Rich Democracies “Family of nations”: Western Europe, North

America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand Politics: democracies (regular, open, competitive

elections) Economics: wealthy, high GDP/capita

High levels of labor productivity (capital and technology) Sociology: post-industrial occupational structure

Industrial jobs replaced by white-collar, service, and managerial sector jobs

Differences from other states Greater labor productivity Higher per capita incomes More technologically advanced production methods Higher percentage of postindustrial service workers More democratic political systems

Differences among states Difference balance between states and markets Cultures, patterns of conflict, institutions, and policies

Political cleavages Politics, struggle for political power, control

over the state, organized along different lines of political cleavage in different societies

Lipset and Rokkan (1967): modern politics the remnants of natural forces from the past Conflicts between center and periphery (between

centralizing state and local cultures seeking to maintain autonomy)

Church-state cleavage: those who believe public morality should be determined by church’s rules versus anticlericals who believe public morality should be determined by the state’s rules Conflict between faith, tradition, and obedience to

church doctrine and science, progress, democracy, and law of the state

Rural-urban conflict: conflict between country and city

Class conflict: workers and employers

Political cleavages, II Some states defined by one conflict, others by

multiple conflicts Some states, cleavages are reinforcing; in

others, they are cross-cutting New cleavages have emerged

Racial and ethnic divisions (e.g., Radical Right parties)

“Post-materialist” politics (e.g., Greens) Old politics about distribution among famers, workers,

capitalists New politics about quality of life (e.g., feminist, gay

rights, environmentalism) Contemporary cleavages in Western societies

(98) Center/periphery, church/state, rural/urban,

workers/employers in decline Materialist/post-materialist, homogeneity/diversity

increasing

Social movements Social cleavages do not necessarily create group

identities (the recognition of common interests and political action to advance them)

Organizations require time, money, and leadership

Groups face the “free-rider” problem in building organizations to advance interests Rational for individuals to gain benefits that

organizations create without paying the costs of joining them

Social movements: unorganized but purposeful forms of political participation Have sympathizers, but not members More diffuse and less hierarchical More contentious and spontaneous Often express strong ideological or moral convictions

Interest groups When circumstances are right, social cleavages give rise

to group identities expressed in interest groups and political parties

Interest groups: private organizations that seek to influence public policy through campaign contributions, lobbying policy-makers, influencing public opinion

Countries differ in number of interest groups; depends on… State structures (how conducive they are to interest group

influence; the more decentralized, the more access points for interest group activity)

Strength of political parties (where parties are weak, interest groups provide resources to candidates)

Differ also in kind/type (pluralist/corporatist) In pluralist systems, membership is optional, groups lack

sanctioning power In corporatist systems, membership is higher, they have more

influence over members; groups participate in the decision-making process directly with the state

Effect: in pluralist systems, groups tend to single-mindedly press their demands (adversarial); in corporatist systems, groups are moderated (consensual)

Political parties Political parties attempt to put members in office, to

become policy-makers, to govern Convey demands and interests of social groups Educate, mobilize voters Recruit, nominate candidates for office Propose policies Connect candidates

Types of party systems (number; strength) Multiparty systems associated with proportional representation

(PR), legislative seats distributed by percentage of vote party receives

Two-party systems associated with plurality voting (“winner-take-all,” single-member district plurality, first-past-the-post)

Strong party systems, voters identify strongly with certain party, vote for that party, legislators are disciplined in support of party platform turnout high, membership high, party id strong, straight ticket

voting, low electoral volatility, party unity in legislature high Weak party systems, turnout is lower, voters do not identify

strongly with party, voters fickle, parties do not maintain strong discipline turnout low, membership low, party id weak, voting split, high

electoral volatility, low party unity in legislature Strong parties associated with parliamentary systems; weak

parties with presidential systems

Party families Radical right-wing Conservative Christian democratic Social democratic Green From right to left:

Inegalitarianism to egalitarianism Right parties more readily accept inequalities

More willing to let markets determine outcomes Left parties want to reduce them

More willing to use the state to mitigate, replace markets to reduce inequality they create

Radical Right-Wing Parties First came to the fore in the 1980s Politically, reconciled to democracy (although prefer executive-

centered politics to party conflict/compromise of parliamentary democracy)

Economically, support free-markets, oppose state planning (want to reduce taxes and welfare state, see as creating dependence, undermining individual initiative, and redistributing income)

Insist on inegalitarian division of citizens (first- and second-class citizens) Between those who came first and defined national culture, and

immigrants (often non-white, non-Christian), who came later, are outside it

Propose closing borders to new immigrants, repatriation, denying welfare benefits and voting rights Non-western immigrants take jobs (create unemployment among natives),

commit crimes, exploit welfare, refuse to assimilate, pollute national culture; a threat to nation’s identity

Xenophobic, racist, highly nationalistic Supporters tend to be secular, working-class males who believe

state needs to be protected against threat of multiculturalism Associated with increased immigration, creation of diverse,

multicultural societies; and increasing alienation (disappointment with traditional parties’ inability to deal with unemployment, crime, corruption); decline of old cleavages and party attachments

Conservative parties Emerged as attractive alternative to voters offended by racism of

Radical Right and egalitarianism of Left Starting in 1970s, Conservative parties argued boundary

between states and markets had to be re-calibrated, giving more room to markets (Left unable to successfully deal with unemployment and inflation, declining prosperity) Welfare state to be scaled back (undermined work ethic, fostered

dependence on the state) State regulation of business to be reduced (interferes with capitalists’

right to manage firm) Public enterprises to be privatized (to increase efficiency) Tax rates lowered (reward success, attract investment) State spending reduced (avoid budget deficits and inflation) Unions weakened (give employers flexibility to adjust to changing market

conditions) Laissez-faire economic policy, market fundamentalism; let markets rule

Weak state with regard to economy; strong state with regard to upholding law, defending traditional values, punishing criminals Law and order parties – repressive force of state to defend property and

persons; reaffirm traditional sources of authority; nationalistic, above class, religious, sectional divisions

Competitive individualism – society benefits when people are free to pursue self-interest; inequality results, but everyone is better off because more wealth is created (investors take risks because they will be rewarded)

Christian Democratic parties Remnants of church-state cleavage Arose in mid-19th century in response to centralizing state’s

efforts to take over education and family policy Parties of the Right, tilt to the center

Seek to defend civic life and communal institutions (family, church) from market and state

Believe in markets, but want to mitigate inegalitarian effects, damaging impact on traditional civic institutions Support unions and welfare states; family values, oppose women working

at expense of families States dangerous to civic institutions

Seek to take over moral education of children and rule over moral lives of citizens

State intervention aimed at repairing society, not replacing it A generous and universal welfare state should sustain civic institutions

(families, traditional gender roles, etc.) Tenuous links to the church; secular defenders of Christian

values, not church dogma Parties of reconciliation and social integration among classes;

seek to moderate class cleavages while defending class differences

Family and church hold society together; seek to guard them from threats posed by divisive class conflict, intrusive markets, and encroaching state

Social Democratic parties Emerged in 19th century to represent interests of working class Radical Marxist origins, became institutionalized as workers gained right to

vote Rather than revolutionary overthrow, advocated electoral road to socialism through

working class majorities and gradual reforms (19thcentury-WWII) By 1950s, goal of socialism replaced by goal of creating more equality (aims of

socialism possible without socializing production) (post-war paradigm of Keynesianism) Instability of markets replaced with full employment Unequal market outcomes rectified with welfare state and progressive taxation Power of private capital nullified by state control over economy; power of bosses by

power of unions 1990s, “the Third Way”

Old post-war program (high taxes, large welfare states, strong unions, state steering of economy, full employment) no longer works High, progressive tax rates scare off investors; budget deficits lead to high interest rates and inflation;

nationalized industry and public sectors distort markets; welfare states undermine work ethic; powerful unions make workforce inflexible

Globalization requires governments to retain confidence of investors who can go elsewhere; governments need to balance budgets to reassure investors; businesses need to be able to respond quickly to changing market conditions; welfare programs need to better respond to changing expectations of clients; governments should sell of nationalized industries, open borders to trade, nourish entrepreneurialism

Social democratic parties moved to the right State has role to play in correcting inequities produced by market, doing what

markets won’t (e.g., invest in research and development) States need to invest in training and education of workforce; state investment aimed

at prosperity and social justice State should subsidize wages, eliminating working poor Active welfare state where rights are balanced with responsibilities Goal to ensure equal opportunity so all citizens have education, skills, and training to

be productive workers

Green parties Emerged in 1980s as significant party in many

Western European countries Represent a new cleavage to the old party

structure; response to issues arising from economic growth Ecological degradation and resource depletion Economic growth untempered by ecological awareness

threatens the quality of life Sustainable development requires limits to growth that

protect natural environment More than an ecological party; opposed to all

forms of domination, inequality (class, gender, rich/poor nations, gay/straight, immigrants/natives, etc.)

Value participatory democracy, openness, decentralization

Support varies across countries; supporters tend to be urban, female, well educated, secular