Russell Haggar
Site Owner
Essay: Compare and Contrast Marxist, Elite and Pluralist Theories of the State.
[This is a longer version of this essay. I have included additional information on the issues surrounding the definition of power and on Elite Theories and on Neo-Pluralism. I hope that students find the recent version useful although they will need to summarise this information more concisely for examination purposes.]
A state might be defined briefly as a political organisation which possesses sovereign jurisdiction within a defined territory and exercises its power through a set of permanent institutions which in liberal democracies include Heads of State [Presidents or Monarchs], central governments and their bureaucracies, legislatures, judiciaries and the organisations of regional, state and or local government, the armed forces and the police. There exist major disputes among Marxists, Elite theorists and Pluralists surrounding the organisation and functions of state institutions but before we can investigate these theories, we must also analyse the concepts of power and authority because differences between these theories derive to a considerable extent from different approaches to the definition and measurement of power and authority.
In the analysis of power, we must distinguish firstly between fixed or zero-sum concepts of power [which are used in various ways in Marxist Elite and Pluralist theories of the state] and the variable sum concept of power [which is used in Functionalist analysis and will not concern us here]. Max Weber has defined Power as "the chance of a man or a number of men to realise their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action". That is, power consists of the ability to get your own way even when others are opposed to your wishes which means that Weber sees power as a fixed sum concept whereby if the power of one social grouping [say the capitalist class] increases the power of another social grouping [say the working class] will fall.
Weber argues also that we may accept the State’s power to control our lives in various respects sometimes because we accept that the State has a legitimate right to use its power in various ways and sometimes because we recognize that the State may use either the threat of coercion or actual coercion to force us to obey the State. Therefore according to Max Weber there are two types of Power: Authority which is a type of power that citizens are prepared to accept because they believe that it represents a justified legitimate use of power [and in this respect Weber distinguished also between 3 types of Authority which he described as Traditional Authority, Rational-Legal Authority and Charismatic Authority although it is difficult to distinguish between these three types of Authority in practice] and Coercion which is a type of power which citizens accept not because it is felt to be justified or legitimate but because of the threatened or actual use of force.
Thus, in summary according to Max Weber Power may be subdivided into Authority [=legitimate power] and Coercion [=power supported by the threat or actual use of force].
Stephen Lukes has offered a wider definition of Power such that: "A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests". In other words, Lukes argues that Power is exercised over those who are harmed by its use, whether they are aware they have been harmed or not. According to Lukes, power is a three-dimensional concept. The first dimension of Power can be measured by consideration of the outcome of actual decisions. If, for example, the government embarks on a new nuclear programme despite the opposition of protesters, this would be seen as demonstrating the greater power of the nuclear lobby relative to that of the protesters. Similar cases are the defeat of the NUM in 1984-5 and of anti-road protesters in the 1990s. As we shall see later it is this first dimension of Power which is investigated by Pluralist writers leading to the conclusion that power is indeed widely dispersed in modern capitalist societies.
The second dimension of power is highlighted in the work of P.Bachrach and M. Baratz, who, while recognising the importance of the first dimension of power, argue that power consists also in the ability of the powerful to restrict the political agenda and the policy decisions which flow from it within limits sympathetic to the continued domination of some elite group or ruling class or to the continuation of the existing social order. While the first dimension of power can be measured by the outcome of actual policy decisions, the second dimension is implicit in the existence of non-decision making. Radical critics of the existing social order may be demoralised, ignored, out- manipulated or defined as unrepresentative, dangerous militants such that their protest which could potentially challenge the status quo, does not even figure on the political agenda and cannot, therefore be measured by consideration of actual decisions. For example, radical Green theorists argue that our environmental difficulties will be solved only if we accept that we must wean ourselves away from the desire for permanent economic growth which, according to the radical Greens, is unsustainable. However, in this second dimension of power it is the fact that the zero-growth option is never [or at most rarely] discussed by the major political parties which points to the relative powerlessness of the Greens.
The third dimension of power is emphasised by Steven Lukes himself arguing that individuals, groups, or classes may not even organise to defend and promote their own interests because complex processes of ideological manipulation generate a "False Consciousness" such that many people do not realise what their own objective interests are. For example in this view it might be argued that it is in the real interests of the poor to join a trade union and/or to vote for a Socialist Labour Party because these organisations are most likely to try to defend the interests of the poor and that the facts that many of the poor fail to join trade unions and/or abstain or vote for different political parties is a sign that their lack of power derives from a failure to recognise their own best interests. Feminists might use similar arguments to claim that women who reject the aims and methods of the feminist movement show that their lack of power derives from their failure to recognise their own real interests.
Critics of this third dimension of power have argued that theorists cannot possibly state with accuracy what the best interests of other individuals really are and that individuals themselves should be seen as the best judges of their own best interests. In this view if a poor person chooses to vote for a non-Socialist party or a woman rejects feminist analysis their choice should be respected rather than assumed to show that these people are not aware of their own best interests.
In fact in Marxist, Elite and Pluralist theories it is assumed that societies are characterised by conflict such that social groups attempt to use power at the expense of other social groups and also a zero sum concept of power is used whereby one social group's power can only be increased if another social group's power is reduced but it may be argued that Marxists, Elite theorists and Pluralist use three dimensional, two dimensional and one dimensional concepts of power respectively. Let us now turn to the investigation of these theories.
Marxist theories of power and of the state were of course originally developed by Marx but have been updated and refined for example by Antonio Gramsci in the 1920s and 1930s and from the 1960s onwards by modern Marxists such as Miliband and Poulantzas. Classical Elite theories were developed by Pareto and Mosca, to some extent as a critical response to Marxism, but have also been very significantly modified in a radical leftward direction by theorists such as C.W. Mills. Classical Pluralist theories attracted considerable support in the 1950s and 1960s but they have also been subject to considerable criticism subsequently both from Neo-Pluralists and from Marxists and Elite Theorists.
It is generally argued that Karl Marx did not provide a fully developed theory of the state and contemporary analysts have instead outlined his theories of the state via the consideration of some partly conflicting ideas from his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon on the one hand and from the Communist Manifesto on the other hand. From these sources analysts have concluded that Marx constructed two disparate sets of ideas which they subsequently distinguished as a theory of the capitalist state and a theory of the State in capitalist society.
In the first theory, the capitalist class is seen as divided into class fractions and State bureaucrats have the autonomy to resolve conflicts within the capitalist class and to devise policies which are in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole and which may sometimes involve concessions to the working class in order to maintain a measure of economic and social harmony. However, state autonomy is only relative and concessions to the working class will be limited because effective delivery of state policies is itself dependent upon the availability of financial resources which derive from a continuously effective capitalist economy.
The second version of Marx’s theory of the state is encapsulated in the statement in The Communist Manifesto that “The Executive of the modern state is but a committee for the management of the common affairs of the whole Bourgeoisie. “In this view, the State still has the powers to manage conflicts among fractions within the Bourgeoisie but has far less power than in the first version and is therefore seen as an instrument of the capitalist class within capitalist society rather than as a capitalist state. As will be indicated later these controversies as to the nature of the state under capitalism were exemplified in the theoretical disputes between Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas in the early 1970s. Thus In Marxist theories the Bourgeoisie are certainly are an economically dominant class in that their ownership of the means of production in capitalist society gives them power over decisions affecting production, investment and employment, but they are also described as a politically dominant a ruling class in that they indirectly exercise considerable control over the capitalist state although the exact extent of their political powers is somewhat uncertain in Marxist theories.
Post Capitalist Theories of the 1950s and 1960s
Many would accept that Marx’s theory of the ruling class was certainly relevant to the analysis of 19th Century British capitalism when government ministers were mainly drawn from the landed aristocracy and the emerging industrial bourgeoisie, when adult suffrage was limited and trade unions were weak and the Labour Party was non-existent, thus restricting the political influence of the working class. However, it was claimed in so-called post- capitalist theories of the 1950s and 1960s [and of course subsequently] that Marx’s theory had lost much of its relevance by the middle to late 20th Century because of the achievement of universal suffrage and given the growing strength of trade unions and of the Labour Party. Thus it came to be argued that the managerial revolution or the divorce of ownership from control and the nationalisation of several basic industries [which, however were privatised in the 1980s and 1990s] had weakened the economic power of the capitalist class and that the distribution of political power could be more accurately described by the theories of Pluralism to be discussed later.
Revival of Marxist Theories: Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas
Yet by the late 1960s, Marxist ideas experienced something of a revival and writers such as Ralph Miliband aimed to rehabilitate the Marxist theory of the ruling class arguing that capitalism had not undergone fundamental changes since the 19th Century and theories of post-capitalism and democratic pluralism were themselves inaccurate. Miliband did recognise that the Bourgeoisie or the capitalist class did not have total control over the State but argued that its control was much greater than the influence of any other social grouping or organisation such as the trade unions or the Labour Party which were therefore involved in an “imperfect competition” with the capitalist class for the control of the State.
According to Miliband the State was run by a series of interconnected state elites: (the political elite, the civil service elite, the judicial elite and the military elite); but these elites were, in turn, extremely likely to be influenced by the Bourgeoisie and to make policy decisions accordingly so that the Bourgeoisie according to Miliband remained an economically and politically dominant ruling class exercising power over the State via the following mechanisms.
- Because some senior politicians [i.e. members of the political elite] were also senior businesspersons and might therefore take decisions in the interests of business although Miliband did recognise that members of the civil service, judicial and military elites were not themselves likely to be involved in business.
- However members of all state elites [apart from Labour Cabinets] were drawn disproportionately from the upper and upper middle classes and may well have been educated at private schools and Oxbridge universities and Miliband argued that such people were likely to define the national interest in terms of the interests of the capitalist class which would bring a pro-capitalist bias to their decisions.
- Also, although some people were upwardly mobile from the working class into elite positions this would be possible only if they were prepared to jettison any radical views which they may have had. Thus, Miliband believed, for example, that bright young working-class entrants to the then Administrative Class of the UK Civil Service would be unlikely to make career progress if they continued to espouse radical views.
- In any case the existence of some limited long run social mobility tended to be overstated and used as evidence that the UK was an increasingly meritocratic society which, according to Miliband, it certainly was not.
- Pro-capitalist Conservative parties in the UK and elsewhere were especially well funded in the 1950s and 1960s which gave them an unfair advantage in General Election campaigns.
- Miliband recognised the importance of ideology as a factor influencing the distribution of political power as noted in Marx’ own statement that “The ruling ideas in society are in every epoch the ideas of the ruling class” and in Gramsci’s emphasis on the importance of ideological hegemony as a key influence on political power. d. a capitalist socialisation process operates via family, school, and media to reduce the likelihood of criticism of the capitalist status quo.
The power of the capitalist class can then be demonstrated by the existence of great inequalities of income and wealth. Here, it is argued that such inequalities continue to exist only because the capitalist class has the power to maintain them. “Power”, it is said, “is visible in its consequences”.
While also writing from a Marxist stance, Nicos Poulantzas in the 1970s was rather critical of Miliband’s approach. According to Poulantzas, the capitalist state had some relative autonomy. That is, it had some flexibility to take decisions on its own behalf that some sections of the capitalist class (which according to Poulantzas, was itself divided into different fractions) would not wish to accept. Such relative autonomy was necessary if the State was to resolve conflicts within the capitalist class and to grant concessions to the working class which might sometimes be necessary to defuse protest but which the capitalist class would not readily accept. However, Poulantzas believes that there are limits to the State’s autonomy in that it can only grant concessions which still maintain the structure of capitalism. Its autonomy is only relative. The other key difference between Miliband and Poulantzas is that whereas Miliband stressed the importance of social background of those in elite positions as factors influencing decisions, Poulantzas considered this largely irrelevant and claimed that decisions are much more influenced by the need of the state elites to operate within a basically capitalist structure such that, for example, taxes cannot be raised for fear of adverse electoral consequences or of sparking off an economic crisis caused by a flight of capital abroad. It is in this sense that Poulantzas is described as a structuralist Marxist.
Classical Elite Theories: Pareto and Mosca
Classical elite theorists were critical of Marxism in that they argued that although societies can be divided into ruling elite and ruled non-elite or masses, they also argued that the basis of elite power need not be economic. The political elite might be powerful in its own right because of its political skills or organisation; because it is a military dictatorship; or because it is based on religious leadership. There is no necessary reason why the capitalist class should be able to dominate these distinct kinds of elite, which, according to classical elite theorists, discredits the Marxist theory. Also, according to elite theorists, it is highly unlikely that so-called socialist revolutions will increase the power of the working class because all that will happen is the replacement of one elite by another with no improvement in the overall situation of the working class who, in any case, were considered incapable of exercising any kind of leadership. Note that Marxists and classical elite theorists have optimistic and pessimistic views respectively of the potential of the working class.
The classical Elite Theories of Vilfredo Pareto 1848-1923 and Gaetano Mosca [1858-1941] were, to some extent, developed as a critical response to Marxism. While Pareto and Mosca agreed with Marx that societies were divided into a ruling minority or Elite and a subordinate, powerless, ruled minority or non-Elite, the basis of Elite power was not necessarily in the ownership of the means of production but in the personal qualities and the organisational abilities of the Elite group which enable it to dominate the uneducated, apathetic masses.
According to Pareto, such domination was inevitable and occurred in societies which were clearly dictatorial but also in liberal democracies for liberal democratic institutions were merely a facade which hid the rule of Elites. Neither would socialist revolution change the situation of dominance and subordination since, in this case, a capitalist Elite would simply be replaced by a bureaucratic state socialist Elite with no real change in the situation of the masses, who are pictured altogether more pessimistically than in the Marxist theory.
For Pareto, Elites could be described as essentially "Lions" who were able to take direct, incisive action and tended to rule by force in military dictatorships and "Foxes" who ruled by cunning as, according to Pareto in European "democracies". Social change would occur when one Elite is replaced by another Elite but, in each case, the "Masses" remain exploited and powerless. There is no possibility of the "Masses" coming to power as in the Marxist theory.
Mosca's theory is essentially similar in that he claims that all societies can be divided into a "Ruling Class" and a "Ruled Class" and that the Ruling Class owes its dominance to superior personal qualities and to the limited capacities of the masses but also possibly to a privileged social upbringing so that Mosca's theory might be said to be more sociologically based than Pareto's theory and also, in his later work, he does emphasise differences between liberal democracy and other forms of elite rule. Mosca argued that in liberal democracies, elites were more open, and this raised the possibility that the Elite might indeed govern in the interests of the masses, but Mosca believed it to be inconceivable that the masses could govern themselves.
Classical Elite theorists, especially Pareto, have been criticised on the grounds that they have underestimated the importance of differences between Liberal Democracy, Communist one party states, Fascist dictatorships and feudal monarchies and that it is unhelpful simply to argue that these merely represent different kinds of' Elite rule Also, Pareto claimed that Elites have superior personal qualities but did not show conclusively what special qualities the Elites have nor that the non-elites do not have these qualities Nor does Pareto explain how one Elite is weakened and comes to be replaced by another Elite.
Elite theory might also, to some extent, be linked to the work of Max Weber who argued that in modern industrial societies, senior bureaucrats in both industry and government would wield considerable power. Also, senior government bureaucrats might use this power in their own interests, for example, to expand the scope of their own departments and, hence, expand their own career prospects, rather than in the interests of the capitalist class. Political scientists have often argued that senior civil servants actually have more power than the government ministers that they are supposed to serve, although this is actually a complex debate with some factors increasing the power of civil servants and other factors increasing the power of ministers. Nevertheless, Weber also noted the existence of a variety of pressure groups operative in early C20th capitalist societies and hoped that it might be possible to control the activities of the state bureaucracy via effective parliamentary activity and so that some support for the theory of democratic pluralism can also be found in Weber’s work.
A Radical Elite Theory: CW Mills
A more recent, radical, critical version of Elite theory is provided by CW Mills in his study of political power in the USA - The Power Elite 1956]. Mills argues that due to the growth of central government, the expansion of the military and the concentration of industry in a relatively small number of large firms, it is possible to identify 3 major elite groups in USA society: a Business Elite, a Military Elite and a Political Elite, and that these groups may be combined together to form Mills' so-called Power Elite. Members of the Power Elite tend to have similar social background and education and, by implication, shared values and attitudes Individuals may be simultaneously members of more than one Elite and may move freely from one Elite to another. Mills argues that the Power Elite have "unprecedented power and unaccountability" and that major decisions such as USA entry into WW2 and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan were made with little or no reference to the American people Theoretically, the interests of the general public are represented in liberal democracies by political parties and /or pressure groups (as in Pluralist theory), but Mills argues that the people are manipulated by mass media which are controlled by the Power Elite as are political parties and pressure groups which do not, in fact, represent the peoples' interests .
Mills' theory may be linked to President Eisenhower's warnings about the power of the military-industrial complex. Mills' theory has been criticised by pluralists such as DahI who argues that Mills has not backed up his theory with sufficient evidence and by Marxists who argue that Mills Power Elite is essentially part of a capitalist Ruling Class.
Ralph Miliband and CW Mills
Interestingly in his study Divided Societies [1991] Ralph Miliband adapts CW Mills theory to generate a modification to traditional Marxist Class theory. Thus he argues that the Dominant Class can be subdivided into four sections:
- a dominant Economic Elite: the people who wield corporate power by virtue of their control of major industrial, commercial, and financial firms.
- a dominant Political Elite: Presidents, Prime Ministers Cabinet Ministers, Senior Civil Servants, Judges.
These two sections, the dominant economic elite and the dominant political elite, together make up the Power Elite.
The next two sections are those parts of the dominant class that do not belong to the power elite:
- the people who control and may also own a large number of medium-sized firms.
- members of a large professional class of lawyers, accountants, middle-rank civil servants, military personnel, senior university teachers – in short "people who occupy the upper levels of the credentialised part of the population".
Click here and scroll down for further information on Divided Societies.
- Pluralist Theories: Classical Pluralism and Elite Pluralism and Neo-Pluralism.
Although it has been said that the theory of Classical Pluralism derives from early ideas of Liberalism, it can also be seen as one essential element in the set of post-capitalist theories which were very influential in the 1950s and 1960s. We have already described these theories, but some repetition of their key conclusions may be useful at this point.
In these theories, it was argued that the C 19th capitalist system as described by Marx had, by the mid-2Oth Century changed out of all recognition such that Marxist criticisms ceased to apply. Thus, for example, it was claimed that the economic power of the capitalist class had been eroded in the UK by the nationalisation of basic industries and by the so-called managerial revolution or the divorce of ownership from control, that full employment, rising economic growth and the redistribution of wealth and income were improving workers living standards arid leading to a process of embourgeoisement for the more affluent manual workers, that the expansion of the Welfare State was eradicating poverty and enhancing educational opportunity and that the political dominance of the Bourgeoisie had been broken by the arrival of universal suffrage, the development of powerful socialist or social democratic political parties and the expansion of trade unions and other powerful pressure groups.
Crucially in pluralist theories it was argued that political power was not monopolised by the Bourgeoisie in such a way that it could dominate the state, but that political power was distributed fairly evenly throughout capitalist societies so that no one social class or institution could dominate the state.
The key features of the classical, democratic pluralist view may be outlined as follows.
I Democratic Pluralists claim that the needs and wishes of the citizen can best be met via liberal democratic political processes. They admit that political conflicts between individuals, political parties and pressure groups will exist in liberal democratic regimes but argue also that there is fundamental agreement or consensus about the desirability of democratic processes themselves and that conflicts of interest can be resolved within liberal democratic frameworks so that for example revolution is totally unnecessary to resolve any class conflicts which may exist. Thus, democratic pluralism implies a mixture of conflict and consensus in society.
2 Democratic pluralists use a constant or zero-sum concept of power (rather than the variable sum concept used in Functionalist theory) in which if we assume that if 2 groups, A and B are in conflict, an increase in A's power will automatically reduce the power of B. Their concept of power is also one dimensional in that it is to be measured solely by the outcome of actual decisions. Bachrach's and Bachratz' and Lukes’s 2nd and 3rd dimensions of power are ignored.
3 In large scale, technologically complex societies, active participatory democracy is impossible but political participation can be increased because individual citizens can at least choose in free elections between independent, competing political parties and pressure groups to represent their interests. The existence of competing political parties and pressure groups results in a relatively equal distribution of power rather than the concentration of power implied by Marxist and Elite theories. Clearly, democratic pluralists take an optimistic view of the functions of political parties and pressure groups.
Within this system, the State is seen as neutral rather than systematically favouring one particular interest (e.g. the capitalist class) at the expense of all other interests as is suggested in Marxist theory There are important studies by R. Dahl, C .Hewitt and W. Grant and D. Marsh which give some support to the Pluralist theory but it has also attracted several criticisms , and in his later work Robert Dahl distanced himself from theories of Democratic Pluralism
Within the Pluralist tradition it came to be argued that members of pressure groups and political parties actually have little control over the leaders so that it would be more accurate to describe the system as one of elite pluralism rather than democratic pluralism, but defenders of elite pluralism claim that at least the different elites represent members of their respective organisations so that this is consistent with a form of democracy.
Criticism of Classical Pluralist theories from within the pluralist tradition in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in the development of neo-pluralist theories. The main conclusions of these theories are summarised very effectively in a chapter on Pluralism by Martin J. Smith in The State: Theories and Issues [edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh 2nd edition 2022] .
Thus Martin J. Smith points out that American the neo- pluralists such as Lindblom recognised that business pressure groups were likely to dominate the especially significant economic policy process not least because governments were likely to defer to business pressure groups preferences because governments depend upon the continued profitability of the private sector to generate the economic growth, employment and taxation revenues on which the popularity of governments depends and also that private sector businesses have considerable autonomy to make their own decisions over employment levels and wage levels. Neo- pluralists tend to believe that states are fragmented institutions rather than centralised institutions subject to high levels of business control [as in Marxist theories of the state] but Smith notes that Lindblom argued from a neo- pluralist position that it might be time to give more serious consideration to Marxist and other radical theories of the state. Martin J. Smith states that that the neo-pluralist perspective lies between the classical pluralist perspective and the Marxist perspective and argues that C. Lindblom’s views on pressure groups lie closer to the Marxist perspective than to the classical pluralist perspective but that “unlike Marxists Lindblom maintained the pluralist focus on groups and paid little attention to the nature of the state” although as mentioned he did also call for further investigation of Marxist and other radical theories of the state.
However, criticisms remain of classical pluralism and of both elite pluralism and neo-pluralism. It is argued that they work with a narrow one-dimensional concept of power rather than the broader 2 and 3 dimensional concepts [which are analysed in detail in the work of Steven Lukes discussed earlier in this essay]; it is argued that the limitation of USA pluralism became apparent as early as the 1960s as supporters of Black Civil Rights and opponents of the Vietnam war felt the need to respond to the limitations of the USA political process with demonstrations and civil disobedience to attempt to secure their objectives; that pressure groups other than the trade unions and political parties tend to be dominated by the middle classes so that the working class are poorly represented; the poor and disadvantaged remain marginalised by the political process; and that the continuing inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity suggest that political power must also be unequally distributed. This last point is summed up in the phrase “Power is visible in its consequences”. Consequently according to their opponents, pluralist models do not provide and accurate description of the political process in capitalists democracies but they do serve as little more than a legitimising ideology designed to give an impression of democracy at work whereas in practice, little real democracy exists.
Conclusions
It is no simple matter to assess the relative accuracy of these different theories for experts disagree and the concept of power itself has been described as an essentially contested concept.
Whereas Marxists argue that the Bourgeoisie is a dominant economic class which also exercises disproportionate influence over the activities of the State, Elite theorists argue that state elites govern to a considerable extent in their own interests. Classical pluralists argue that political power is relatively evenly distributed among competing political parties and pressure groups and that states govern neutrally in pursuit of the national interests. However, even neo-pluralists argue that business pressure groups exercise disproportionate influence over the state.
There are important elements of pluralism in liberal democratic political systems such as the UK. There are regular free elections, competing political parties and pressure groups, an independent judiciary, mass media relatively free from government control and considerable freedom of speech and f assembly. According to classical pluralists these factors create the conditions for the political system as a whole to operate in accordance with the Classical pluralist theory and there were a range of studies in the 1960s and 1970s which supported pluralist conclusions and it way also be that classical pluralist theories are more relevant to some areas of government policy as will be indicated later..
However, the Marxist Ralph Miliband notes members of state elites are drawn disproportionately from upper class backgrounds, and it is possibly that their class background causes them to define the national interest in terms particularly acceptable to the capitalist class. Alternatively the Marxist Nicos Poulantzas suggested in a structuralist Marxist view that State decision making was influenced less by the class background of state elites than by the fact that government policies must be formulated in the context of a capitalist economy which constrains governments’ freedom of manoeuvre. Thus, overall government effectiveness depends upon the availability of taxation revenues and the maintenance of near full employment both of which are dependent on business profitability which means that governments are unlikely to introduce policies such as higher rates of income and business taxation or environmental policies which are seen as likely to reduce business profitability and to undermine the rate of economic growth. According to Poulantzas State elites do have some autonomy to take policy decisions but the constraints associated with the capitalist system mean that their autonomy is only relative autonomy.
It may perhaps be agreed that both the class background of state elites and the constraints of capitalism have some impact on government decision making and that both theories suggests that business pressure groups may exercise far greater influence over economic policy than is suggested in classical pluralist theories and that although trade unions and other radical pressure groups may exercise some political influence they are engaged in what Ralph Miliband as called an “imperfect competition” with the more dominant business pressure groups. Indeed, this is a position which neo pluralists would also support.
However it has been argued that it is necessary to recognise the internal diversity of the state and that it may be argued that in policy areas such as health, education, gender and gay rights and animal welfare which do not impinge directly on business interests , the pluralist model of decision making may be more accurate. Nevertheless, even in these policy areas, government decision making may well be affected by the availability or otherwise of government taxation revenue, the level of which is influenced by the capitalist economic context within which liberal democratic governments operate.
As has been indicated it is also necessary to consider varieties of elite theory. It may be fair to conclude that it is unlikely that state elites can operate wit the freedom suggested in classical elite theories. However, the elite pluralist view that pressure groups and political parties may to a considerable extent be dominated by their leaders at the expense of their members does have some value. It has also been suggested that there is some overlap between the radical elite theory of CW Mills [ which suggests that there exists a power elite consisting of interconnected economic , political and military elites] and the Neo-Marxist theories of Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas who suggest that state elites certainly exist but that their degree of autonomy is limited by the constraints of the capitalist economy and society in which they operate. Indeed, in his later work, Ralph Miliband explicitly incorporates some of CW Mills’ ideas into his Neo-Marxist analysis.
My final conclusion is that the operation of state elites is heavily circumscribed by the fact that they operate in the context of a capitalist economy which enhances the indirect power of the capitalist class at the expense of state elites who can be assumed to operate only with relative autonomy. Furthermore, even Neo Pluralists agree that the validity of the classical pluralist model is generally limited because of the constraints of capitalism and the greater powers of business pressure groups relative to trade unions and other radical pressure groups. It may be possible, however, that in areas of policy where economic issues are irrelevant, the classical pluralist model is more useful and the current issue of assisted suicide could be one such important example.