Chapter 3 CPO2002 Lecture

730 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
730
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
443
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chapter 3 CPO2002 Lecture

  1. 1. State and Society Chapter Three Pearson Publishing 2011
  2. 2. • Samuel P. Huntington: “The most important distinction between countries concerns not their form but their degree of government.” • Premise of this chapter: The state and society are linked through different forms of political participation. Some states can handle these demands and govern effectively. Others are overwhelmed by them and experience a crisis of governability - the government rules but does not govern. State and Society Pearson Publishing 2011
  3. 3. • Occurs in democratic and authoritarian political systems • Occurs in many different forms • Legitimate - voting, running for office • Furtive - satire, rumor • Violent revolt • Depends on the opportunity structure created by the political system • Groups engage in different forms of political participation depending upon the opportunities for influence different political structures create • Ex: European political systems create more opportunity for Green Parties, while the US political system creates more opportunity for green interest groups. Political Participation
  4. 4. • Groups are always seeking the weakest point of political access, depending on the resources political actors can mobilize and their opportunities to deploy them... • Engaging different forms of participation simultaneously • environmental parties and interest groups • One form of participation paving the way for another • elections in Serbia, the Ukraine, and Iran triggered mass protests • Or engaging in different types of participation sequentially • US Civil Rights Movement Political Participation
  5. 5. • There is an inextricable link between political participation and improving people’s capabilities. • People cannot create institutional structures on their own they must act collectively to succeed • Four types of collective action linking state and society: • • • • Political Parties Interest Groups Social Movements Patron-Client Relations Political Participation
  6. 6. • Emerge where people have diverse interests and values • Actively recruit and nominate candidates for public office (unlike other forms of political participation) • Criticisms: • • • • they threaten the unity of the political order corruption pandering to special interests they serve the needs of office-seekers, not greater society Political Parties
  7. 7. • The ideal unified political community is a myth people have diverse interests and values • Despite their disadvantages, parties help structure political conflict and organize government • Parties “stage the battle”... formulating issues, giving them relevance, and then offering a choice of candidates from those issues Why Parties?
  8. 8. • In Democratic Systems: • Parties compete to win elections and form governments • A sense of what the public wants is transmitted through party competition • In Authoritarian Systems: • Parties are common even in absence of competitive elections • Used to convey government policies down to the people and promote legitimacy Political Parties
  9. 9. • Entail stable forms of party competition • Distinguished by: • The number of parties they include • multi-party systems (3+) are much more common than the US two-party system • Ideological breadth • Degree of institutionalization • strong vs. weak parties Party Systems
  10. 10. Characteristics Weak Parties Strong Parties Membership Low High Party Identification among Voters Low High Electoral Volatility High Low Party Unity in the Legislature Low High In Brief: Strong vs. Weak Political Parties
  11. 11. • What shapes party systems? • Deeply rooted social divisions • Ex: Western democracies are still shaped by key historical conflicts (class, urban-rural, national-local, and church-state) • Electoral Laws • Ex: winner-take-all laws in most US elections create bias toward a two-party system, while proportional representation laws in many European elections create bias toward multiparty systems Party Systems
  12. 12. • Not all parties and party systems are created equal. Some contribute more to developing citizens’ capabilities than others. • The quality of the link between state and society through political parties depends on the level of party organization, discipline, and program articulation • Programmatic parties - link citizens using a broad appeal and common party program • Poorly-institutionalized parties, parties built around personalities, and parties built on patronage Evaluating Parties
  13. 13. • Immediately following the US invasion ethnic groups in Iraq (Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis) used bullets not ballots to influence the government and settle disputes • In March 2010 legislative elections were held in which all groups participated • Charges were brought of vote tampering and coercion, but 62% of eligible Iraqi voters participated • The results were as indecisive and divided as the overall society • It is unclear whether Iraq’s political institutions will be capable of withstanding the political conflict over ballots, or whether Iraqis will again turn to bullets In Brief: Iraq - From Bullets to Ballots (and back)
  14. 14. • Form when people with common interests organize for the purpose of influencing policy-makers • Engage in many of the same activities as political parties - including raising money, mobilizing voters, campaigning for candidates • DO NOT, however, nominate candidates to run for office Interest Groups
  15. 15. • Interest Group formation faces a number of challenges: • require resources, time, and leadership • Free-Rider Problem - individuals rationally seek the benefits without the costs of membership • These challenges can be overcome, however: • material and non-material incentives • technological innovations (i.e.: the internet) • professional advocacy organizations Interest Groups
  16. 16. • The political structures of a country affect interest groups just as they affect political parties • The number of interest groups • divided, decentralized policy-making structures allow for more interest groups because there are multiple points of access (ex: US) • unitary, centralized structures limit access and the number of interest groups (ex: Sweden) • The type of interest groups • pluralist systems vs. corporatist systems Interest Groups
  17. 17. Characteristics Pluralist Groups Corporatist Groups (Ex: US, Canada, Italy) (Ex: Austria, Sweden) Number of Interest Groups Many Few Internal Organization Decentralized Hierarchical Coverage Low density Encompassing Relationship to Government Lobbying Participates in policymaking In Brief: Pluralist and Corporatist Interest Groups
  18. 18. Table 3.1
  19. 19. • Interest group behavior has consequences for people’s capabilities • The quality of the link between state and society through interest groups depends on their level of cooperation and efficiency • Pluralist interest groups compete, preventing cooperation and efficiency • Corporate interest groups do not experience these problems, and can achieve broader appeal • Fewer and bigger really is better. Evaluating Interest Groups
  20. 20. • Comparing social movements and interest groups/political parties: • Engage in more unconventional and confrontational forms of political participation • From peaceful assemblies to protest marches • Not as formally organized or hierarchical, either • More ideological and contentious • Require a more demanding level of participation • Often personal attendance or sacrifice • Seek to promote group acceptance and enact changes in policy Social Movements
  21. 21. • The emergence of social movements was facilitated by the spread of democracy • Early social movements focused on economic demands (1700s) • Post-industrial social movements addressed cultural divides as well as economic ones • New social movements had more decentralized structures because they were distrustful of bureaucracy • Ex: 1997 Nobel Peace Prize and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines • Increasing global interdependence has led to the growth of international-level social movements • Ex: World Social Forum Social Movements
  22. 22. • A system in which a patron offers or withholds some material benefit in return for political support • Ex: access to work or land, school tuition, medical care, etc. • Most common in countries with widespread poverty and lawlessness where the “haves” are in a position to bargain for support from the “have-nots” • Based on norms of reciprocity • Continuous and direct contact between patron and client reinforce these feelings of obligation • There is a mutually-reinforcing relationship between clientelism and poverty Patron-Client Relations
  23. 23. • Weak states become overloaded by the demands of state-society linkages such as political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations • Crisis of Governability - the government rules but does not effectively govern • Ex: the lack of effective public health infrastructures in Africa contribute to the AIDS epidemic • Often weak states cannot even maintain law and order, exerting little authority beyond the capital city • Ex: the Taliban effectively rules over rural portions of Afghanistan and Pakistan • Corruption is often high in weak states Weak States
  24. 24. • Strong states are able to effectively respond to the demands of state-society linkages, transforming these demands into executed policy • Effectively maintain law and order, collect taxes, execute policies, and enjoy high levels of popular legitimacy • Governments in strong states also have autonomy from public pressures • They are equipped to respond to social pressures, but are simultaneously insulated from conflict and can act in the public interest Strong States
  25. 25. • Are stronger states better at promoting people’s capabilities? • Yes, considering indicators such as infant mortality, literacy rates, political violence, and democracy Weak vs. Strong States
  26. 26. Figure 3.1
  27. 27. Figure 3.2
  28. 28. Figure 3.3
  29. 29. Figure 3.4
  30. 30. • Linkages between state and society include political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patronclient relationships • Citizens engage in these forms of political participation depending on the resources they have and their opportunities to deploy them • Strong states can manage the flow of demands through these linkages and govern effectively • Weak states become overwhelmed and suffer a crisis of governability • Strong states are more conducive to developing citizens’ capabilities than weak states Conclusions
  31. 31. • Is more political participation by citizens always better? Can there be too much of a good thing when it comes to political participation? • Can democracy exist without political parties? • What are some of the differences distinguishing political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations as forms of political participation? Under what circumstances do people use one as opposed to the other form of participation? • How would you operationally define strong and weak states? • What can be done to improve state quality; to transform failed states into sustainable states? Critical Thinking Questions
  32. 32. • This is the question asked by Putnam’s book Making Democracy Work. • Compares effectiveness of 15 regional governments in 1970s Italy • The governments on paper looked identical, but had very different levels of government effectiveness • Hypothesis: that regional institutions in Italy would be shaped by and reflect the social context in which they operated Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others?
  33. 33. • Good performance depended on: • the ability of institutions to manage internal affairs • the appropriateness and extensiveness of legislative solutions • bureaucratic responsiveness • Results: The regional institutions with the best performance were located in areas with a high levels of civic trust and many local organizations Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others?

×