Search results

Three models of interest groups, power and political process in America are contrasted: (1) the Truman-Dahl-Lindblom pluralism of the 1960s; (2) the unfinished plural elitism of the 1970s, a theory emphasizing special-interest capture of policy systems whose most influential exponent is Lowi; (3) the 'triadic' model of process set forth by Wilson inThe Politics of Regulation. The triadic model assumes the normality in policy systems of organized economic producers being challenged by the countervailing power of other organized interests, while state agencies act autonomously. It is argued that the triadic model is the most advanced of the three, although it still needs development. Eighteen illustrative propositions are presented in terms of triadic power. These include relationships among interest groups and state autonomy, 'high polities' and routine politics, and types of coalitions in policy systems. Other propositions describe links to possible cycles between triadic power and plural elitism, to corporatist decision-making, and to the 'resource mobilization' theory of social movements.

Esping-Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism has been very influential in comparative social policy because he develops a power analysis of welfare state formation. However, the analysis of political power that underpins his thesis has been widely misunder stood. In particular, the concept of welfare regime has lots its original conceptual meaning as a system of power stratification that upholds different types of welfare state. Instead it is widely misused merely to refer to particular types of welfare system.

"Michel Foucault is one of the most preeminent theorists of power, yet the relationship between his militant activities and his analysis of power remains unclear. The book explores this relationship to explain the development of Foucault's thinking about power. Using newly translated and unpublished materials, it examines what led Foucault to take on the question of power in the early 1970s and subsequently refine his thinking, working through different models (war and government) and modalities (sovereign, disciplinary, biopolitical, pastoral and governmental). Looking at Foucault's political trajectory, from his involvement with the prisoner support movement and Solidarity to his controversial engagement with the Iranian revolution, the book shows the militant underpinning of his interest in the question of power and its various shifts and mutations. This thorough account, which includes the first translation of a report edited by Foucault on prison conditions, will provide students in contemporary political theory with a better understanding of Foucault's thinking about power and of the interplay between political activities and theoretical productions."--

In the movie Team America, a five-strong, world police, special forces unit takes on the task of foiling various terrorist enemies of the United State, international peace & security. This paper argues that Team America, made with puppet characters, offers a vehicle for understanding & interpreting today's dominant global security issues. In the movie, the special forces units are seemingly unaware of the devastation caused by their mission or the trauma it brings to the local population, like when the special forces unit destroys the Sphinx & the Pyramids. The central message of Team America is that the giant may not always be gentle, but that the meek need the giant to protect them from the big, bad wolves. In this way, the movie reflects a constructivist realist interpretation of international relations where security issues are defined by the intersubjective interaction of interests, ideas, & values, created in the face of necessity. R. Prince

When I reflect upon Peter Bachrach's political theorizing from the perspective of the heated primary battles of 2008, I am struck by the unusual character of his political insights and commitments—and of how relevant and compelling they are in the current political climate. Peter might be appropriately considered a radical liberal democrat—who focused very sharply on the tensions between radicalism and liberalism as political ideologies, but sought to maintain a close and continually flowing circuit between radicalism and liberalism as bodies of philosophical understanding that could mutually nurture and sustain each other. Under his hermeneutical gaze, Hobbes was not only the father of modern philosophical liberalism but the theorist who instigated the formation of participatory democracy. By clarifying for us the extent to which we lacked foursquare rational props to support our judgments across a whole spectrum of human experience from everyday practical affairs to science, religion, and metaphysics, he cleared a tremendous space for human beings to actively participate in structuring their own lives and shaping their own destinies. In addition to his explicit statements concerning human equality (whose political payoffs would be mostly unusable by a contemporary democrat), there was implicit in Hobbesian theorizing a massive re-inflection of human limitation and possibility that could make participation seem like a plausible complement to his theorizing.

Peter Bachrach had a remarkable impact on those who encountered him in person and on generations of readers. Judith Baer vividly captures, among other things, his inspiring, emboldening influence on his students and the sheer fun it was to be with him. My recollections are of exciting, forward moving, intense, and probing arguments, in private and public settings, with an infectiously warm, buoyant, generous friend.