PH336 Interest Groups
POLITICS: Wyn Grant
Pluralism
Pluralism claims that power in society is dispersed (widely, but not necessarily equally).
Inequalities in power are non-cumulative (cannot be transferred from one arena to
another), and exercise of power is checked by pressure groups. Truman: political/social
problems are important only once they sufficiently impact the life of a citizen that they
decided to spontaneously collaborate to tackle the problem. Under his view, inequalities
depend on the structure and values of society (explaining the US). The highest status
would be accorded to business interests. Truman’s central position is that spontaneous
mobilisation is not only possible but fairly easy (an understandable empirical conclusion,
given the state of US civil society at the time). The prevailing assumption is that interests
counterbalance each other - business interests would be countervailed by organised
labour. Polanyi thinks in a similar way, but on a much longer time scale and a much larger
(global) scale.
‘Arbiter’ Theory: government stands above pressure groups, setting the rules of the
game and correcting imbalances. Implies a relatively interventionist state, broadly aiming
to achieve equity.
e.g. The EC - concern over power excesses in business lead it to provide financial
support to minorities, environmental groups, etc. While true, arbitration is not
necessarily sufficient to counter powerful interests!
‘Arena’ Theory: less interventionist. Politicians as co-equal participants within pressure
group battle, assuming the distribution of power, the status quo, is acceptable. Under this
view, ministries in government may act as spokespersons for particular client groups.
Societal Corporatism: privileges groups arising from division and organisation of labour,
drawing them into an institutionalised state relationship, both as a means of mediation
between different interests and achieving policy goals.
e.g. Sweden, Austria, Denmark. In the UK, this was the case in the 1960s, petering
out towards the end of the century.
Olson’s Critique
Truman neglected individual action, privileging group interests and attitudes as the only
thing that mattered. He saw pressure groups as benign, and thought overlapping of
interests would ensure that they remained weak and divided. Olson: mass mobilisation is
POLITICS: Wyn Grant
Pluralism
Pluralism claims that power in society is dispersed (widely, but not necessarily equally).
Inequalities in power are non-cumulative (cannot be transferred from one arena to
another), and exercise of power is checked by pressure groups. Truman: political/social
problems are important only once they sufficiently impact the life of a citizen that they
decided to spontaneously collaborate to tackle the problem. Under his view, inequalities
depend on the structure and values of society (explaining the US). The highest status
would be accorded to business interests. Truman’s central position is that spontaneous
mobilisation is not only possible but fairly easy (an understandable empirical conclusion,
given the state of US civil society at the time). The prevailing assumption is that interests
counterbalance each other - business interests would be countervailed by organised
labour. Polanyi thinks in a similar way, but on a much longer time scale and a much larger
(global) scale.
‘Arbiter’ Theory: government stands above pressure groups, setting the rules of the
game and correcting imbalances. Implies a relatively interventionist state, broadly aiming
to achieve equity.
e.g. The EC - concern over power excesses in business lead it to provide financial
support to minorities, environmental groups, etc. While true, arbitration is not
necessarily sufficient to counter powerful interests!
‘Arena’ Theory: less interventionist. Politicians as co-equal participants within pressure
group battle, assuming the distribution of power, the status quo, is acceptable. Under this
view, ministries in government may act as spokespersons for particular client groups.
Societal Corporatism: privileges groups arising from division and organisation of labour,
drawing them into an institutionalised state relationship, both as a means of mediation
between different interests and achieving policy goals.
e.g. Sweden, Austria, Denmark. In the UK, this was the case in the 1960s, petering
out towards the end of the century.
Olson’s Critique
Truman neglected individual action, privileging group interests and attitudes as the only
thing that mattered. He saw pressure groups as benign, and thought overlapping of
interests would ensure that they remained weak and divided. Olson: mass mobilisation is
