New York City Political System Analysis

878 Words2 Pages

Similar to a well oiled machine, a political system is concerned with processing the demands of a society to then provide the goods and services demanded while ensuring its own establishment (Berg 1). However, considering that the idea of a political system is a social construct, its form is subject to a myriad of complex and conflicting forces. The most palpable force is that of a city’s financial needs. Any locale has the burden of satisfying the demands of its constituents with limited resources. In addition to having limited resources, urban cities are also usually comprised of many diverse ethnic backgrounds with different demands and needs. Equitable distribution of limited resources to different ethnic and social backgrounds could have …show more content…

In his book, New York City Politics: Governing Gotham, Bruce Berg, states that a “city’s political system involves a complex set of functions around three broad themes: democratic accountability, the delivery of public goods and services and the maintenance of civil harmony” (1). It can be argued that the endurance of a governing political system is directly related to how well it satisfies the aforementioned themes and thus maintains the general vitality of a city. Alternatively, a political system’s inadequacy, notable through contingent events such as a fiscal crisis, engenders the empowerment of a replacement. Analyzing, New York City’s governance, it is my contention that both machine and reform politics have been marshaled at different points in history as the reasoning behind the city’s fiscal crises but the systems themselves are not entirely flawed. They both exercise similar components of strong governance although each system mobilized a different socioeconomic …show more content…

Largely in part to growing ethnic populations, utilizing ethnic solidarity as a platform to mobilize a political system has been common. This tactic was most prevalent during the late nineteenth century and later on during the 1960s in the form of machine politics. Machine politics as a system, relied heavily upon voter loyalty through the distribution of petty material goods and services or patronage (Merton 101). This political system has often been rendered as faulty and a direct usher to two financial crises in New York City history. During the prevalence of machine politics, “to many middle and upper-class Americans, the cities seemed to be in the hands of criminals who plundered the public purse for personal gain” (Judd and Swanstrom 68). Besides the mismanagement of public funding for private agendas, another major complaint of why this political system led to more than one fiscal crisis in New York, was the fact that machine politicians rarely were elected based on merit but rather garnered support through providing patronage. Additionally, the petty favors and patronage they provided was thinly spread amongst their beneficiaries to maximize voter support and loyalty. According to some urban scholars such as Steven Erie, this system did little to provide a real basis for social upward mobility for its immigrant constituents. Eventually the gross mismanagement

More about New York City Political System Analysis

Open Document