Suchergebnisse

THIS PAPER OFFERS AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT CRISIS OF POLITICS, NOTING THE LACK OF CITIZEN TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, AND SUGGESTS THAT THE SINGLE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE DISAFFECTION IS TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. THE LACK OF COMPETENCY PERDEIVED IN PUBLIC LEADERS RESULTS FROM THEIR INABILITY TO MANAGE, TO COORDINATE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX SOCIAL PUZZLES.

In 1977, Charles Lindblom concluded his study ofPolitics and Marketswith the assertion that "the large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory and vision. Indeed, it does not fit." In 1983, Robert Reich envisionedThe Next American Frontieras the eradication of the distinction between business culture and civic culture in the United States and the full integration of the corporation into the country's key political and social processes. Failure to achieve such a new political-economic compact could mean, Reich asserted, the end of democracy's progress in America. Between Lindblom and Reich lie six short years in time and one vast gulf in political theory and policy perspective. Their positions set the framework for a whole series of political choices confronting American politics today. They also set an agenda for political science as a discipline that studies power, authority, and social change—an agenda calling for an expansion of both intellectual focus and analytical paradigms.Differences between the purposes and contents of Lindblom's and Reich's studies can be cited, of course.Politics and Marketspresents itself as a scholarly work in the theory of political economy, whereasThe Next American Frontierhas a definite prescriptive flavor designed to influence current political debate. But such differences do not obscure the important element shared by the two books: recognition of the power and position of large corporations as the determining factor in the political-economic future of liberal democracy. Generated from this are several critical questions both authors confront: What is the purpose of public power and that of private economic power in advanced industrial societies today? What should be the relationship between the two as regards the preservation of liberal democracy? Whatisthat relationship when the large corporation is taken into account? What redirection of corporate power is necessary or possible? What blending of corporate institutions and political institutions does liberal democracy allow—or demand?

In 1977, Charles Lindblom concluded his study of Politics and Markets with the assertion that "the large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory and vision. Indeed, it does not fit." In 1983, Robert Reich envisioned The Next American Frontier as the eradication of the distinction between business culture and civic culture in the United States and the full integration of the corporation into the country's key political and social processes. Failure to achieve such a new political-economic compact could mean, Reich asserted, the end of democracy's progress in America. Between Lindblom and Reich lie six short years in time and one vast gulf in political theory and policy perspective. Their positions set the framework for a whole series of political choices confronting American politics today. They also set an agenda for political science as a discipline that studies power, authority, and social change—an agenda calling for an expansion of both intellectual focus and analytical paradigms.Differences between the purposes and contents of Lindblom's and Reich's studies can be cited, of course. Politics and Markets presents itself as a scholarly work in the theory of political economy, whereas The Next American Frontier has a definite prescriptive flavor designed to influence current political debate. But such differences do not obscure the important element shared by the two books: recognition of the power and position of large corporations as the determining factor in the political-economic future of liberal democracy. Generated from this are several critical questions both authors confront: What is the purpose of public power and that of private economic power in advanced industrial societies today? What should be the relationship between the two as regards the preservation of liberal democracy? What is that relationship when the large corporation is taken into account? What redirection of corporate power is necessary or possible? What blending of corporate institutions and political institutions does liberal democracy allow—or demand?

One clear fact emerging from current public opinion polls is that most Americans have little confidence in both political leaders and the political system. At the time of this writing, the president's approval ratings have slipped to the lowest mark for any president since World War II – just above 25 percent, according to one poll. Members of Congress have hardly been faring better. Throughout 1977, even as the president's popularity began to slide down, approval ratings for Congress never went above 40 percent, ending the year at just above 30 percent. Indeed, all politicians have suffered from severely diminished status in the public eye. In one recent survey on occupational prestige, they were rated next to last among fifteen occupations listed, a step above salesmen and one below skilled workers.

Jacques Ellul today lives and works in the French city in which he was born over sixty years ago, Bordeaux. His public life has two major aspects. First, he is a scholar, with degrees in history, sociology, and law. Before the Second World War he was director of studies at the University of Strasbourg until his dismissal by the Vichy government. Now he is professor of history and sociology of institutions at the University of Bordeaux. During the war he was active in the Resistance, and after the Liberation had the chance to begin a promising political career when he served for two years as deputy mayor of Bordeaux under Jacques Chalban-Delmas. But he abandoned that prospect to devote his time fully to teaching and writing. He has written more than twenty books and more than a hundred articles.