Athens is often considered to have been the birth place of democracy but there were many democracies in Greece during the Archaic and Classical periods and this is a study of the other democratic states. Robinson begins by discussing ancient and modern definitions of democracy, he then examines Greek terminology, investigates the evidence for other early democratic states and draws conclusions about its emergence.

Having organized neighborhood discussion groups before World War I, Follett traces the dynamics she noticed in these forums and develops some core concepts useful for those working on questions of public deliberation today. She also shows how deliberation informs debates that raged in political theory during her own era. She discusses the works of pluralists (Harold Laski), idealists (T. H. Green and Bernard Bosanquet), and pragmatists (William James) and makes important arguments about the relationship between socialism and democracy. Her work is marked by rigorous thinking about the implications of democratic principles as they relate to political and socioeconomic organization. This book articulates the formation of a so-called new state, growing out of the local activities of citizens and renews the American idea of federalism in order to balance local activities and national purposes.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

When the people of British North America threw off their colonial bonds, they sought more than freedom from bad government: most of the founding generation also desired the freedom to create and enjoy good, popular, responsive government. This book traces the central issue on which early Americans pinned their hopes for positive government action--internal improvement. The nation's early republican governments undertook a wide range of internal improvement projects meant to assure Americans' security, prosperity, and enlightenment--from the building of roads, canals, and bridges to the establishment of universities and libraries. But competitive struggles eventually undermined the interstate and interregional cooperation required, and the public soured on the internal improvement movement. Jacksonian politicians seized this opportunity to promote a more libertarian political philosophy in place of activist, positive republicanism. By the 1850s, the United States had turned toward a laissez-faire system of policy that, ironically, guaranteed more freedom for capitalists and entrepreneurs than ever envisioned in the founders' revolutionary republicanism.

Political theory consists in clarification of language and concepts, in description and analysis of institutions and behavior, and in appraisal and evaluation of political events. Hynemans theory is not one of the behavioral or functional varieties that rely on special language and concepts drawn from other disciplines than political science. It emphasizes a central concern of both conventional and behavioral theory: the distribution of "power," or what proportion of people have influence over what aspects of government. The main task of political theory, Hyneman thinks, is clarification of the values served by and sustaining American democracy. This task gives meaning and direction to analysis of the elements of democracy and to empirical research on the processes of democracy. In this sense political science is not "value-free"; it is most useful in pursuit of the implications of basic beliefs and ideals. Hynemans emphasis on popular control, electoral politics, and equality of influence tends to challenge both of the "pluralist" and "ruling elite" schools-though it should be clear that he is not engaged in a scholastic debate. The freedom of his analysis, ranging from specific reference to the professional controversies of his day is one of its strengths and a probable source of originality. He connects it explicitly to the literature of political science at critical points, as it existed when originally published in 1968.