RECENTLY we introduced the concept of responsiveness bias in order to contribute to two major developments in urban political research (Schumaker and Getter, 1977). First is the literature concerned with political (or policy) responsiveness (see, for example, Eulau and Prewitt, 1973; 424-62; Verba and Nie, 1972: 299-343; Lineberry and Fowler, 1967; Karnig, 1975; Zeigler and Tucker, 1978; Getter and Schumaker, 1978; and Clark and Ferguson, 1981). The central questions addressed in this research concern the extent to which policy decisions by municipal officials are consistent with various demand imputs from citizens and groups. Second, is the literature concerning the extent of achieved in the distribution of urban and outcomes (see, for example, Levy, Meltsner, and Wildavsky, 1974; Lineberry, 1978; Mladenka, 1980 and 1981; and Jones, 1981). This research has been principally concerned with discovering the extent to which different neighborhoods receive disproportionately more-or-less specific governmental than other neighborhoods. The major shortcoming of most previous work on responsiveness has been its failure to consider that policy-makers are often more responsive to the demands of some people than others, thus creating a pattern of unequal (or biased) responsiveness. Concerned with measures of overall responsiveness (i.e., the general tendency of policy-makers to be receptive to citizen inputs), previous studies have usually failed to consider how the receptivity of officials varies by the class, racial, ethnic, and neighborhood characteristics of persons or groups making demands. In short, the literature has failed to consider how equally or unequally governments respond to different types of citizens. Meanwhile, previous work on the distribution of municipal has been flawed by its inability to specify an agreed-upon standard for assessing the extent to which in the distribution of city is achieved. Most scholars seem to suggest that implies equal policy benefits (e.g., equal quality and quantity of streets, schools, police protection, etc.) for residents of various neighborhoods, regardless of their class and racial compositions. Yet, it has also been suggested that is achieved when the distribution of policy benefits to citizens is proportionate (equal) to their contributions. By this standard, if the rich pay more taxes, equity demands that they get proportionately more (Levy, Meltsner, and Wildavsky, 1974: 240). In contrast to this rather conservative conception of equality, it has also been suggested that requires of condition after receipt of services or output equality (Lineberry, 1978: 32). Such a standard assumes that relatively disadvantaged people have greater needs than relatively advantaged