 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Elite theory" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Inphilosophy,political science andsociology,elite theory is a theory of thestate that seeks to describe and explain power relations insociety. In its contemporary form in the 21st century, elite theory posits that power in larger societies, especiallynation-states, is concentrated at the top in relatively smallelites; that power "flows predominantly in a top-down direction from elites to non-elites"; and that "the characteristics and actions of elites are crucial determinants of major political and social outcomes".[1]
The concept of the "elite" in this context goes beyond politicians or other leaders who wield the formal power of the state. Through positions incorporations, influence over policymaking networks, control over the financial support of foundations, and positions withthink tanks, universities, or other policy-discussion groups, members of the elite exert significant power over corporate, government, and societal decisions. The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions, and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position.[2] Elite theory opposespluralism, a tradition that emphasizes how multiple major social groups and interests contribute to representative political outcomes that reflect the collective needs of society.
Even when entire groups are ostensibly completely excluded from the state's traditional networks of power (on the basis of criteria such as gender, nobility, race, religion or poverty), elite theory recognizes that "counter-elites" frequently develop within such excluded groups.[3] Negotiations between such disenfranchised groups and the state can be analyzed as negotiations between elites and counter-elites. A major problem, in turn, is the ability of elites toco-opt counter-elites.[3]
Democratic systems function on the premise that voting behaviour has a direct and noticeable effect on policy outcomes, and that these outcomes are preferred by the largest portion of voters. However, a study in 2014 correlated preferences of voters in the United States to policy outcomes and found that the statistical correlation between the two is heavily dependent on the income brackets of the voting groups.[4] At the lowest income bracket sampled, the correlation coefficient reached zero, whereas the highest income bracket returned a correlation above 0.6. The conclusion was that there is a strong, linear correlation between the income of voters and how often their policy preferences become reality. The causation for this correlation has not yet been proven in subsequent studies, but it is an area ripe for further research.
In hisHistories, theancient Greek historian and politicianPolybius in the 2nd century BC referred to what is today called elite theory simply as "autocracy". He posits that all three originating forms of sources of political power — one man (monarchy/executive), few men (aristocracy), many men (democracy) — will eventually be corrupted into debased forms of themselves if not balanced in a "mixed government". Monarchy will become "tyranny", democracy will become "mob rule", and rule by elites (aristocracy) will become "oligarchy".[5] Polybius effectively says this is due to a failure to properly applychecks and balances between the three mentioned forms as well as subsequent political institutions.[citation needed]
Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923),Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941) andRobert Michels (1876–1936) were co-founders of the Italian school of elitism, which influenced subsequent elite theory in the Western tradition.[6][7]
The outlook of the Italian school of elitism is based on two ideas:
Pareto emphasized the psychological and intellectual superiority of elites, believing that they were the highest accomplishers in any field. He discussed the existence of two types of elites:
He also extended the idea that a whole elite can be replaced by a new one and how one cancirculate from being elite to non-elite.
Mosca emphasized the sociological and personal characteristics of elites. He said elites are an organized minority and that the masses are an unorganized majority. The ruling class is composed of the ruling elite and the sub-elites. He divides the world into two groups:
Mosca asserted that elites have intellectual, moral, and material superiority that is highly esteemed and influential.
Michels developed theiron law of oligarchy where, he asserts, social and political organizations are run by a few individuals, and social organization and labour division are key. He believed that all organizations were elitist and that elites have three basic principles that help in the bureaucratic structure of political organization:
Modern elite theory is distinguished from classical ornormative elitism as articulated by Mosca, Pareto and Michels in that it attempts to merely present an "empirical picture of the way human societies operate", and is not "closely linked to a particular view" of how those societies should be organized.[8]
Elmer Eric Schattschneider offers a strong critique of the Americanpolitical theory ofpluralism: Rather than an essentially democratic system in which the many competing interests of citizens are amply represented, if not advanced, by equally many competinginterest groups, Schattschneider argues that the pressure system is biased in favour of "the most educated and highest-income members of society", and shows that "the difference between those who participate in interest group activity and those who stand at the sidelines is much greater than between voters and nonvoters".[9]
InThe Semisovereign People, Schattschneider argues that the scope of the pressure system is really quite small: The "range of organized, identifiable, known groups is amazingly narrow; there is nothing remotely universal about it" and the "business or upper-class bias of the pressure system shows up everywhere". He said that the "notion that the pressure system is automatically representative of the whole community is a myth" and, instead, the "system is skewed, loaded and unbalanced in favor of a fraction of a minority".[10]
The sociologistC. Wright Mills published his bookThe Power Elite in 1956, in which he claims to present a new sociological perspective on systems of power in the United States. He identifies a triumvirate of power groups—political, economic and military—which form a distinguishable, although not unified, power-wielding body in the United States.
Mills proposed that this group had been generated through a process of rationalisation at work in all advanced industrial societies whereby the mechanisms of power became concentrated, funneling overall control into the hands of a limited, somewhat corrupt group.[11] This reflected a decline in politics as an arena for debate and relegation to a merely formal level of discourse.[12] This macro-scale analysis sought to point out the degradation of democracy in "advanced" societies and the fact that power generally lies outside the boundaries of elected representatives.
A main influence for the study was theMarxist political scientistFranz Neumann's bookBehemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933–1944, a study of how theNazi Party came to power in the German democratic state. It provides the tools to analyze the structure of a political system and serves as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalistic democracy.[citation needed]
The elite theory analysis of power was also applied on the micro scale in community power studies such as that byFloyd Hunter (1953). Hunter examined in detail the power of relationships evident in his "Regional City" looking for the "real" holders of power rather than those in obvious official positions. He posits astructural-functional approach that mapped hierarchies and webs of interconnection within the city—mapping relationships of power between businessmen, politicians, clergy, etc. The study was promoted to debunk current concepts of any "democracy" present within urban politics and reaffirm the arguments for a truerepresentative democracy.[13] This type of analysis was also used in later, larger scale, studies such as that carried out by M. Schwartz examining the power structures within the sphere of the corporate elite in the United States.[14]
In his controversial bookWho Rules America? (1967),G. William Domhoff researches local and national decision-making process networks, seeking to illustrate the power structure in the United States. He asserts, much like Hunter, that an elite class which owns and manages large income-producing properties (like banks and corporations) dominate the American power structure both politically and economically.[15]
James Burnham's early workThe Managerial Revolution sought to express the movement of all functional power into the hands of managers rather than politicians or businessmen—separating ownership and control.[16]
Robert D. Putnam saw the development of technical and exclusive knowledge among administrators and other specialist groups as a mechanism that strips power from thedemocratic process and slips it to the advisors and specialists who influence thedecision process.[17]
"If the dominant figures of the past hundred years have been the entrepreneur, the businessman, and the industrial executive, the ‘new men’ are the scientists, the mathematicians, the economists, and the engineers of the new intellectual technology."[18]
Thomas R. Dye in his bookTop Down Policymaking argues that Americanpublic policy does not result from the "demands of the people", but rather fromelite consensus found inWashington, D.C.–based non-profit foundations,think tanks, special-interest groups, and prominentlobbying andlaw firms. Dye's thesis is further expanded upon in his works:The Irony of Democracy,Politics in America,Understanding Public Policy, andWho's Running America?.[citation needed]
In his bookCorporate Power and the Environment, George A. Gonzalez writes on the power of American economic elites to shape environmental policy for their own advantage. InThe Politics of Air Pollution: Urban Growth,Ecological Modernization and Symbolic Inclusion and inUrban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital, Gonzalez employs elite theory to explain the interrelationship betweenenvironmental policy andurban sprawl in America. His most recent work,Energy and Empire: The Politics of Nuclear and Solar Power in the United States, demonstrates that economic elites tied their advocacy of the nuclear energy option to post-1945 American foreign policy goals, while at the same time these elites opposed government support for other forms of energy such as solar, that cannot be dominated by one nation.[citation needed]
In his bookReflections on the Revolution in Europe,[19]Ralf Dahrendorf asserts that, due to the advanced level of competence required for political activity, a political party tends to become, actually, a provider of "political services", that is, the administration of local and governmental public offices. During the electoral campaign, each party tries to convince voters it is the most suitable for managing the state's business. The logical consequence of this would be to acknowledge this character and to openly register the parties as service providing companies. In this way, the ruling class would include the members and associates of legally acknowledged companies and the "class that is ruled" would select, by election, the state administration company that best fits its interests.
In theirstatistical analysis of 1,779 policy issues, the professors Martin Gilens andBenjamin Page found that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."[20][21] Critics cited byVox argued, using the same dataset, that when the rich and the middle class disagreed, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 per cent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 per cent of the time. Some critics disagree with Gilens and Pages' headline conclusion, but do believe that the dataset confirms that "the rich and middle (class) are effective at blocking policies that the poor want".[22]
The political scientistThomas Ferguson's bookInvestment Theory of Party Competition can be thought of as an elite theory. Set out most extensively in his 1995 book,Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems, the theory begins by noting that in modern political systems the cost of acquiring political awareness is so great that no citizen can afford it.[23] As a consequence, these systems tend be dominated by those who can, most typically elites and corporations. These elites then seek to influence politics by 'investing' in the parties or policies they support through political contributions and other means such as endorsements in the media.[citation needed]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)