非决策理论及其启示浅析
摘要
公共政策制定是政府治理公共事务最主要的途径。为了实现政策的合法性与合理性,就必须要从政策制定初始环节——政策问题的确定入手。现实社会的问题层出不穷、比比皆是,并不是所有问题都会进入政策制定者的视野,更不是政策制定者一注意这些问题就能制定相应的政策或法律予以解决。那些没有进入政策系统的问题,并不意味着它们从此退出了历史舞台。进入不了具体政策制定环节,并非表示现实生活中相关问题已经解决或不存在了。在政治系统,尤其是各个政府层面,它依然存在,并以自己独有的外界看不到的方式、渠道发挥作用。尽管从事政策科学研究的学者从多角度对之进行了大量探讨,但还不能找到一个恰当的概念来表述或揭示它,从而影响了研究的深入。本文所讨论的公共政策制定中的非决策现象,对于解决政策研究领域相关问题有所裨益。
本文在对当代西方有关非决策理论和社会实践的阐述进行研究和剖析的基础上,肯定了非决策问题的真实性,并指出其消极影响。同时认为,把这一学术范畴引入中国,也有利于反思和改进中国公共决策体制。本文分成五个部分:第一部分为理论背景,是对非决策产生的时代背景和理论依据做简要描述,展示理论的最初来源;第二部分对非决策理论进行较为详细的介绍,主要以西方学者对非决策所进行的研究和探索为起始,介绍西方学者眼中的非决策。在此,笔者基于自身对非决策理论的理解,尝试着对其概念和分类进行了独创性地阐述;第三部分主要从制度、政策制定者、政策参与者以及社会现实等四个方面论述了非决策产生的机理;第四部分是介绍非决策特殊的作用方式及其对政策制定相关制度、政策过程和政治过程的消极影响;第五部分通过对非决策理论的探讨和阐述,提出发现、识别和解决非决策问题对中国的启示。
The reference of "Nondecision" became in the 1950s——Elitism and Pluralism that the confrontation is between the two groups on the theory of the basic model of power structure——the debate over these has been almost exclusively other affair. Bachrach and Baratz have published their two articles,‘The Two Faces of Power’, and‘Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytical Framework’. They proposed an analytical framework of nondecision. It has become increasingly familiar, and occupied a prominent position on the analysis of community power. Nondecision is an important element, because of its potential influence on the political process. People believe that the level of non-decision’s existence maybe impact on the legitimacy of public institutions and enforcement agencies, make some negative forms, and institutions of the public policy-making may lose their reliability.
To policy-making, People often concentrate on their own specific policies, and ignore the nondecision on this process. I believe that nondecision is a part formulation of policy which prior to specific policy at the beginning, some individuals or groups have the controlling influence, through various forms of power, with an non-justify excuse or the role of non-legitimate to refuse the potential social problems to the opened process, and impacted on the democratization and scientific policy seriously. And then, as the action of nondecision, it is divided into five areas: the first, A has conflict with B on the interests, B believe that their own interests demands will be not supported by A, then ,he does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The second, A has conflict with B on the interests, B totally confused with the leading social values and believes, which is manipulated by A, B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The third, A has conflict with B on the interests, A uses the existing political systems and procedures to control B, and B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The forth, A has conflict with B on the interests, when B does not make their own demands clearly, A includes B’s interests into A’s own system at this point, and then B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The last, A has conflict with B on the interests, A cooperates with other social forces to control or influence B’s experiences on the policy-making partially or completely.
Nondecision is not a normal phenomenon. It has tremendous negative impacts on the scientific and democratization of public policy. It is caused by a variety of factors. The article mainly discusses through four areas, including political system,policy-makers, participants and the social reality. The first reason is from political system——the closed "input" mode of policy-making, and it is the institutional foundation to nondecision. Under this mode, there are not the actual pressures and roles on the policy. Policy makers have authorities on the allocations of public resources with its dominant position, to freely decide which social issues can enter the process. The second reason comes from policy-makers, I expound it from two faces, one is the private interest, the another is the cooperation of Policy makers and other social groups. Because of private interest, policy makers will give priority to their own pursuits. If their strength insufficiently, they will be conspiracy to other social groups. And then some issues which they want to catch are organized into polities while others which they do not like are organized out. At the same time, Nondecision is coming. The third reason is from participants. There are two forms: the one is the interests relating to the participants. The other is free rider. The policies formed around the interests of the stakeholders, through various means, with a view to embodying in the more their own interests. However, the strength of these interest groups is not balanced; strong groups will rely on the strong force, by influencing the policy-making process and specific policies to achieve the aspirations of their own interests. In this process, there is the feeling of free rider to social groups, as policy makers in the passive participants, this groups give up the power of the impaction of public policy, and help the "non-normal purpose" of strong interest groups to achieve their targets. The finally is the social reality. The policy-making start with the identification of policy issues, but a complex social problems are identified difficultly in a certain cognitive difficulty, and coupling with an unavoidable cost consideration in the policy-making process, the nondecision has the basis of the reality.
The nondecisions play a huge role in an unique way, and bring the ignored negative impact on the political system. Through using the extensive of hidden power, strengthening the organization's "bias of mobilization”, making full use of policy system which has been in existence for the norms, procedures, etc., and reshaping the political rules of the system, the nondecision realize its role. But there are the main negative impacts: the real needs of the community are difficult to enter the policy-making process, it is contrary to the public nature of public policy, it reduce the role of a scientific analysis, and undermine the legitimacy of the government, and even endanger political stability.
After fully award of the nondecision theory and its influence to the policy-making process and political process, it is clear that the nondecision theory is also very necessary to explore in China, where is being a social transformation from a traditional society to a modern society. In early 21st century, Chinese traditional decision-making system has been undermined, government has increasing emphasis on responding to the social problem, and the consensus has been formed to include it to the agenda of public policy. However, the current policy also suggests a number of risks; for example, the low level of institutionalization of democratic politics, private interests can not effectively be bound by the framework of the system and so on. Because the major problems of Chinese policy-making system is reflected by the nondecision, it holds that introducing this academic category into China is helpful for reviewing and improving China′s public decision system. Then, in the specific political life and the process of policy formulation, the policy-making must be based on the experience and ideas of Chinese domestic environment, must increase social survey and identify social problems correctly,must build the moral construction of policy-makers and participants , have an open mode of administration, help the interest groups to organize ,and make a sound mechanism for expression of interest, enhance the decision-making mechanisms and reduce political costs, and reposition the decisions-making, and establish a service-oriented government quickly in china .
本文在对当代西方有关非决策理论和社会实践的阐述进行研究和剖析的基础上,肯定了非决策问题的真实性,并指出其消极影响。同时认为,把这一学术范畴引入中国,也有利于反思和改进中国公共决策体制。本文分成五个部分:第一部分为理论背景,是对非决策产生的时代背景和理论依据做简要描述,展示理论的最初来源;第二部分对非决策理论进行较为详细的介绍,主要以西方学者对非决策所进行的研究和探索为起始,介绍西方学者眼中的非决策。在此,笔者基于自身对非决策理论的理解,尝试着对其概念和分类进行了独创性地阐述;第三部分主要从制度、政策制定者、政策参与者以及社会现实等四个方面论述了非决策产生的机理;第四部分是介绍非决策特殊的作用方式及其对政策制定相关制度、政策过程和政治过程的消极影响;第五部分通过对非决策理论的探讨和阐述,提出发现、识别和解决非决策问题对中国的启示。
The reference of "Nondecision" became in the 1950s——Elitism and Pluralism that the confrontation is between the two groups on the theory of the basic model of power structure——the debate over these has been almost exclusively other affair. Bachrach and Baratz have published their two articles,‘The Two Faces of Power’, and‘Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytical Framework’. They proposed an analytical framework of nondecision. It has become increasingly familiar, and occupied a prominent position on the analysis of community power. Nondecision is an important element, because of its potential influence on the political process. People believe that the level of non-decision’s existence maybe impact on the legitimacy of public institutions and enforcement agencies, make some negative forms, and institutions of the public policy-making may lose their reliability.
To policy-making, People often concentrate on their own specific policies, and ignore the nondecision on this process. I believe that nondecision is a part formulation of policy which prior to specific policy at the beginning, some individuals or groups have the controlling influence, through various forms of power, with an non-justify excuse or the role of non-legitimate to refuse the potential social problems to the opened process, and impacted on the democratization and scientific policy seriously. And then, as the action of nondecision, it is divided into five areas: the first, A has conflict with B on the interests, B believe that their own interests demands will be not supported by A, then ,he does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The second, A has conflict with B on the interests, B totally confused with the leading social values and believes, which is manipulated by A, B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The third, A has conflict with B on the interests, A uses the existing political systems and procedures to control B, and B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The forth, A has conflict with B on the interests, when B does not make their own demands clearly, A includes B’s interests into A’s own system at this point, and then B does not have the efforts to influence policy partially or completely. The last, A has conflict with B on the interests, A cooperates with other social forces to control or influence B’s experiences on the policy-making partially or completely.
Nondecision is not a normal phenomenon. It has tremendous negative impacts on the scientific and democratization of public policy. It is caused by a variety of factors. The article mainly discusses through four areas, including political system,policy-makers, participants and the social reality. The first reason is from political system——the closed "input" mode of policy-making, and it is the institutional foundation to nondecision. Under this mode, there are not the actual pressures and roles on the policy. Policy makers have authorities on the allocations of public resources with its dominant position, to freely decide which social issues can enter the process. The second reason comes from policy-makers, I expound it from two faces, one is the private interest, the another is the cooperation of Policy makers and other social groups. Because of private interest, policy makers will give priority to their own pursuits. If their strength insufficiently, they will be conspiracy to other social groups. And then some issues which they want to catch are organized into polities while others which they do not like are organized out. At the same time, Nondecision is coming. The third reason is from participants. There are two forms: the one is the interests relating to the participants. The other is free rider. The policies formed around the interests of the stakeholders, through various means, with a view to embodying in the more their own interests. However, the strength of these interest groups is not balanced; strong groups will rely on the strong force, by influencing the policy-making process and specific policies to achieve the aspirations of their own interests. In this process, there is the feeling of free rider to social groups, as policy makers in the passive participants, this groups give up the power of the impaction of public policy, and help the "non-normal purpose" of strong interest groups to achieve their targets. The finally is the social reality. The policy-making start with the identification of policy issues, but a complex social problems are identified difficultly in a certain cognitive difficulty, and coupling with an unavoidable cost consideration in the policy-making process, the nondecision has the basis of the reality.
The nondecisions play a huge role in an unique way, and bring the ignored negative impact on the political system. Through using the extensive of hidden power, strengthening the organization's "bias of mobilization”, making full use of policy system which has been in existence for the norms, procedures, etc., and reshaping the political rules of the system, the nondecision realize its role. But there are the main negative impacts: the real needs of the community are difficult to enter the policy-making process, it is contrary to the public nature of public policy, it reduce the role of a scientific analysis, and undermine the legitimacy of the government, and even endanger political stability.
After fully award of the nondecision theory and its influence to the policy-making process and political process, it is clear that the nondecision theory is also very necessary to explore in China, where is being a social transformation from a traditional society to a modern society. In early 21st century, Chinese traditional decision-making system has been undermined, government has increasing emphasis on responding to the social problem, and the consensus has been formed to include it to the agenda of public policy. However, the current policy also suggests a number of risks; for example, the low level of institutionalization of democratic politics, private interests can not effectively be bound by the framework of the system and so on. Because the major problems of Chinese policy-making system is reflected by the nondecision, it holds that introducing this academic category into China is helpful for reviewing and improving China′s public decision system. Then, in the specific political life and the process of policy formulation, the policy-making must be based on the experience and ideas of Chinese domestic environment, must increase social survey and identify social problems correctly,must build the moral construction of policy-makers and participants , have an open mode of administration, help the interest groups to organize ,and make a sound mechanism for expression of interest, enhance the decision-making mechanisms and reduce political costs, and reposition the decisions-making, and establish a service-oriented government quickly in china .
引文
[1][美]拉雷?N?格斯顿:《公共政策的制定——程序与原理》,朱子文译,重庆出版社,2001 年版。
[2][美]约翰?W?金登:《议程、备选方案与公共政策》(第二版),丁煌等译,中国人民大学出版社,2004 年版。
[3][美]E·E·谢茨施耐德:《半主权人民》,任军锋译,天津人民出版社,2000 年版。
[4][美]詹姆斯?M·布坎南、戈登?塔洛克:《同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础》,陈光金译,中国社会科学出版社,2000 年版。
[5][美]曼瑟尔?奥尔森:《集体行动的逻辑》,陈郁等译,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1995 年版。
[6][美]米切尔?黑尧:《现代国家的政策过程》,中国青年出版社,2004年版。
[7][美]珍妮特?登哈特、罗伯特?登哈特:《新公共服务:服务而不是掌舵》,丁煌译,中国人民大学出版社,2004 年版。
[8][美]约翰?克莱顿?托马斯:《公共决策中的公民参与:公共管理者的新技能与新策略》,孙柏英译,中国人民大学出版社,2005 年版。
[9] [美]麦克尔?罗金斯等:《政治科学》,林震等译,华夏出版社,2001年版。
[10][美]丹尼斯·缪勒:《公共选择理论》,杨春学等译,中国社会科学出版社,1999 年版。
[11][美]戴维?伊斯顿:《政治生活的系统分析》,王浦劬等译,华夏出版社,1999 年版。
[12][美]文森特?奥斯特罗姆:《美国公共行政的思想危机》,毛寿龙译,三联书店上海分店,1999 年版。
[13][法]卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆,1996 年版。
[14]张亲培主编:《公共政策基础》,吉林大学出版社,2004 年版。
[15]何清涟:《现代化的陷阱》,今日中国出版社,1998 年版。
[16]杉子:《西方政坛丑闻纪实》,世界知识出版社,2001 年版。
[17]郭巍青、卢坤建:《现代公共政策分析》,中山大学出版社,2000年版。
[18]朱光磊:《当代中国政府过程》,天津人民出版社,2002 年版。
[19]李君如:《社会主义和谐社会论》,人民出版社,2005 年版。
[20]李军鹏:《公共服务型政府》,北京大学出版社,2004 年版。
[21]徐陶颂、徐理明:《走向卓越的中国公共行政》,中国人事出版社,1996 年版。
[22]张国庆:《公共政策分析》,复旦大学出版社,2004 年版。
[23]杨建平:《从决策体制入手推进政府改革》,《政治学研究》,2000年第 4 期。
[24]杨占营:《公共政策制定中的隐蔽议程问题》,《南京人口管理干部学院学报》,2005 年 1 月,第 21 卷第 1 期。
[25]刘碧强:《西方利益团体在公共政策制定过程中的地位探讨》,《哈尔滨市委党校学报》,2004 年 3 月,总第 32 期第 2 期。
[26]张凤合:《政策议程设定中的政策空间》,《理论探讨》,2006 年第2 期。
[27]李春成:《社会境况与政策议题——政策议程研究综述》,《上海行政学院学报》,2003 年 12 月,第 4 卷第 4 期。
[28]任远:《形成多元化的利益表达机制和诉求机制》,《探索与争鸣》,2006 年第 1 期。
[29]曾琼:《精英主义与多元主义——政治社会学两种基本理论模式述评》,《新疆教育学院学报》,2004 年 6 月,第 20 卷第 2 期。
[30]齐明山、陈虎:《当代中国公共政策输入机制的制度分析》,《公共行政》,2006 年第 10 期。
[31]胡平仁:《政策问题与政策议程》,《湘潭大学社会科学学报》,2001年 2 月,第 25 卷第 1 期。
[32]刘雪凤、许超:《团体理论视野下的“非决策问题”分析——从权力运作方式的维度》,《中国矿业大学学报》(社会科学版),2005 年第 1 期。
[33]朱亚民:《我国公共政策制定的弊端及改善建议》,《天水行政学院学报》,2005 年第 2 期(总第 32 期)。
[34]夏义堃：《非对称信息环境下政府决策行为分析》，《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005 年第 6 期。
[35]姚望:《当代中国利益表达现状分析与对策研究》,《内蒙古社会科学》(汉文版),2006 年 1 月,第 27 卷第 1 期。
[36]连承龙:《公共政策制定中隐蔽议程问题的原因及对策分析》,《辽宁行政学院学报》,2006 年第 10 期。
[37]何华兵 万玲:《发展中的政策过程理论》,《云南行政学院学报》,2006 年第 6 期
[38]王立新:《试论我国社会分层中人民利益表达制度的建构》,《社会科学》,2003 年第 10 期。
[39]许丽英、谢津粼:《公共政策程序正义与公共利益的实现》,《学术界》(双月刊)总第 125 期,2007 年第 4 期。
[40]郎佩娟:《公共政策制定中的政治权力与科学分析》,《中国人民大学学报》,2002 年第 2 期。
[41]郑丽兰:《初探公共决策民主化对公共决策成本的影响及对策》,《财经界》(下半月刊),2006 年 11 月。
[42]臧运青、李继良、贾振超:《基于决策方式的决策成本关系浅析》,《商业经济》,2006 年第 5 期(总第 278 期)。
[43]邓伯军:《和谐社会与利益表达、利益协调及利益实现》,《中国科技信息》,2006 年第 1 期。
[44]王绍光:《从经济政策到社会政策:中国公共政策格局的历史性转变》,http://www.tecn.cn/data/detail.php?id=14857。
[45]广州市政府信息公开规定,南方网 http://www.southcn.com/ law/fzzt/fgsjk/200411160461.htm。
[46]中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅:《2006-2020 国家信息化发展战略》,五(三)“电子政务行动计划”,新华网 http://news.xinhuanet.com.
[47]Brain W.Hogwood and Lewis A.Gunn, Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford University Press, 1984.
[48]Peter Bachrach and Morton S.Baratz, Two Faces of Power, American Political Science Review, (December 1962).
[49]Peter Bachrach and Morton S.Baratz, Decisions and Nondecision: An Analytical Framework, American Political Science Review, (September, 1963).
[50]Raymond E.Wolfinger, Nondecisions and the Study of Local Politics, American Political Science Review, (December, 1971).
[51]Richard M.Merelman, On the Neo-Elitist Critique of Community Power, American Political Science Review, (June, 1968).
[52]Frederick W.Frey, Comment: On Issues and Nonissues in the Study of Power, American Political Science Review, (December, 1971).
[53]George Andrew Kourvetar, Political Sociology Structure and Process, Allyn and Bacon,1997.
[2][美]约翰?W?金登:《议程、备选方案与公共政策》(第二版),丁煌等译,中国人民大学出版社,2004 年版。
[3][美]E·E·谢茨施耐德:《半主权人民》,任军锋译,天津人民出版社,2000 年版。
[4][美]詹姆斯?M·布坎南、戈登?塔洛克:《同意的计算——立宪民主的逻辑基础》,陈光金译,中国社会科学出版社,2000 年版。
[5][美]曼瑟尔?奥尔森:《集体行动的逻辑》,陈郁等译,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1995 年版。
[6][美]米切尔?黑尧:《现代国家的政策过程》,中国青年出版社,2004年版。
[7][美]珍妮特?登哈特、罗伯特?登哈特:《新公共服务:服务而不是掌舵》,丁煌译,中国人民大学出版社,2004 年版。
[8][美]约翰?克莱顿?托马斯:《公共决策中的公民参与:公共管理者的新技能与新策略》,孙柏英译,中国人民大学出版社,2005 年版。
[9] [美]麦克尔?罗金斯等:《政治科学》,林震等译,华夏出版社,2001年版。
[10][美]丹尼斯·缪勒:《公共选择理论》,杨春学等译,中国社会科学出版社,1999 年版。
[11][美]戴维?伊斯顿:《政治生活的系统分析》,王浦劬等译,华夏出版社,1999 年版。
[12][美]文森特?奥斯特罗姆:《美国公共行政的思想危机》,毛寿龙译,三联书店上海分店,1999 年版。
[13][法]卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆,1996 年版。
[14]张亲培主编:《公共政策基础》,吉林大学出版社,2004 年版。
[15]何清涟:《现代化的陷阱》,今日中国出版社,1998 年版。
[16]杉子:《西方政坛丑闻纪实》,世界知识出版社,2001 年版。
[17]郭巍青、卢坤建:《现代公共政策分析》,中山大学出版社,2000年版。
[18]朱光磊:《当代中国政府过程》,天津人民出版社,2002 年版。
[19]李君如:《社会主义和谐社会论》,人民出版社,2005 年版。
[20]李军鹏:《公共服务型政府》,北京大学出版社,2004 年版。
[21]徐陶颂、徐理明:《走向卓越的中国公共行政》,中国人事出版社,1996 年版。
[22]张国庆:《公共政策分析》,复旦大学出版社,2004 年版。
[23]杨建平:《从决策体制入手推进政府改革》,《政治学研究》,2000年第 4 期。
[24]杨占营:《公共政策制定中的隐蔽议程问题》,《南京人口管理干部学院学报》,2005 年 1 月,第 21 卷第 1 期。
[25]刘碧强:《西方利益团体在公共政策制定过程中的地位探讨》,《哈尔滨市委党校学报》,2004 年 3 月,总第 32 期第 2 期。
[26]张凤合:《政策议程设定中的政策空间》,《理论探讨》,2006 年第2 期。
[27]李春成:《社会境况与政策议题——政策议程研究综述》,《上海行政学院学报》,2003 年 12 月,第 4 卷第 4 期。
[28]任远:《形成多元化的利益表达机制和诉求机制》,《探索与争鸣》,2006 年第 1 期。
[29]曾琼:《精英主义与多元主义——政治社会学两种基本理论模式述评》,《新疆教育学院学报》,2004 年 6 月,第 20 卷第 2 期。
[30]齐明山、陈虎:《当代中国公共政策输入机制的制度分析》,《公共行政》,2006 年第 10 期。
[31]胡平仁:《政策问题与政策议程》,《湘潭大学社会科学学报》,2001年 2 月,第 25 卷第 1 期。
[32]刘雪凤、许超:《团体理论视野下的“非决策问题”分析——从权力运作方式的维度》,《中国矿业大学学报》(社会科学版),2005 年第 1 期。
[33]朱亚民:《我国公共政策制定的弊端及改善建议》,《天水行政学院学报》,2005 年第 2 期(总第 32 期)。
[34]夏义堃：《非对称信息环境下政府决策行为分析》，《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005 年第 6 期。
[35]姚望:《当代中国利益表达现状分析与对策研究》,《内蒙古社会科学》(汉文版),2006 年 1 月,第 27 卷第 1 期。
[36]连承龙:《公共政策制定中隐蔽议程问题的原因及对策分析》,《辽宁行政学院学报》,2006 年第 10 期。
[37]何华兵 万玲:《发展中的政策过程理论》,《云南行政学院学报》,2006 年第 6 期
[38]王立新:《试论我国社会分层中人民利益表达制度的建构》,《社会科学》,2003 年第 10 期。
[39]许丽英、谢津粼:《公共政策程序正义与公共利益的实现》,《学术界》(双月刊)总第 125 期,2007 年第 4 期。
[40]郎佩娟:《公共政策制定中的政治权力与科学分析》,《中国人民大学学报》,2002 年第 2 期。
[41]郑丽兰:《初探公共决策民主化对公共决策成本的影响及对策》,《财经界》(下半月刊),2006 年 11 月。
[42]臧运青、李继良、贾振超:《基于决策方式的决策成本关系浅析》,《商业经济》,2006 年第 5 期(总第 278 期)。
[43]邓伯军:《和谐社会与利益表达、利益协调及利益实现》,《中国科技信息》,2006 年第 1 期。
[44]王绍光:《从经济政策到社会政策:中国公共政策格局的历史性转变》,http://www.tecn.cn/data/detail.php?id=14857。
[45]广州市政府信息公开规定,南方网 http://www.southcn.com/ law/fzzt/fgsjk/200411160461.htm。
[46]中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅:《2006-2020 国家信息化发展战略》,五(三)“电子政务行动计划”,新华网 http://news.xinhuanet.com.
[47]Brain W.Hogwood and Lewis A.Gunn, Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford University Press, 1984.
[48]Peter Bachrach and Morton S.Baratz, Two Faces of Power, American Political Science Review, (December 1962).
[49]Peter Bachrach and Morton S.Baratz, Decisions and Nondecision: An Analytical Framework, American Political Science Review, (September, 1963).
[50]Raymond E.Wolfinger, Nondecisions and the Study of Local Politics, American Political Science Review, (December, 1971).
[51]Richard M.Merelman, On the Neo-Elitist Critique of Community Power, American Political Science Review, (June, 1968).
[52]Frederick W.Frey, Comment: On Issues and Nonissues in the Study of Power, American Political Science Review, (December, 1971).
[53]George Andrew Kourvetar, Political Sociology Structure and Process, Allyn and Bacon,1997.