“What are the theoretical models of societal power? Which one of them is most applicable in advanced industrial societies?” (2019)
Societal power is the distribution of power across a whole society: who shapes the decisions of the state and the direction of collective life. The models differ on whether that power is concentrated or dispersed, and on whether its base is economic, organisational or cultural. Which model fits advanced industrial societies has to be settled by evidence, not by preference.
The main models
| Model | Key thinkers | Core claim | Picture of industrial society |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pluralist | Robert Dahl (Who Governs?, 1961) | Power is dispersed; groups win in different issue areas; the state is a broker | A polyarchy of competing minorities |
| Elite | Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels; C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite, 1956); Floyd Hunter (Community Power Structure, 1953) | A cohesive minority holds the command posts | Corporate, military and political elites interlock |
| Ruling class (Marxist) | Karl Marx; Ralph Miliband; Nicos Poulantzas | Economic ownership becomes political rule | The state secures capitalist accumulation |
| Functionalist | Talcott Parsons | Power is a collective capacity backed by shared values | Growth expands everyone’s power |
| Neo-pluralist / corporatist | Charles E. Lindblom (Politics and Markets, 1977); Philippe C. Schmitter | Groups compete, but business holds a privileged position; peak bodies bargain with the state | Competition on an uneven field |
| Radical and post-structural | Steven Lukes (1974); Michel Foucault | Power shapes agendas, wants and identities | Consent and surveillance, not only command |
Testing the models
- Classical pluralism fails its own test. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014) examined 1,779 policy issues in the United States. Economic elites and business-oriented groups had substantial independent influence on policy; average citizens and mass-based groups had little or none. The findings supported “economic-elite domination” and “biased pluralism”, not majoritarian pluralism.
- The ruling-class model is too rigid. Universal suffrage, trade unions and welfare states won real gains for workers. Walter Korpi (The Democratic Class Struggle, 1983) argued that organised labour, where strong, as in Sweden, converts numbers into political power. Outcomes vary with the balance of organised forces.
- The single power elite is too unified. Business, bureaucratic, media and military elites often conflict, and governments do change hands.
- Parsons cannot explain entrenched inequality. Growth has coincided with concentration. Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson (Winner-Take-All Politics, 2010) traced how organised business lobbying since the 1970s reshaped American tax, labour and financial rules in favour of the very top.
- Invisible power is growing. Colin Crouch (Post-Democracy, 2004) argued that elections continue while real decisions move to lobbies and global firms. Shoshana Zuboff (The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 2019) showed platform companies predicting and steering behaviour from personal data, which fits Foucault’s disciplinary power and Lukes’s third dimension.
Which model applies best?
The neo-pluralist (elite-pluralist) model fits advanced industrial societies best, supplemented by Lukes’s three dimensions.
- It keeps what pluralism gets right: competing organised elites, open elections, courts, pressure groups and a free press.
- It keeps what elite and Marxist theory get right: business has a structural advantage, because governments depend on investment and firms can move capital.
- It explains variation: corporatist bargaining in the Nordic countries spreads power more widely than lobby-driven politics in the United States.
- Lukes and Foucault add what it misses: power over agendas, preferences and data.
The contest is not between pure models. It is over how biased the pluralism of a given society is.
Conclusion
Advanced industrial societies are neither ruled by one class nor governed by equal groups. They are unequal polyarchies, whose democratic openness depends on countervailing power: unions, social movements, regulation of political finance and independent institutions. Where these weaken, neo-pluralism slides towards the elite model.