Planning Politics & State by Nicholas Low

Author:Nicholas Low [Low, Nicholas]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, General
ISBN: 9781136032967
Google: CZzdAAAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 18556619
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 1990-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Conclusion

Corporatism developed as a theory of how society both is organized and ought to be organized politically. The normative element of the theory was discredited following its adoption by fascist and other authoritarian regimes, and its fate was sealed for a time by the defeat of fascism in the Second World War. The idea was revived in the 1970s in modified form as descriptive of modern states, in contrast with the pluralist description of interest representation and articulation of demand and the norm of open, competitive contestation of public policy. Selective incorporation of non-state elites into government decision-making was counterposed against the ideology, which is popularly associated with pluralism, of equal access to the decision-making forums of the state.

The central theme of neo-corporatist theory is the intermediation between core interests in civil society and those of the state. It is clear that in this respect there is considerable overlap between corporatist theory and the more institutionally minded varieties of pluralism. The incorporation of interests in civil society into the sphere of the state is a tenet of both perspectives. Whereas pluralism, on the whole, postulates a weaker, less decisive, less centrally organized and ‘planned’ state than corporatism, this does not seem to be the critical distinction between the two. It is possible to imagine a form of centrally directed, presidential or cabinet government whose stance towards external interests is entirely pluralist. The key difference between pluralist and corporatist theory is, rather, in the emphasis of the latter on the extension of legitimate coercive power to organizations in civil society, which are then endowed with the right to monopolistic representation of functional interests. We might call this ‘concertation’ rather than ‘incorporation’; looking towards the organic rather than the ectopic state. It seems that there is more evidence for this occurring in some European states than in the American polity. In the field of urban planning there is plenty of evidence of bargaining behind closed doors and incorporation of interests into state policymaking. There may also exist more or less permanent structures for such incorporation. But there is little evidence of concertation.

It does seem, then, that the models of corporatism and pluralism as distinctive types of polity may not be particularly useful in conceptualizing actual observable events and structures. For comparative work, we may have to go beyond these types to identify key dimensions along which the behaviour of states vary. In this respect we have already identified three: decisiveness, incorporation and concertation. States may vary in the degree to which they attempt to co-ordinate their activities by dominating bureaucratic agencies and interests from a central authority: top-down policy-making. They may also vary in the degree to which they endeavour to incorporate dominant interest groups (interest associations, pressure groups, firms) into their own decision-making. Finally, they may differ in the degree to which incorporated interests become, in effect, channels of state power or sub-governments situated in civil society. The last two dimensions may in fact be elided, so that incorporation is regarded as an intermediate stage between competitive intermediation and full concertation.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.