The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework
Abstract
In recent years a rich outpouring of case studies on community decision-making has been combined with a noticeable lack of generalizations based on them. One reason for this is a commonplace: we have no general theory, no broad-gauge model in terms of which widely different case studies can be systematically compared and contrasted. Among the obstacles to the development of such a theory is a good deal of confusion about the nature of power and of the things that differentiate it from the equally important concepts of force, influence, and authority. These terms have different meanings and are of varying relevance; yet in nearly all studies of community decision-making published to date, power and influence are used almost interchangeably, and force and authority are neglected. The researchers thereby handicap themselves. For they utilize concepts which are at once too broadly and too narrowly drawn: too broadly, because important distinctions between power and influence are brushed over; and too narrowly, because other concepts are disregarded—concepts which, had they been brought to bear, might have altered the findings radically. Many investigators have also mistakenly assumed that power and its correlatives are activated and can be observed only in decisionmaking situations. They have overlooked the equally, if not more important area of what might be called “nondecision-making”, i.e., the practice of limiting the scope of actual decisionmaking to “safe” issues by manipulating the dominant community values, myths, and political institutions and procedures. To pass over this is to neglect one whole “face” of power.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Careership: a sociological theory of career decision making
Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997) · British Journal of Sociology of Education · doi:10.1080/0142569970180102 · Cited by 706
Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003 · Cited by 520
(2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491207 · Cited by 461
Katzenstein, P. J. (1976) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300003726 · Cited by 279
Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study
Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M., & Gastil, J. (2006) · Journal of Deliberative Democracy · doi:10.16997/jdd.35 · Cited by 225
Metadata
- Authors
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1963-09
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 632-642
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2140623837
- Cited by
- 1,263
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1952568
- The paper
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952568
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.