Doctoral Dissertation Research: Civic Associationalism and Municipal Social Spending in Late Nineteenth Century French, English, and American Cities

政治理论家普遍认为，公民参与对民主社会中政府的规模和范围有重大影响，但对确切的影响意见不一。本论文的研究项目将比较在美国，法国和英国的最大城市的公民协会的数量与他们的相对市政支出和选民参与率为两个财政年度，1880年和1890年，研究在“associationalism”的变化对市政社会支出和选民投票率随着时间的推移的影响。本研究将探讨结社主义的三个理论概念与三个不同国家背景的相关性：（1）新托克维尔观点，将结社活动视为政府干预的替代方案;（2）社会运动观点，将社团视为利益集团，动员起来刺激政府在与其具体追求密切相关的领域采取行动;（3）社会资本视角，它对结社主义对政府规模的影响持中立态度，但认为结社活动是对更大政治参与的刺激。本文的研究结果将为三种截然不同的政治制度下政府与非政府组织之间的关系提供新的视角：法国，结社自由受到限制，市政事务由国家行政人员管理;英国，结社主义与基于阶级的职业组织的悠久历史有关，市政自治受到议会监督的限制;（3）美国，在那里，结社主义受政治和经济限制最少，市政自治权最大。

Political theorists generally agree that civic participation has a significant effect on the size and scope of government in democratic societies, but disagree as to the precise effect. This dissertation research project will compare the number of civic associations in the largest cities in the United States, France, and England with their relative municipal expenditures and voter participation rates for two fiscal years, 1880 and 1890, examining the effect of changes in "associationalism" on both municipal social spending and voter turn-out over time. The study will examine the relevance of three theoretical conceptions of associationalism with respect to three different national contexts: (1) a Neo-Tocquevillian perspective that views associational activity as an alternative to government intervention; (2) a Social movements perspective that views associations as interest-groups mobilized to stimulate government action in areas germane to their specific pursuits; and (3) a Social capital perspective that is neutral with respect to the impact of associationalism on the size of government, but sees associational activity as a stimulus to greater political participation. The results of this research will shed new light on the relationship between governmental and extra-governmental organizations in three contrasting political systems: France, where freedom of associationalism was limited and municipal affairs managed by national administrators; Britain, where associationalism was connected to a long history of class-based occupational organizations and municipal autonomy was limited by Parliamentary oversight; and (3) the U.S., where associationalism was least restrained by political and economic constraints and municipal autonomy was greatest.