In the early part of the 20th century, the reform movement in American municipal
government37 ostensibly offered a series of "reforms" that was supposed to reduce corruption in
government, replacing "political machines" and patronage appointments with civil service exams
and a more efficient form of government. Instead of directly elected mayors, the reformers
promoted the notion of a non-elected "city manager" who was supposed to be above politics and
to run the city's services like a business. The main thrust of the reform movement was to
eliminate ward-based elections of city council representatives, replacing them with at-large
elections. At-large elections were supposed to eliminate the incentive for council members to
appeal to narrow neighborhood or ward-interests of a particular ethnic group and instead to
represent the city-as-a-whole.
The ideology of reform was packaged in terms like public interest and reducing
corruption and waste in government. Yet, it is clear that its main impact was to weaken the
social capital of immigrant ethnic groups, especially those from Ireland, Eastern and Southern
Europe by eliminating the selective incentives offered by ethnic ward politicians. One of the
main motivators for the reform movement was to counter the success of immigrant ethnic
political entrepreneurs in using the social incentives of "friendship," inclusion," and social
support, along with modest material incentives associated with patronage. The machine
politicians had built federated groups that drew upon the bonding social capital of ethnic family,
kin and friendship networks. These bridging ties, created by the ward-based municipal political
system, permitted ethnic immigrants to achieve a significant influence in American urban and
national life, the latter occurring through the federated relationship between big city political
machines and the national Democratic Party. Where the reform movement was successful, its
17