The structure of power in society is a vital part of understanding sociology. The two main theories that differentiate this structure are Mills' theory of a power elite and Riesman's contrasting theory of veto groups, or pluralism. Both theories are often found in varying degrees when considering major public decisions, such as Hoover's redevelopment plan or the University Village plan. In general, one of these theories is more applicable and relevant for certain public decisions and developments depending on the issue. While both of these theories played a role in Hoover's redevelopment plan and the University Village plan, the ruling elite theory is ultimately more responsible for instituting these developments. The premise of Mills' theory revolves around a group at the top of the hierarchy called the power elite. This is a group made up of military officers, senior government representatives, and senior business executives. Below this authoritative group is a middle class, or middle level of power. These are the people who work in Congress and other mid-level interest groups. Below them are the masses, a group that possesses little or no power in society and is essentially manipulated by those above them. The ruling elite makes all important public decisions, especially those involving foreign policy. The ruling elite are united not only by their common desire for wealth and dominance, but also by their mutual religious beliefs, education, and other social interests within their institutions. If we accepted this theory of a small, all-powerful governing force, democracy in society would be very weak or non-existent. Reisman's theory involves only two major levels of... middle of paper... .nts, which USC has addressed with more sensitivity than the Hoover redevelopment. A coalition known as UNIDAD (Neighbors United in Defense Against Displacement) has been very involved in this issue. Residents feared that after a drastic redevelopment of the area, their rents would rise exponentially, forcing them to look for more affordable housing options elsewhere. Although USC offered a $2 million contribution to help low-income housing, UNIDAD requested a minimum of $20 million, temporarily delaying the project's start. USC agreed to accommodate their demands, satisfying both sides in the situation. This case where residents and UNIDAD members defend their interests is exemplary of a veto group. The decision and implementation of this plan, however, is indicative of the fact that the ruling elite exercises control, but in a more democratic way.