Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:06:50.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Political and Societal Conflict in Democracies: Do Consensus and Corporatism Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Hans Keman  and
Paul Pennings
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their Note ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries’ (this Journal, 21 (1991), 235–46) Arend Lijphart and Markus Crepaz sought to analyse the conceptual and theoretical linkages between corporatism and consensus democracy. Their aim was not only to investigate whether the concepts were linked to each other, but also to examine to what extent they overlapped. The authors claim that corporatism is part and parcel of consensual types of democracy (p. 235). If corporatism could be included as a dimension of consensual democracy the contrasts between Westminster and consensual types of democracy would be empirically enhanced and would be more comprehensive. Although this is an interesting line of thought, we think that there are a number of conceptual and methodological flaws in the elaboration of this idea that should be discussed in more detail, because they may very well cast some doubt on the degree to which corporatism is indeed ‘part and parcel’ of consensual politics. In this Comment we shall elaborate this argument and also suggest some ways in which the thrust of Lijphart and Crepaz's theoretical arguments can be upheld and their empirical analysis improved.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 271 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Katzenstein, P. J., Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Western, Bruce, ‘A Comparative Study of Corporatist Development’, American Sociological Review, 56 (1991), 283–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hicks, Alexander, ‘Social Democratic Corporatism and Economic Growth’, Journal of Politics, 50 (1988), 677–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williamson, P. J., Corporatism in Perspective: An Introductory Guide to Corporatist Theory (London: Sage, 1989).Google Scholar

2 Schmitter, P. C., ‘Interest Intermediation and Regime Governability in Contemporary Western Europe and North America’, in Berger, Susanne, ed., Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism and the Transformation of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 287–327, at p. 294Google Scholar; Crouch, Colin, ‘Conditions for Trade Union Restraint’, in Lindberg, Leon and Maier, Charles S., eds, The Politics of Inflation and Economic Stagnation (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1985), pp. 115–99Google Scholar; Cameron, David R., ‘Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labour Quiescence and the Representation in Economic Interest in Advanced Capitalist Society’, in Goldthorpe, John H., ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 143–78, at pp. 165–Google Scholar; Schmidt, Manfred G., ‘Does Corporatism Matter? Economic Crisis, Politics and Rates of Unemployment in Capitalist Democracies in the 1970s’, in Lehmbruch, G. and Schmitter, P. C., eds, Patterns ofCorporatist Policy-Making (London: Sage, 1982) pp. 237–58, at p. 245Google Scholar; Czada, Roland, ‘Kondensbedingungen und Auswirkungen neokorporatistischer Politikentwicklung’, Journal für Sozialforschung, 23 (1983), 421–40, at p. 422.Google Scholar

3 Paloheimo, Heikki, ‘Distributive Struggle, Corporatist Power Structures and Economic Policy’, in Paloheimo, Heikki, ed, Politics in the Era of Corporatism and Planning (Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association, 1984), pp. 16–17Google Scholar; Lehner, Franz, ‘The Political Economy of Distributive Conflict’ in Castles, Francis G., Lehner, Franz and Schmidt, Manfred G., eds, Managing Mixed Economies (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), 54–96, at p. 58.Google Scholar

4 Marks' and Schmitter's scores are inverted, which explains the negative relationship with other indices.

5 Czada, , ‘Kondensbedingungen und Auswirkungen neokorporatistischer Politikentwicklung’Google Scholar; Paloheimo, , ‘Distributive Struggle’Google Scholar; Schmidt, , ‘Does Corporatism Matter?’Google Scholar; Schott, Kerry, Policy, Power, and Order: The Persistence of Economic Problems in Capitalist States (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

6 Czada, Roland, ‘The Impact of Interest Policies on Flexible Adjustment Policies’, in Keman, Hans, Paloheimo, Heikki and Whiteley, P. F., eds, Coping with the Economic Crisis (London: Sage, 1987), pp. 20–53Google Scholar; Lehner, , ‘The Political Economy of Distributive Conflict’; M. Bruno and J. D. Sachs, Economics of Worldwide Stagflation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

7 Czada, Paloheimo, Lehner and Schmidt differ in this respect on Australia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom; Crouch, Schmitter, Schott, and Bruno and Sachs have quite different scores on Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland.

8 Keman, Hans, The Development Toward Surplus Welfare: Social Democratic Politics and Policies in Advanced Capitalist Democracies (Amsterdam: CT Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Braun, Dietmar, Grenzen Politischer Regulierung: der Weg in die Massenarbeitslosigkeit am Beispiel der Niederlande (Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitaets-Verlag, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pennings, Paul, ‘Changes in Welfare Statism’ (paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Essex, 1991).Google Scholar

9 Collier, David and Mahon, James, ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), 845–55, esp. pp. 849ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Braun, , Grenzen Politischer RegulierungGoogle Scholar; Pennings, , ‘Changes in Welfare Statism’.Google Scholar

11 Lijphart, Arend, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 211–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 The relative size of parties in parliament and government is scored from 1 = right-wing dominance to 5 = left-wing dominance (1945–90); as measured by Schmidt, Manfred G., Die Westlichen Länder, Vol. 3 of Lexikon der Politik (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992), Table 32.Google Scholar

13 We have scored von Beyme's classification as follows: 1 = two-party system; 2 = polarized pluralist with more extreme parties; 3 = polarized with centre parties; 4 = moderate pluralist with centre parties; 5 = moderate pluralist with more extreme parties. See von Beyme, Klaus, Political Parlies in Western Democracies (Aldershot: Gower, 1985), p. 264.Google Scholar