Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

POL 1000 – Lecture 12: State-Society Relations Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Semester, 2011 Sean Clark Lecturer,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "POL 1000 – Lecture 12: State-Society Relations Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Semester, 2011 Sean Clark Lecturer,"— Presentation transcript:

1 POL 1000 – Lecture 12: State-Society Relations Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Semester, 2011 Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Semester, 2011

2 Lecture Arc  1. Pluralism.  Classical.  Neo-Pluralism.  2. Corporatism.  State Corporatism.  Neo-Corporatism.  3. Consociational Democracy.  4. Civil Society.  1. Pluralism.  Classical.  Neo-Pluralism.  2. Corporatism.  State Corporatism.  Neo-Corporatism.  3. Consociational Democracy.  4. Civil Society.

3 State-Society Relations  Nature of relations btn state & society vary from one political system to the next.  State can have more or less involvement in daily public life.  How closely does ‘Big Brother’ watch you?  Some ideologies prefer more of the former. Others desire less.  Can create a typology (pluralism, corporatism, & consociationalism) according to:  1. the intensity of competition in the political arena.  Is politics cooperative (Norway), or more competitive (India)?  2. the manner in which interest groups are founded & organized to represent the interests of their constituencies.  Who creates groups? How easy is it to do so? How do they work?  USSR: protest movements banned. Germany: no anti-democrats permitted.  Nature of relations btn state & society vary from one political system to the next.  State can have more or less involvement in daily public life.  How closely does ‘Big Brother’ watch you?  Some ideologies prefer more of the former. Others desire less.  Can create a typology (pluralism, corporatism, & consociationalism) according to:  1. the intensity of competition in the political arena.  Is politics cooperative (Norway), or more competitive (India)?  2. the manner in which interest groups are founded & organized to represent the interests of their constituencies.  Who creates groups? How easy is it to do so? How do they work?  USSR: protest movements banned. Germany: no anti-democrats permitted.

4 Pluralism  Argmt (i.e. Madison 1788, Bentley 1908, Truman ‘58): is best when power is not monopolized.  Protects vs tyranny of majority or privileged.  Method: permit open, unrestrained competition btn different interest groups (state is impartial referee).  Even playing field = everyone has a shot.  Winning groups get to drive govt policy.  Shifting alliances mean entrenched elite kept from being formed.  As popularity of interest changes (climate change today, energy tomorrow), so too the relative strength of its associated interest group.  Not everyone agrees on everything.  Is a normative preference: competition is seen as good, something to be encouraged.  Ie US, Canada, UK: we want different interest groups to battle it out.  ‘60s & Neopluralism.  I.e. Dahl, Galbraith: wait! Some groups are more equal than others.  People need jobs, thus MNCs treated more favourably than Sierra Club.  Critics abound:  Again, what is competition is neither free nor open? What happens to the weak & their ints? How move weathervane then?  What if competition itself is wasteful, harmful, prone to abuse?  Strikes, advertisements, heated political campaigns all do little to improve the nation.  Argmt (i.e. Madison 1788, Bentley 1908, Truman ‘58): is best when power is not monopolized.  Protects vs tyranny of majority or privileged.  Method: permit open, unrestrained competition btn different interest groups (state is impartial referee).  Even playing field = everyone has a shot.  Winning groups get to drive govt policy.  Shifting alliances mean entrenched elite kept from being formed.  As popularity of interest changes (climate change today, energy tomorrow), so too the relative strength of its associated interest group.  Not everyone agrees on everything.  Is a normative preference: competition is seen as good, something to be encouraged.  Ie US, Canada, UK: we want different interest groups to battle it out.  ‘60s & Neopluralism.  I.e. Dahl, Galbraith: wait! Some groups are more equal than others.  People need jobs, thus MNCs treated more favourably than Sierra Club.  Critics abound:  Again, what is competition is neither free nor open? What happens to the weak & their ints? How move weathervane then?  What if competition itself is wasteful, harmful, prone to abuse?  Strikes, advertisements, heated political campaigns all do little to improve the nation.

5 Corporatism  Schmitter (‘74): interest groups are bound together, by function (i.e. all labour groups in one body), in noncompetitive hierarchy.  Generally ordered into ‘peak associations’ of govt, business, & labour.  Deals made at top (bargain here, rather than on street) are filtered down below.  I.e. Japanese govt, exporters, & unions.  Aim: boost efficiency thru cooperation, rather than competition.  Free markets seen as destructive & wasteful (spend time competing, i.e. tv ads, rather than innovating).  State Corporatism: groups have no choice.  Template for corporate hierarchy is the army.  Mussolini (22 ‘corporations’ to run entire economy), Hitler, Assad: politics & economics brought together by force.  Even more, sought to control private, social life as well (i.e. Hitler Youth, Soviet sports leagues, etc).  Failures of ‘40s overshadow successes of ‘30s.  Neo-Corporatism (‘societal’): softer, more bargaining. Generally limited to econ affairs.  Post-war: little desire for state involvement in social affairs.  Even so, when economy is bad, pressure for govt to diminish competition is common.  ‘70s: trade & free market worries = growth in popularity (‘can protect us from the ravages of capitalism’).  Need to avoid job off-shoring & race-to-the-bottom wage spirals w ‘iron triangles’.  I.e. Bayern govt, Quandt family, & unions all sit on BMW board.  Back today (i.e. AIG, GM bailouts, bc of risk-taking unbridled competition fosters)?  Danger is sclerosis & corruption (i.e. Siemens). Govts good at running businesses?  Similarly, when leaders make decisions for everyone, is incentive to pursue own interest, rather than the group’s.  I.e. Siemens: payments to union leader to reduce wage demands.  Lesson: popularity generally reflects social & economic circumstances.  Still, some political cultures are more amenable (i.e. demanding) than others.  US, Canada, UK on one end; Sweden & France on the other.  Schmitter (‘74): interest groups are bound together, by function (i.e. all labour groups in one body), in noncompetitive hierarchy.  Generally ordered into ‘peak associations’ of govt, business, & labour.  Deals made at top (bargain here, rather than on street) are filtered down below.  I.e. Japanese govt, exporters, & unions.  Aim: boost efficiency thru cooperation, rather than competition.  Free markets seen as destructive & wasteful (spend time competing, i.e. tv ads, rather than innovating).  State Corporatism: groups have no choice.  Template for corporate hierarchy is the army.  Mussolini (22 ‘corporations’ to run entire economy), Hitler, Assad: politics & economics brought together by force.  Even more, sought to control private, social life as well (i.e. Hitler Youth, Soviet sports leagues, etc).  Failures of ‘40s overshadow successes of ‘30s.  Neo-Corporatism (‘societal’): softer, more bargaining. Generally limited to econ affairs.  Post-war: little desire for state involvement in social affairs.  Even so, when economy is bad, pressure for govt to diminish competition is common.  ‘70s: trade & free market worries = growth in popularity (‘can protect us from the ravages of capitalism’).  Need to avoid job off-shoring & race-to-the-bottom wage spirals w ‘iron triangles’.  I.e. Bayern govt, Quandt family, & unions all sit on BMW board.  Back today (i.e. AIG, GM bailouts, bc of risk-taking unbridled competition fosters)?  Danger is sclerosis & corruption (i.e. Siemens). Govts good at running businesses?  Similarly, when leaders make decisions for everyone, is incentive to pursue own interest, rather than the group’s.  I.e. Siemens: payments to union leader to reduce wage demands.  Lesson: popularity generally reflects social & economic circumstances.  Still, some political cultures are more amenable (i.e. demanding) than others.  US, Canada, UK on one end; Sweden & France on the other.

6 Consociational Democracy  Some countries (i.e. Belgium--language, Switzerland--ethnicity, Austria-- religion) torn by deep divisions.  Lijphart: overcome this thru political instxns which enhance cooperation & accommodation (rather than simple majorities).  Can even have pluralist economics at the same time (though often goes hand-in-hand w neocorporatist economics).  These consensus-building mechanisms include:  Coalition govts: bring in minority parties.  Mutual veto: give minority groups right to torpedo legislation affecting them.  Proportionality: use a PR electoral system to broaden representation.  Segmental Autonomy: give minority groups exclusive rights over their own affairs.  Most commonly run own language, religion, & schools. Also HK & China.  Thus in UK, majority winner (even if need coalition) takes all. Vs. in Switzerland, every group gets to share in governing.  Is a third way of doing things (i.e. btn pluralist & corporatist extremes).  Want groups to freely mobilize, yet not about winner-take-all.  Prob: again, what if accommodation comes at expense of national viability?  Plus, not stop conflict (i.e. Lebanon)--& vetoes can = deadlock (Belgium waits months for new govt).  Some countries (i.e. Belgium--language, Switzerland--ethnicity, Austria-- religion) torn by deep divisions.  Lijphart: overcome this thru political instxns which enhance cooperation & accommodation (rather than simple majorities).  Can even have pluralist economics at the same time (though often goes hand-in-hand w neocorporatist economics).  These consensus-building mechanisms include:  Coalition govts: bring in minority parties.  Mutual veto: give minority groups right to torpedo legislation affecting them.  Proportionality: use a PR electoral system to broaden representation.  Segmental Autonomy: give minority groups exclusive rights over their own affairs.  Most commonly run own language, religion, & schools. Also HK & China.  Thus in UK, majority winner (even if need coalition) takes all. Vs. in Switzerland, every group gets to share in governing.  Is a third way of doing things (i.e. btn pluralist & corporatist extremes).  Want groups to freely mobilize, yet not about winner-take-all.  Prob: again, what if accommodation comes at expense of national viability?  Plus, not stop conflict (i.e. Lebanon)--& vetoes can = deadlock (Belgium waits months for new govt).

7 Civil Society  We spend a lot of time thinking about structures of govt. But have only recently returned to idea of just how important private groups are.  In many ways, what private citizens do--& the interest groups they form—are just as important as the govts that rule them.  Private association is fuel of democracy (can be no liberty w/o public vibrancy).  Without private association there can be no democracy, no check on predatory power of the state, no pursuit of interests outside the govt’s.  Govts care more about prisoners when Amnesty around.  Includes trade unions, professional syndicates, parties, NGOs, charities, & clubs.  Now a trans-national component as well.  Diamond, Linz, & Lipste ’95: is also a matter of training/improving pol skills of the public (p28).  Work of private groups made vastly easier when operate in climate of tolerance & mutual legitimacy (de Tocqueville, Putnam).  ‘Social capital’ (trust in instxns & others) makes it easier to cooperate.  Empirical evidence: ‘civil culture’ (lots of trust in instxns & others, political engagement, etc) generally coincides w political stability & affluence.  Even when deferential in politics (i.e. Singapore), social trust can bind a society together.  Prob: how operationalize? How graph? How boost its production?  Is not easy to graph ‘trust’. Feelings are not numbers.  How build society when it does not exist (i.e. religious mistrust in Iraq, ethnic in Afghanistan)?  We spend a lot of time thinking about structures of govt. But have only recently returned to idea of just how important private groups are.  In many ways, what private citizens do--& the interest groups they form—are just as important as the govts that rule them.  Private association is fuel of democracy (can be no liberty w/o public vibrancy).  Without private association there can be no democracy, no check on predatory power of the state, no pursuit of interests outside the govt’s.  Govts care more about prisoners when Amnesty around.  Includes trade unions, professional syndicates, parties, NGOs, charities, & clubs.  Now a trans-national component as well.  Diamond, Linz, & Lipste ’95: is also a matter of training/improving pol skills of the public (p28).  Work of private groups made vastly easier when operate in climate of tolerance & mutual legitimacy (de Tocqueville, Putnam).  ‘Social capital’ (trust in instxns & others) makes it easier to cooperate.  Empirical evidence: ‘civil culture’ (lots of trust in instxns & others, political engagement, etc) generally coincides w political stability & affluence.  Even when deferential in politics (i.e. Singapore), social trust can bind a society together.  Prob: how operationalize? How graph? How boost its production?  Is not easy to graph ‘trust’. Feelings are not numbers.  How build society when it does not exist (i.e. religious mistrust in Iraq, ethnic in Afghanistan)?

8


Download ppt "POL 1000 – Lecture 12: State-Society Relations Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Semester, 2011 Sean Clark Lecturer,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google