General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Noam Chomsky: The Democratic Party is now in the hands of Moderate Republicans. [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)During the 1950s, the pluralist theory of power maintained that various social groups, holding a diverse collection of interests, acted as a countervailing force against corporate power (Joseph, 1982). It was necessary for corporations, further disadvantaged by heterogeneity and the constraints of public opinion, to compete against other interest groups to influence government.
Charles Lindblom criticized this theory, maintaining that there was privileged position of business (1977, p. 5, as cited in Joseph, 1982) which permitted decisions affecting society to be made by corporate executives, not government officials. This public authority stemmed from property rights, protected by the government, which provided for corporate control of assets that, in turn, included authority granted by the government.
In addition, Lindblom (1977, as cited in Joseph, 1982) argued that government depends on corporations to perform essential functions, lest there be great social disruption. Despite this serious concern, government is constitutionally precluded from compelling corporations to perform, and must resort to inducements to provoke business management to act:
To induce business managers to perform, governments must give them not everything they ask for, but everything they need for sufficiently profitable operation. Policy-making consequently comes under a special control by business: government officials must listen to business with special care; must find out what business needs even if it does not take the trouble to speak for itself; must give managers enough of what they need to motivate production, jobs, and growth; and must in so doing give them special rights of consultation and actual participation in the setting of policies (Lindblom, 1977, pp. 254, 255).