Three Faces of Associational Politics: Interest Groups in Israel
| Date | 01 March 1992 |
| Published date | 01 March 1992 |
| Author | Yael Yishai |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01765.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political Siudies
(
1992).
XL.
124-
I36
Three Faces
of
Associational
Politics:
Interest
Groups
in
Israel
YAEL YISHAI
University
of
Haifa
Interest groups have attracted renewed scholarly attention in the past decade,
producing studies
of
both specific countries’ and theoretical models applicable
to
associational
politics
in general. Much of the discussion has been dominated
by an intellectually stimulating debate between proponents
of
corporatism and
their pluralist critics.2 In simple terms, pluralism connotes the influence
of
associations on policy-makers, while corporatism implies a structured part-
nership between authorities and interest groups. These two models, however,
ignore a third possible form of state-group relations: state influence on interest
groups.
In
fact, as pointed out by Hayward, relations between interest groups
and political institutions can follow any
of
the following
three
broad patterns:
group domination, when associations persuade, manipulate
or
cajole decision-
makers into action
or
inaction; cooperation between interest groups and official
policy-makers; authoritative domination, when governments manipulate
or
cajole interest groups into conformity with the national
or
public interest.’
These three patterns correspond in broad terms
to
three models of interest
politics. The pluralist model, prevalent mainly in the
US,
describes a system
where groups wield a significant amount of power and play a vital role in
determining policy
outcome^.^
The second and third categories are narrower
than those described by Hayward. Cooperation characterizes the corporatist
model, where groups are granted the privilege
of
‘integrated participation’,’
found in some Western European and Scandinavian countries. The third, only
sparsely discussed in the interest group literature, is the partyist model, where the
citizenry
is
mobilized to fulfil a national cause. This situation is typical in
countries that have adopted
forms
of
institutional democracy but are still coping
’
Space limitations allow reference
to
only a few
of
these studies: R. Bianchi,
Interest
Groups
and
Political Development
in
Turkey
(Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1984);
F.
L. Wilson,
Interest
Group
Politics
in
France
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1987);
G.
Jordan and
J.
I.
Richardson,
Governmenr and Pressure
Groups
in Britain
(Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1987).
For rant examples
see
G.
Jordan, ‘The pluralism of pluralism: an anti-theory?
Political
Siudies,
38
(1990).
286301;
M.
0.
Smith ‘Pluralism, reformed pluralism and neopluralisrn: the role
of
pressure
groups
in policy-making’,
Political Studies.
38
(1990).
302-22.
’
J.
E.
S.
Hayward.
Privare Inrerests ond Public Policy
(London, Longman,
1966),
pp.
1-2.
‘
G.
Wootton,
Interest Groups, Policy and Politics
in
America
(Englewocd Cliffs, NJ, Prentice
Hall. 1985);
K.
Schlozman Lehrnan and
J.
T.
Tierney,
Organized Interests ond American Democracy
(New
York,
Harper and Row, 1986).
’
J.
P. Olsen,
Organized Democracy: Political Instirutions in
o
Welfare State
-
The Case
of
Norway
(Bergen. Universitetsforlaget. 1983).
0032-32 1719210
1
/124-
13
0
I992
Political
Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial