Theories of power: pluralist, elitist and Marxist perspectives

Dr. John BarrySchool of Politics, International Studies and Philosophyj.barry@qub.ac.uk

Key questions

How do Elitist, Pluralist and Marxists theories define power?

Are such definitions of power adequate for making sense of contemporary societies?

What understanding of politics or ‘the political’ does each theory give rise to, and should those views be challenged or endorsed?

Why power?Power is an ‘essentially contested concept’ (like ‘democracy’ ‘justice’ ‘equality’ etc.)

Power is an inherently political concept

Definitions of power and definitions of the political’ are interdependent

Theoretical perspectives on power are to a large extent theoretical perspectives on the stuff of politics itself

That is, definitions of power are constitutive of what we mean by ‘politics’ and ‘the political’

Theories of Power: Pluralist, Elitist and

Marxist Pluralism – how power is distributed

Elitism – how power is concentrated

Marxism – class conflict and economic power

Pluralism

Assumes that power is dispersed within society to the various interest groups which constitute that society, that political decisions (including policy decisions) are the outcome of competition between many different groups representing many different interests and that the state acts as a more or less neutral referee.

Pluralism Analysed1. Political power is fragmented and dispersed.

2. The existence of classes, political parties, status groups, pressure groups, interest groups, etc. testifies to the distribution of power

3. Groups provide a more effective means of representation than election. 

4. Public policy is the outcome of group forces acting against one another.

5. No one group will dominate for every group there will be an equal and opposite.

6. The larger the group the more influence it will have.

7. Policies are the product of bargaining and compromise, will tend to be moderate , fair to all and conducive to social stability.

INSIDER GROUPS – MORE POWERFUL

Practically part of the establishment

Able to work closely with elected and appointed officials in central or local government.

Not always an advantage, since it is conferred upon those with largely compatible views to the government of the day.

OUTSIDER GROUPS – LESS POWERFUL

Outsider Groups:

Do not have easy access to politicians and civil servants.

Outside status a sign of weakness.

OR groups can choose to remain on outside so as not be be compromised .

‘Tunnelers’,direct action environmentalists – Manchester Airport, 1997

Critique of Pluralism

“The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upperclass accent” (Schattschneider, 1960:p35)

Power is not dispersed

State is not neutral

Society is unequal

Limitations of Pluralist theoryAn overly ‘optimistic’ view of power that underestimates the importance of informal power outside official decision-making processes

e.g., ‘old boys’ networks, often based on class or ethnic, religious etc bases

Overestimates the ability of interest groups outside traditional elite spheres to actually influence political processes and outcomes

Social, political and economic capital is often key for access to decision makers

Overly reliant on the power of competition to mitigate real social and economic inequalities in society

Resources available to different interest groups are not necessarily proportionate to their overall levels of support in society

Elitist theory of powerIn all societies and political organisations there exists a small class of rulers and decision-makers that performs key political functions and monopolises power, and a larger class that is ruled over and largely passive and marginalised in political affairs.

The ruling elite is drawn from the higher echelons of political office, the corporate sector and the military; an almost‘aristocratic’ nature to this self-perpetuating elite’s exercise of power.

For Pareto elite power is an inevitable outcome of large-scale organisations (a division of labour), related to Roberto Michels’ concept the ‘iron law of oligarchy’.

Elitism Analysed

There are many sources of elite power (wealth, traditional or religious authority etc.)

 

‘Democratic elitism’ – modern democratic elections – opportunities for the normally passive masses to ‘vote’ in different/same elites to rule over them

 

Competition between different elites for election, participation by pressure group elites in between elections, interaction with bureaucratic elites, are regarded as the ways in which democracy operates in a modern liberal democratic capitalist state.

 

 

Elitism and Groups

Distribution of power in society reflect the inequalities of wealth. Some groups have few resources, other have many.

 

Some interests are unorganised; some rely on others to protect them; (minority groups, children, the homeless, mentally ill, poor)

 

Groups fight their battles in a system which is systematically loaded in favour of middle and upper class interests, or financial interests.

 

Organisations themselves are inherently oligarchic. A few leaders wield power, and are often un-elected and unaccountable to members (Michel's’ ‘iron law’).

Limitations of Elitist theoryNot all historical societies have been hierarchical with an elite

e.g., acephalous tribes and egalitarian societies (though elitism as a theory is only usually applied to modern societies)_

Distinction between elites and masses is oversimplified?Universal education and welfare-based meritocracies in post-WWII Europe

Unable to engage with normative issues of democracy and justiceSimply presents the existence of ruling elites as ‘inevitable’and democracy reduced to competition between elites (or sections of the same elite) to rule

Marxism Analysed

“The simple idea is that the policy process, far from being a rational weighing up of alternatives, is driven by powerful socio-economic forces that set the agenda, structure decision-makers choices, constrain implementation and ensure that the interests of the most powerful (or of the system as a whole) determines the outputs and the outcomes of the political system”

(Peter John, Analysing Public Policy, 1999. p.92)

Marxism Analysed

The state’s function is to protect and reproduce capitalism.

Public policies, thus, reflect the role of the state in trying to regulate the economy and ensure social and political stability.

In other words, the state formulates and implements policy to reflect the interests of capitalism and the capitalist/ruling class.

Marxist theory (contd.)

Sources of power:

– Ownership and control of economic property, wealth, productive assets of society, including

control of finance

– Control over ideas, through the media and processes of socialisation more generally, such as

education: ideology/hegemony

– Control over the state

• Role of ideology/hegemony: ‘is not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the

desires you want them to have?’ (Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 1973)

– ‘False consciousness’

• For Marxists, the source and exercise of power is not always readily apparent and therefore needs to

be deciphered; hence the great ability of power to be ‘hidden’ and not immediately obvious.

Model of Class Structureunder capitalism

Capitalist Class

Upper Middle Class

Middle Class

Working Class

Working Poor

Underclass

Upper Class

Corporate Class

Poverty Line

Median Income

Mean Income

12%

13%

30%

30%

14%

1%

Limitations of Marxist Account

State is not autonomous & elites are not unified.

Doesn’t always explain the variation and complexity of public policy and other political decisions made by the state and its agencies.

 

Doesn’t allude to the variety of groups involved in formulating policy.

 

Monocentric view of governments goals doesn’t acknowledge the multiplicity of social and political objectives expressed in the formulation of policy.

 

Limitations of Marxist theory• Overemphasises the importance of power originating in

economic relations – pays insufficient attention to non-economic bases of political power

• Exaggerates the potential for class conflict by neglecting the possibilities for non-capitalist classes to harness power and state control/influence in capitalist societies

• Exaggerates the ability of a capitalist elite to manufacture and perpetuate ‘false consciousness’ among the working class majority

• Underestimates the capacity for the reform of capitalism by liberal democracy- through welfare state provision and state regulation of the free market for example

Summary

Elitist Pluralist Marxist

Source of power elite grouping societal interests capitalist mode of production

Nature of power concentrated dispersed concentrated

Analysis of power

neutral positive critical

Ultimate verdict accept the system engage with the system

overthrow the system

Conclusion

1. pluralist, in which power is diffused widely amongst groups between which there is competition for political office through the electoral system, which is open to all.

2. elitist, in which power is concentrated in leaders who may be elected or appointed, for whose posts there is little or no competition, entry to which is limited.

3. Marxist, in which power is distributed according to the accumulation of capital. Owners of capital operate behind the scene to manipulate the political process, and indoctrinate the mass of the working classes into accepting the unequal economic structure of society.