureof the community, who really makes the decisionsthat affect your life — is an enduring concern forthose who become community leaders and for thosewho are led. Cornell University political scientist,Alan Hahn, discovered that the proportion of citizenswho choose to participate is usually small and thatthe decision makers are a very small minority of theeligible adults of any community. In his research oncommunity decision making, Hahn revealed thatgenerally:

— Less than 5 percent of the eligible adult popula-tion is actively and directly involved in com-munity decision making. These are the people

who run for elective office, are actively involvedin community boards and commissions, regu-larly attend boards and commissions and par-ticipate in decision-making deliberations.

— Only 20 to 25 percent of eligible adults vote andengage in some community decision-makingactivities. These are the people who occasion-ally attend community board or commissionmeetings, who occasionally write or call theirelected officials, who play volunteer roles forcandidates for elective offices and so on.

— Another 20 to 25 percent of adults vote only anddo not involve themselves in any other commu-nity decision-making activities.

— Almost 50 percent of the population is not in-volved in any community decision-making ac-tivity, not even voting. They will become activeonly under unusual circumstances.

This discussion will focus on the people whochoose to get involved — those who are active in avariety of community decision-making activities —and will emphasize the actual process by which somebecome community influentials. It will only brieflytouch upon the issue of whether the system of com-munity decision making, dominated by so few indi-viduals, can or should be changed.

In the following sections, we will briefly dis-cuss:— What is social power — what are its sources

and how is it exercised?— What are power actors — who are they?— What are power structures — are there differ-

ent kinds?— How can power actors and power struc-

tures be identified?— How do power actors and power structures

fit in with community decision-making prin-ciples of representation and participation?

SOCIAL POWER

We will begin with two definitions describing so-cial power:"The capacity to control the actions of others."

Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems, p. 20.*"A party's capacity for acting in such a manner as to significantlyaffect or condition another's response."

James B. Cook, Citizen Partipation: A Concepts Battery, p. 2.*

In brief, a person with social power can influencethose with less social power to do something theywould not otherwise do.

Sources of Social PowerThe two major sources of social power are authority

and the control of resources. Many who have andexercise social power will use a combination of both.

AUTHORITY is theright to control others,usually resulting from aposition or occupationwhich gives authority tothe person who occupiesit. Examples of such po-sitions or occupations are:city mayor, police chief orcounty sheriff, chairpersonof a legislative committee,president of an organiza-tion, fire inspector, and soforth.

*See seJected readings list on p. 15 for more complete informa-tion on these quotations and for detailed bibliographical informa-tion on all research studies mentioned in this bulletin.

CONTROL OF RESOURCES gives an individual thepotential to influence or control others. Any person

controlling key resourcesnecessary for making orimplementing decisionshas social power.

Resources in communitydecision making haveusually been thought of interms of wealth or materialgoods. However, there aremany other resources

which can be crucial in today's highly complex, ur-banized, and interdependent society. Different re-sources that can be used to influence others wouldinclude:

— SPECIAL SKILLS that an individual might pos-sess, such as the ability to work with a com-puter; mastery of certain accounting or budget-ing procedures; or human relations skills fornegotiating with unions or management.

— KNOWLEDGE, especially highly specialized ortechnical knowledge that is so often necessaryin current decision making and action. It is thisspecialized knowledge that gives certain"bureaucrats" social power today. Examples ofpeople who possess specialized knowledge areplanning consultants, civil engineers, eco-nomic analysts, and "grantsmen" — those whoknow where grant money is available and howto get it.

— REPUTATION and SOCIAL STANDING havetraditionally been sources of social power. Wit-ness the "old" or "aristocratic" families whoalways have members actively involved in pub-lic affairs.

— MATERIAL RESOURCES, as already men-tioned, have usually been rightly perceived asgiving individuals social power. These can bemoney, land, or other sources of wealth.

— OBLIGATIONS that an individual may "col-lect" from others, and "cash in" at certain cru-cial moments. These are not monetary debts butdebts of favors. Most skillful politicians are veryadept at this process; one of the most renownedwas the late President Lyndon Johnson when hewas United States Senate majority leader.

— CONTROL OVER JOBS is an obvious source ofsocial power. Many corporation executives andbusiness owners have used this resource to theiradvantage, some very skillfully, other less so.

— CONTROL OVER CREDIT is a similar resource.Witness the popular cartoon of the evil bankerforeclosing the mortgage of the poor but beauti-ful widow, in order to force her to submit ...!Thus bankers and banks have usually been per-ceived as having such social power. However,today there are many other sources of credit,such as union pension funds, commercial loancompanies, and even government agencies.

— CONTROL OVER MORALITY is very often anoverlooked source of social power, but can bevery powerful. A community where most resi-dents belong to a strict religion can be domi-nated by that church's leaders, both laity andclergy. The emerging "Moral Majority" move-ment in the United States is another example."Blue laws" are a manifestation of such socialpower in many communities.

COMBINING AUTHORITY AND CONTROL of re-sources. Usually, when one analyzes people whohave social power, it becomes apparent that most ofthem will use a subtle combination of authority andcontrol of resources. There is often an interplay be-tween these two sources of social power. People whohave resources will often use their resources to obtainpositions of authority. Other individuals will use aposition of authority in order to increase their controlof resources.

Why Do Only A Few Participate?A different way of asking "where does social power

come from" is to ask, as Hahn did, "why do someparticipate, while many others do not?" The answersto this question yield a somewhat different perspec-tive on the sources of social power. According toHahn, active participants in community decisionmaking exhibit three significant qualities:

First — the ABILITY to participate.Active participation is dependent upon severalfactors:

— having the TIME to participate (to go to meet-ings, to work on projects, etc.).

— having the ENERGY, mental and physical, toparticipate.

— being AWARE of where, why, how, and when toparticipate, that is, knowing the "ins and outs"of participating in a community.

— UNDERSTANDING the issues and HOW TOINFLUENCE directions of decisions.

— having COMMUNICATION SKILLS, and beingable to bring ideas and views to bear on decisionmaking effectively.

— having access to INFORMATION that is usefulfor decision making.

— possessing the SELF-CONFIDENCE to partici-pate with others and in public.

These attributes are usually characteristic of themore educated and higher socioeconomic"classes."

Second — a SENSE OF OBLIGATIONto participate.This is a key characteristic of those actively in-volved in decision making. A sense of obligationmeans:— having a SENSE OF CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY

and consequently becoming involved in publicaffairs.

— being CONCERNED WITH LONG-RANGE (andfrequently abstract) PUBLIC PROBLEMS ANDISSUES.

This sense of obligation results from a number offactors: education, affluence, and especially familysocialization influences. These attributes are alsousually correlated with higher levels of educationand higher socioeconomic groups.

Thirds- SELF-INTEREST.As a major motivational factor influencing indi-viduals to become involved in decision making,

self-interest is usually associated with a desire topreserve:— MATERIAL GOODS, such as monetary or real

wealth.

— the SOCIAL STANDING one has within thecommunity; or the reputation the family has de-veloped over time.

— the CONTROL OF RESOURCES, such as thosealready mentioned earlier.

— IDEALS, BELIEFS, and VALUES that prevailand are held by those active in decision mak-ing.

As with ability and sense of obligation, this at-tribute is more prevalent among the upper socioec-onomic and educational groups. However, self-interest has recently proved to be the major motiva-tion for the involvement of less educated, less weal-thy, and lower-status individuals. Hahn and othersargue that self-interest is the key force in motivatingdisadvantaged people to become involved in theircommunities. Once involved, they can develop theother requisite qualities which will facilitate con-tinued participation.

How is Social Power Exercised?Social power is exercised in three major ways: by

coercion, by influence, and by a blend of both.By COERCION, we mean the use of raw power —

that is, the power to forcepeople to do somethingthey would not ordinarilydo. Thus, arm twisting,threats (actual or implied,subtle or overt) and in-timidation are some of themethods used to forcepeople to accept or dosomething they would notnormally do or accept.

By INFLUENCE, wemean the use of controlledpower — that is, the powerof persuasion — using re-sources and authority toinfluence people to do cer-tain things willingly.Thus, reasoning, provid-ing information, educat-ing, and giving rewards (extrinsic and intrinsic) aresome of the methods used. Personal charisma is also akey factor in persuasion.

The most common approach in exercising socialpower is to use BOTH COERCION and INFLUENCE.The most effective users of social power, those whoare able to hold it for a long time, are those who areable to achieve a proper balance between the two,with a broader emphasis on influence. In most caseswhere the two are blended, coercion is exercised verycarefully and subtlety.

In using social power in community decision mak-ing, whether by influence, coercion, or a blend of thetwo, individuals can do one of two things; they caneither FACILITATE or BLOCK decisions and actions.

Thus, individuals using social power can help de-termine the outcome of community decisions. Theycan FACILITATE or promote certain decisions, orthey can DELAY these decisions.

These individuals with social power can also helpdetermine the kind of resources that can be used formaking and implementing decisions. They canFACILITATE or BLOCK access to needed resources.

Further, they can help determine the nature andscope of efforts by those outside the community.Again, they can FACILITATE or promote, or they canBLOCK or delay access to outside assistance. This lat-ter operation has become more apparent in recentyears in our interdependent society and governmentalassistance programs — both on the federal and statelevels.

Summary

SOCIAL POWER is influence over others' be-havior. It rests upon authority and control ofresources, and requires: 1) ability, 2) a sense of ob-ligation, and 3) self-interest. It is exercised by acombination of coercion and influence within theprocess of making and implementing communitydecisions.

POWER ACTORS

The term power actors, developed by Iowa StateUniversity social scientist, Ronald Powers and hisco-workers, is used to designate those individualswho HAVE social power and who EXERCISE theirsocial power in making community decisions. Peoplewho have social power BUT DO NOT use it CANNOTbe considered power actors.

Who Are Power Actors?Studies by Powers on

social power in midwesterncorn belt communities haverevealed that power actors:

— are usually males; veryfew women are found,though this is changingsomewhat.

— are usually older thanthe average adults; theyare generally forty yearsold or older.

— have above-average income; this is correlatedwith control of resources and some of thefollowing factors.

— have above-average education, often are collegeeducated.

— occupy higher-status occupations(professionals, businessmen, self-employed).

— are long-time residents of their community;either have lived there all their lives or havebeen residents for a long time — few newcomersare found to be power actors.

— have control over key resources (jobs, credit,money mass media, land, information).

Hahn has identified power actors in a different way.He analyzed those who regularly participated incommunity decision making and found patterns ofcertain individuals being more involved than others.He classified individuals into five major groupings.

First — PARTICIPANTS IN LOCALGOVERNMENT, such as:— elected officials— administrators of departments or programs— professional and technical advisors to local

governmental units (e.g., paid consultants)

— political party leaders— public employees

Second — LEADERS IN NONGOVERNMENTALENTERPRISES, such as:— owners and managers of businesses— industrial managers and executives— bankers— real estate brokers— mass media managers and executives

(e.g., radio, T.V., newspapers)— public utility managers and executives

(e.g., electricity, gas, water)— professionals (e.g., M.D.'s, lawyers, dentists)— large land-owners

Third — HEADS OF NONPROFIT PUBLICSERVICE AGENCIES, such as:— hospitals— private schools— public charities

Fourth — DIRECTORS OF VOLUNTARYORGANIZATIONS, such as:— neighborhood associations (which are becom-

ing increasingly active in most cities)— civic clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, JC's,)— business and professional groups (e.g., Cham-

bers of Commerce, American Medical Associa-tion, American Bar Association)

— minority group organizations (e.g., NAACP,Urban League)

Fifth — CLERGYMEN AND LABOR LEADERS.

Some Comments About Power ActorsIndividuals and/or groups

While we usuallythink of power actors asindividuals, we shouldalso consider groups ororganizations which actas a unit in exercisingsocial power. Thus, re-gardless of whether theindividual membershave social power, thegroup may be influen-tial in communal deci-sion making. Organiza-

tions such as unions (industrial, government work-ers', teachers', etc.), church congregations, corpora-tions, ethnic and racial organizations, and civic clubsmay be regarded as power actors.

Often social power flows to the leader of an organi-zation that has and exercises social power; occasion-ally organizations acquire social power from theirleaders who are power actors.

Inside and Outside Communities

INSIDE

Visible andInvisible

OUTSIDE

In the past, only local individuals or groups wereconsidered community power actors. In today's com-plex, interrelated communities, nonresident indi-viduals and outside organizations are also communitypower actors. Some individual, and many organiza-tional power actors have significant social power indistant communities, as in the following examples:

— the corporate executive, who decides to locate aplant in another community;

— state or federal bureaucrats who allocate re-sources among different, and often competing,communities;

— the United States senator who can help or hin-der the acquisition of resources, through con-tacts within the federal bureaucracy;

— the military planners in Washington, D.C., whoestablish and close down military installationsaround the nation.

Thus, it is crucial to determine the nonresidentpower actors because their role is often very impor-tant in community decision making.

INVISIBLE

Many power actors are visible to those who arewilling to look for them. They often occupy promi-nent positions of authority, though this does notnecessarily mean all people in prominent positionsare power actors. The visible community power ac-tors act out their roles in public; they are members ofcommissions and boards, elected public officials, ap-pointed public officials, or prominent executives andbusinessmen who seem to be highly involved in theircommunity's public affairs.

However, some individuals have social power butshun publicity and avoid public roles and positions;consequently they are not visible to most people.They play quiet roles, stay in the background, or re-main behind the scenes. Some examples would be thecorporate executive who plays very low-key roles, thechurch minister who is often consulted for approval,and the large landholder whose opinion and approvalis always sought. These individuals play crucial rolesthat are often overlooked. Thus, when considering thepower actors of a community, consider those whowork behind the scenes.

SummaryPOWER ACTORS are the people who have and use

social power in the community; they may he indi-viduals or groups. Power actors can be local or non-resident; they may be visible or invisible.

POWER STRUCTURES

Social science research indicates that power actorsdo not operate independently of one another butrather communicate among themselves. There arepatterns of interaction among a community's poweractors. These interrelationships are known as "powerstructures."

Kinds of Power StructuresDuring the past 30 years, in many types of com-

munities, studies aimed at understanding powerstructures, their compositions and behaviors. Resear-chers agree that in most communities, there is anidentifiable power structure — that is, a network ofpower actors who communicate with each other andseem to cooperate in community decision making.

One group of studies conducted by Powers and hisassociates focused on power structures in midwesternrural communities and small cities. They classifiedpower structures into four kinds:

— One-Person power structures —A single individual makesall the community's de-cisions. (Such commu-nities were rare.)

— Tightly-Knit-Group power structures — A smallgroup of power actors, with common interests andhigh interaction, controlling decisions. (Suchsituations were also relatively rare.)

Split Community power structures — Usually twoopposing, tightly-knit groups or individuals whovie for dominance comprise this kind of arrange-ment. (Again, an uncommon situation.)

Power Pool power structures — A loosely-knitgroup of power actors who know each other butrarely act in concert and who do not all participatein every decision. (Most communities belonged inthis group.)

John B. Mitchell of Ohio State University and Shel-don G. Lowry of Michigan State University reviewedmany power structure studies and developed the fol-lowing set of categories:— Pyramidal power structures — These structures

consist of a small number of power actors withsignificant social power concentrated at the top ofa pyramid; these could be one family, one indus-try, a single organization, or a tightly knit group ofindividuals.

Factional power structures — Two or more fac-tions — interest groups, power blocs, pressuregroups — competing for control as, for example,two political parties, an industry and a laborunion, make up this kind of structure.

— Amorphous power structures — No apparent pat-tern of interaction, and no discernible power ac-tors can be uncovered in this situation. An exam-ple would be a relatively new subdivision, anapartment complex, or a mobile home park.

Hahn, in studying social power over the years, con-centrated more on complex urban communities anddefined three types of power structures:

— Coalitional power structures — These can be shift-ing coalitions of individuals and groups, usuallycoalescing around specific issues, working to-gether for a common purpose. The authors specu-lated that this type of power structure did the mostto promote pluralistic leadership.

— Cohesive Structure, or Clique power structures —consisting of tightly-knit groups of power actorsworking together.

10

Competitive Structure power structures — con-sisting of one or more factions which come to-gether to vie for power against another coalition.

Fragmented Structure power structures — com-prised of many cliques forming temporary coali-tions, with competition, conflict, and stresses be-tween them. This situation, he found, charac-terized most large urban communities.

Some Characteristics of PowerStructures

— Power structures evolve over time as the com-munity changes. Generally they change fromsimple to complex, as communities grow andbecome more urbanized.

— There are differences between rural and urbancommunities. Power structures are generallysimpler in rural or traditional communities, andmore complex in urban areas.

— A community's power structure is not autono-mous; it is susceptible to the influence of out-side power actors and power structures.

— Power structures, despite the static implicationsof the word "structure," are actually dynamic.Membership can change drastically, even in ashort period of time, and coalitions vary in dura-tion and composition. There are changes incomplexity and in internal dynamics over time.

— Not all power actors are involved in all the is-sues and decisions; they participate selectively,depending on their competencies. The morecomplex the power structure, the morespecialized the power actors.

— Power actors do not always hold positions ofvisible leadership; hence, they are often difficultto identify. Identifying the kind of power struc-ture that operates within a community — par-ticularly a complex, urban community — can bea problem.

Summary

POWER STRUCTURES are networks of power ac-tors which, despite the various types, all share com-mon characteristics: They evolve from simple tocomplex; they are not autonomous; they are dynamicand change over time; members participate selec-tively. Discerning power structures and identifyingpower actors is often difficult.

11

IDENTIFYING POWER ACTORS ANDPOWER STRUCTURES

Social scientists have developed methods for iden-tifying power actors and power structures in order tostudy them. The four major methods are:

— Positional— Reputational— Event analysis or decisional— Social participation or social activity approach

Each is different and will identify slightly differentpower actors, although in some cases there is consid-erable overlap in the individuals identified. Each hasadvantages and disadvantages.

The Positional MethodAssumptions

— Power rests in important positions in key formalorganizations.

— Individuals in these positions of authority arepower actors.

— Key organizations are those which control re-sources and have influence.

Procedures— First, identify the key organizations in the

community.— Then, identify the people in authority within

the organizations.

Advantages— Easy to conduct the study.— Power actors are easily identified.— Little cost in time or money.

Disadvantages— Many people in positions of authority do not

use their power; hence they are not power ac-tors.

— Method overlooks power actors not occupyingformal positions of authority.

— Does not identify power actors behind thescenes.

The Reputational MethodAssumptions

— Individuals who have and exercise power ac-quire a reputation of having power.

— Power actors know who they are — personallyor by reputation.

— Knowledgeable people know who the power ac-tors in the community are, by their reputations.

Procedures— Identify the knowledgeable people in the com-

munity.— Interview them about reputed power actors.— The frequency with which an individual is

named is a measure of his/her relative power.

Advantages— Method identifies hidden power actors, as well

as those in positions of authority.— It distinguishes those who do exercise power

from those who can but do not.— It can identify both general power actors and

those active only in specific areas.— Relatively rapid, low-cost, and easy to use.

Disadvantages— "Knowledgeables" might not actually know

who the real power actors are.— Apparent power actors might have a reputation

but no real power.— People might be identified as power actors who

have social status rather than social power.— Reputational lag: power actors who no longer

exercise power but have the reputation are iden-tified; new power actors who have not de-veloped a reputation might not be identified.

The Event Analysis orDecisional MethodAssumptions

— Power is acquired through participation in deci-sion making, i.e., through the exercise of power.

— Actual participation is the real indicator ofpower.

Procedures— Select several key community decisions, either

from the past or present.— Determine, from as many sources as possible,

who was involved in the decision*making proc-ess, what they did, and how important it was.

— On the basis of these decisions, identify aspower actors those who participated most ac-tively in the most decisions.

12

Advantages— Behavior, rather than reputation, is the criterion

for identifying power actors.— General and issue-specific power actors can be

identified.— Roles of power actors can be identified and

traced.

Disadvantages— Time-consuming and expensive to conduct.— Requires highly trained people.— Can fail to uncover covert power actors.

The Social Participation MethodAssumptions

— Power is acquired through participation in vol-untary organizations.

— Active power actors are very involved in com-munity voluntary organizations.

Procedures— Inventory all community voluntary organiza-

tions and all persons occupying formal po-sitions in them.

— Power actors are those individuals who occupythe highest positions in the greatest number oforganizations and/or in the most prestigious or-ganizations.

Advantages— Identifies power actors who are active in local

affairs, especially those involved with commu-nity action, not just decision making.

— Easy to conduct.

Disadvantages— Time-consuming.— Fails to identify covert power actors.— Tends to identify emerging power actors, over-

looking many actual power actors.— Identifies general but not issue-specific power

actors.

Once power actors have been identified, themanner in which they interact — the kinds of coali-tions or cliques they form — must be studied. Onlyafter this research is done can a determination bemade of the nature of the power structure within acommunity.

Summary

POWER ACTORS may be identified by any one offour methods: 1) Positional - the people in authorityin the key organizations are the power actors; 2)Reputationa] - those with reputation of social poweramong the JcnowJedgeabJe members of the communityare the power actors; 3) Event Analysis - the personswho participated most actively in the most commu-nity decisions are the power actors; 4) Social Partici-pation - the individuals who occupy positions of au-thority in the greatest number or most prestigious or-ganizations are the power actors.

13

POWER ACTORS, POWER STRUCTURES, ANDCOMMUNITY DECISION MAKING

By concentrating this discussion on power actorsand power structures, we may leave the impressionthat they are the only people who "count" in commu-nity decision making and action. What we have triedto do is to describe the qualities of the people who aremost intimately involved in most community deci-sions. This does not imply that others cannot orshould not become involved.

It is important to realize that under a democraticsystem, we must strive toward two objectives incommunity decision making:

First — those who have social power should repre-sent all major sectors of the community, rather thanspecific sectors. Implicit in this is that social powershould not be concentrated in the hands of a few. Wemust, therefore, constantly strive to broaden leader-ship and see to it that new people gain skills in ac-quiring and using social power.

Second — we should encourage those who lack so-cial power and/or do not hold leadership positions tobecome involved in decision making, both in making

contributions to the decision-making process and inreacting to the decisions that have been made. This isthe essence of citizen participation — individualsexercising their freedom of choice to decide when,where, and why they might become involved incommunity decision making. When people no longerhave this choice, we will no longer have a democraticsociety.

For decision making to work in the long-rangeinterest of all the community, representation of allsegments of the community and adequate citizen par-ticipation are essential.

Summary

The promise of a democratic society requires thatthe power structure of a community represent theinterests of all sectors of that society and that thosewho canoot lead must be encouraged to contribute toand react to the decisions that are made on their be-half.

14

SELECTED READINGS

The following publications served as source materialfor this Extension bulletin. They are recommended asreading material for those who are interested in pur-suing this subject matter further.

Cook, James B., Citizen Participation: A Concepts Bat-tery. (Mimeo) Columbia: Department of Regionaland Community Affairs, University of Missouri,1972.

Hahn, Alan J., Who Decides? Participants in Commu-nity Decision Making. Information Bulletin 53.Ithaca: New York State College of Human Ecol-ogy, Cornell University, 1973.

Hahn, Alan J., How Are Community Decisions Made?The Decision-Making Process. Information Bulle-tin 54. Ithaca: New York State College of HumanEcology, Cornell University, 1973.

Hahn, Alan J., How Well Are We Represented? Deci-sion Makers and the Rest of the Community. In-formation Bulletin 55. Ithaca: New York StateCollege of Human Ecology, Cornell University,1973.

Loomis, Charles P., Social Systems. Princeton, D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1960.

Mitchell, John B. and Lowry, Sheldon C, PowerStructures, Community Leadership and SocialAction. North Central Regional Extension Publi-cation No. 35, NCRS-5 Leadership Series No. 5.Columbus: Cooperative Extension Service, TheOhio State University, 1973.

Powers, Ronald C, Identifying the Community PowerStructure. North Central Regional Extension Pub-lication No. 19, NCRS-5 Leadership Series No. 2.Ames: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa StateUniversity of Science and Technology, 1965.

Tait, John L., Bokemeier, Janet, and Bohlen, Joe M.,Identifying the Community Power Actors: AGuide for Change Agents. North Central RegionalExtension Publication 59. Ames: Cooperative Ex-tension Service, Iowa State University of Scienceand Technology, 1978.

15

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity institution. Cooperative Extension Service programs are open to all without regard to race, color, nationalorigin, sex, or handicap.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work in agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8, and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with theU.S. Department of Agriculture. J. Ray Gillespie, Interim Director, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Ml 48824.

This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by the Cooperative ExtensionService or bias against those not mentioned. This bulletin becomes public property upon publication and may be reprinted verbatim with credit to MSU. Reprintingcannot be used to endorse or advertise a commercial product or company.

Reprint 7:89 2M-KDP-SP,Price $1.00, For Sale Only

File: 25.5