Xia Li
The first and most prominent political science theory of public policy in the United States is pluralism, with its belief that democracy is a balancing structure within which interest groups compete with one another to control public policy. Although pluralist theory has dominated the study of public policy and political sciences for years, many political scientists find it severely wanting because the historical record and current political system do not sustain its argument. In this précis, I argue that pluralism fails as a general political theory in the case of the United Sates because its premises, conclusions, or normative implications are based on a reflection of the institutions and values/attitudes within a market system derived from the historical past.
Human beings are not always self-maximizing individuals. The basic assumption of pluralist to human nature is that human societies begin with individuals seeking maximum benefits by depending on themselves. Most often, however, that human beings know to cooperate with others with whom to share same values, goals in a totally egalitarian fashion (Boehm, 1999). Therefore, the argument that individuals would automatically maximize private property and create complete markets and consciously decide the develop the state to protect their interest will be untenable.
Institutions cannot limit the power of government and therefore it does not ensure governments to be responsive to public preferences. Pluralism centers on the idea of how power is distributed. It claims that the fragmentation of power, partly a product of constitutional and institutional design, has a central function within democracy as it “curtails the power of government and prevents it from dominating other institutions or limiting the freedom of individuals beyond that consistent with democratic principles” (Schneider and Ingram, 14). It further explains that the institutional structure or decision-making body can ensure a policy victory is not for any group or person, regardless how powerful the group or individual may be. The reality, yet, is that the within current institutional structure, powerful groups capture the policy-making and implementation processes. From the election stage, the groups of interest utilize PAC and super PAC to influence the election outcomes and elect and defeat candidates. When their selected candidates are in office, they will use the power with “two faces” or “three faces” to determine policy making and implementation (Schneider and Ingram, 14; Bachrach and Baratz, 925). These interest groups have the power to influence elected officials, policy outputs or agency behaviors – “first face of power”; they do also have to ability to keep important issues off the political agenda and limit decision making to relatively non-controversial matters – “second face of power”. Moreover, a third face of power can influence the belief system such as community values, social rituals and political procedures through dominant ideologies designed by these powerful groups.
Elected leaders are responsive and accountable to the interest groups who hold the true power through wealth influence in the political system, rather than citizens. Pluralist theory argues that self-interested pursuit of re-election is viewed as a positive attribute of individuals because it helps ensure responsiveness to the public. However, as the excessive costs of campaigns play a key role in the election process, it is apparent to see how the power and influence of the interest groups are exercised in the process of agenda setting, formulation, adoption and implementation (Schneider and Ingram, 18). Although have not been ratified, the agreement of The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal serves as a good example to show how the elected officials are responsive to the few rather than the public. To United States, the largest beneficiaries are those big businesses and the ones who get hurt most are the small business and the general public. In addition, the biggest criticism to TPP is the secretive negotiations, in which governments tried to make wide-ranging changes without notifying the public and voters’ knowledge.
The relationship between the citizens and interest groups as described in pluralism is far divorced from reality. In a pluralist democracy, citizens are more likely to have their preferences reflected in public policy through the intermediate groups such as interest groups, professional associations, and political parties. Meanwhile, Pluralism proposes that the self-correcting features exist when citizens pay enough attention to politics that they can mobilize when their interest are threatened. Two critical problems are present in these statements. First, the power held in the citizens is not as much as it in the hand of interest groups, with the unbalanced power distribution, why would interest groups be willing be the spokesmen for citizens? Second, even citizens’ interest and their lives are threatened, the self-correcting features will not be activated with the current corrupted system. Multiple cases of police brutality, misconduct and shootings have taken away so many living black lives, no matter how many protests have been going on, there seems no further and effective actions to make fair justice.
The question raised in Scholar Rita Sandoval’s précis - structural change from within the confines of an established political system – is a chicken or the egg causality dilemma. To truly achieve structural change, we need to make fundamental reforms in the political system; but to make the fundamental reforms possible, the structural change is a premise. No doubt there is no easy solution to this dilemma, but I want to emphasize how education can make a big difference in the current political system. I partly agree with traditional conservatives’ suggestion that political power should be held by democratic elites who have a stake in the society and are well educated. Nevertheless, I want to point out that the questions regarding who receive well education and what education they receive are more important. Because these questions determine whether the well educated elites in power are committed to serving the public interest and to the principles of human basic values. Germany and Japan were the most well educated countries before WWII, it is also these two countries started the wars and committed vicious crimes to human beings because of the nationalism and militarism education. To make government and public policy hold accountable for the citizens, we need invest more in the field of education to empower the citizens with knowledge, and educate the government officials to have respect and empathy for the people who are disadvantaged.
To sum up, the pluralist theory of U.S. democracy is neither realistic or functional in many aspects. In this précis, I have reputed the main arguments proposed by pluralism from its false assumption of the nature of human beings, the ineffective constitutional and institutional design to the role of elected officials and interest groups. Education can play an effective and active role to make structural change within current political system by a reunion of the segregated society and electing the elites that are educated to commit to serving the public interest.
Reference
Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram, Chapter 2: “A Pluralist View of Public Policy” in
Policy Design for Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 1997. (C)
Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” The American Political Science
7
Review, 56(4), 1962. (C)
Domhoff, Williams, Alternative Theoretical Views. Theories of Power. April 2005
Human beings are not always self-maximizing individuals. The basic assumption of pluralist to human nature is that human societies begin with individuals seeking maximum benefits by depending on themselves. Most often, however, that human beings know to cooperate with others with whom to share same values, goals in a totally egalitarian fashion (Boehm, 1999). Therefore, the argument that individuals would automatically maximize private property and create complete markets and consciously decide the develop the state to protect their interest will be untenable.
Institutions cannot limit the power of government and therefore it does not ensure governments to be responsive to public preferences. Pluralism centers on the idea of how power is distributed. It claims that the fragmentation of power, partly a product of constitutional and institutional design, has a central function within democracy as it “curtails the power of government and prevents it from dominating other institutions or limiting the freedom of individuals beyond that consistent with democratic principles” (Schneider and Ingram, 14). It further explains that the institutional structure or decision-making body can ensure a policy victory is not for any group or person, regardless how powerful the group or individual may be. The reality, yet, is that the within current institutional structure, powerful groups capture the policy-making and implementation processes. From the election stage, the groups of interest utilize PAC and super PAC to influence the election outcomes and elect and defeat candidates. When their selected candidates are in office, they will use the power with “two faces” or “three faces” to determine policy making and implementation (Schneider and Ingram, 14; Bachrach and Baratz, 925). These interest groups have the power to influence elected officials, policy outputs or agency behaviors – “first face of power”; they do also have to ability to keep important issues off the political agenda and limit decision making to relatively non-controversial matters – “second face of power”. Moreover, a third face of power can influence the belief system such as community values, social rituals and political procedures through dominant ideologies designed by these powerful groups.
Elected leaders are responsive and accountable to the interest groups who hold the true power through wealth influence in the political system, rather than citizens. Pluralist theory argues that self-interested pursuit of re-election is viewed as a positive attribute of individuals because it helps ensure responsiveness to the public. However, as the excessive costs of campaigns play a key role in the election process, it is apparent to see how the power and influence of the interest groups are exercised in the process of agenda setting, formulation, adoption and implementation (Schneider and Ingram, 18). Although have not been ratified, the agreement of The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal serves as a good example to show how the elected officials are responsive to the few rather than the public. To United States, the largest beneficiaries are those big businesses and the ones who get hurt most are the small business and the general public. In addition, the biggest criticism to TPP is the secretive negotiations, in which governments tried to make wide-ranging changes without notifying the public and voters’ knowledge.
The relationship between the citizens and interest groups as described in pluralism is far divorced from reality. In a pluralist democracy, citizens are more likely to have their preferences reflected in public policy through the intermediate groups such as interest groups, professional associations, and political parties. Meanwhile, Pluralism proposes that the self-correcting features exist when citizens pay enough attention to politics that they can mobilize when their interest are threatened. Two critical problems are present in these statements. First, the power held in the citizens is not as much as it in the hand of interest groups, with the unbalanced power distribution, why would interest groups be willing be the spokesmen for citizens? Second, even citizens’ interest and their lives are threatened, the self-correcting features will not be activated with the current corrupted system. Multiple cases of police brutality, misconduct and shootings have taken away so many living black lives, no matter how many protests have been going on, there seems no further and effective actions to make fair justice.
The question raised in Scholar Rita Sandoval’s précis - structural change from within the confines of an established political system – is a chicken or the egg causality dilemma. To truly achieve structural change, we need to make fundamental reforms in the political system; but to make the fundamental reforms possible, the structural change is a premise. No doubt there is no easy solution to this dilemma, but I want to emphasize how education can make a big difference in the current political system. I partly agree with traditional conservatives’ suggestion that political power should be held by democratic elites who have a stake in the society and are well educated. Nevertheless, I want to point out that the questions regarding who receive well education and what education they receive are more important. Because these questions determine whether the well educated elites in power are committed to serving the public interest and to the principles of human basic values. Germany and Japan were the most well educated countries before WWII, it is also these two countries started the wars and committed vicious crimes to human beings because of the nationalism and militarism education. To make government and public policy hold accountable for the citizens, we need invest more in the field of education to empower the citizens with knowledge, and educate the government officials to have respect and empathy for the people who are disadvantaged.
To sum up, the pluralist theory of U.S. democracy is neither realistic or functional in many aspects. In this précis, I have reputed the main arguments proposed by pluralism from its false assumption of the nature of human beings, the ineffective constitutional and institutional design to the role of elected officials and interest groups. Education can play an effective and active role to make structural change within current political system by a reunion of the segregated society and electing the elites that are educated to commit to serving the public interest.
Reference
Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram, Chapter 2: “A Pluralist View of Public Policy” in
Policy Design for Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 1997. (C)
Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” The American Political Science
7
Review, 56(4), 1962. (C)
Domhoff, Williams, Alternative Theoretical Views. Theories of Power. April 2005