Theories of power: pluralist,

elitist and Marxist

perspectives

Prof. John Barry

School of Politics, International Studies and
Philosophy
j.barry@qub.ac.uk
This presentation available to download at:

http://qub.academia.edu/JohnBarry/Talks
 Key questions
How do Elitist, Pluralist and Marxists theories
define power?
Are such definitions of power adequate for
making sense of contemporary societies?
What understanding of politics or ‘the
political’ does each theory give rise to, and
should those views be challenged or
endorsed?
 Why power?
Power is an ‘essentially contested concept’ (like
‘democracy’ ‘justice’ ‘equality’ etc.)
Power is an inherently political concept
Definitions of power and definitions of the
‘political’ are interdependent
Theoretical perspectives on power are to a large
extent theoretical perspectives on politics itself
That is, definitions of power are constitutive of
what we mean by ‘politics’ and ‘the political’
 Theories of Power: Pluralist,
Elitist and Marxist
Pluralism – how power is distributed

Elitism – how power is concentrated

Marxism – class conflict and economic power

 Pluralism Analysed
1. Political power is fragmented and dispersed and there is no permanent
power structure.
2. The existence of classes, political parties, status groups, pressure groups,
interest groups, etc. testifies to the distribution of power
3. Groups provide a more effective means of representation than election. 
4. Public policy is the outcome of group forces acting against one another.
5. No one group will dominate for every group there will be an equal and
opposite.
6. The larger the group the more influence it will have.
7. Policies are the product of bargaining and compromise, will tend to be
moderate , fair to all and conducive to social stability.
8. The state is neutral between these competing groups and acts like a
referee between them
 INSIDER GROUPS – MORE
POWERFUL
Practically part of the
establishment

Able to work closely with

elected and appointed officials
in central or local government.

Not always an advantage,

since it is conferred upon those
with largely compatible views
to the government of the day.
 OUTSIDER GROUPS –
LESS POWERFUL
Do not have easy access to politicians,
minsters and civil servants.

Outside status a sign of weakness.

OR groups can choose to remain on

outside so as not be be compromised .

‘Tunnelers’, direct action

environmentalists – Manchester
Airport, 1997

Belfast Unemployed
Resource Centre
 Critique of Pluralism
“The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the
heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper
class accent” (Schattschneider, 1960:p35)
Power is not dispersed

State is not neutral

Society is not equal

Limitations of Pluralist theory
An overly ‘optimistic’ view of power that underestimates the
importance of informal power outside official decision-making
processes
e.g., ‘old boys’ networks, often based on class or ethnic, religious etc
bases

Overestimates the ability of interest groups outside traditional elite

spheres to actually influence political processes and outcomes
Social, political and economic capital is often key for access to
decision makers

Overly reliant on the power of competition to mitigate real social

and economic inequalities in society
Resources available to different interest groups are not necessarily
proportionate to their overall levels of support in society
 Elitist theory of power
In all societies and political organisations there exists a small class of
rulers and decision-makers that performs key political functions and
monopolises power, and a larger class that is ruled over and largely
passive and marginalised in political affairs.

The ruling elite is drawn from the higher echelons of political office,
the corporate sector and the military; an almost‘aristocratic’ nature to
this self-perpetuating elite’s exercise of power.

For Pareto elite power is an inevitable outcome of large-scale

organisations (a division of labour), related to Roberto Michels’
concept the ‘iron law of oligarchy’.
 Elitism Analysed
There are many sources of elite power (wealth, traditional or religious
authority etc.)

‘Democratic elitism’ – modern democratic elections – opportunities

for the normally passive masses to ‘vote’ in different/same elites to
rule over them

Competition between different elites for election, participation by

pressure group elites in between elections, interaction with
bureaucratic elites, are regarded as the ways in which democracy
operates in a modern liberal democratic capitalist state.
 
 
 Elitism and Groups
Distribution of power in society reflect the inequalities of wealth. Some
groups have few resources, other have many.

Surest path to wealth is to be born into the privileges and resources of

existing wealth. Usually handed down from generation to generation.

Leaders are chosen overwhelmingly from socially dominant groups and

have been for many generations
Some interests are unorganised; some rely on others to protect them;
(minority groups, children, the homeless, mentally ill, poor)
Groups fight their battles in a system which is systematically loaded in
favour of middle and upper class interests, or financial interests or the
interests of ‘producer’/economic groups.
Organisations themselves are inherently oligarchic. A few leaders wield
power, and are often un-elected and unaccountable to members (Michel's’
‘iron law’).
Limitations of Elitist theory
Not all historical societies have been hierarchical with an elite
e.g., acephalous/leaderless tribes and egalitarian societies (though
elitism as a theory is only usually applied to modern societies)

Distinction between elites and masses is oversimplified?

Universal education and welfare-based meritocracies in post-WWII
Europe

Unable to engage with normative issues of democracy and justice

Simply presents the existence of ruling elites as ‘inevitable’ and
democracy reduced to competition between elites (or sections of the
same elite) to rule
 Marxism Analysed
“The simple idea is that the policy process, far from
being a rational weighing up of alternatives, is
driven by powerful socio-economic forces that
set the agenda, structure decision-makers
choices, constrain implementation and ensure
that the interests of the most powerful (or of the
system as a whole) determines the outputs and
the outcomes of the political system”

Peter John, Analysing Public Policy, 1999. p.92

 Marxism Analysed
The state’s function is to protect and reproduce
capitalism.
Public policies thus reflect the role of the state in trying to
regulate the economy and ensure social and political
stability.

In other words, the state formulates and implements

policy to reflect the interests of capitalism and the
capitalist/ruling class.
 Marxist theory (contd.)
Sources of power:
Ownership and control of economic property, wealth, productive assets of society, including control
of finance;
Control over ideas, through the media and processes of socialisation more generally, such as
education: ideology/hegemony;
Control over the state.

Role of ideology/hegemony: ‘is not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires
you want them to have?’ (Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 1973) – is modern education a form of
ideological indoctrination?
Ideological control can be used to maintain stability and build legitimacy;
‘False consciousness’.

For Marxists, the source and exercise of power is not always readily apparent and therefore needs to be
deciphered; hence the great ability of power to be ‘hidden’ and not immediately obvious.
 Upper Class
1% Capitalist Class
Model
Corporate of Class Structure
Class under capitalism
14% Upper Middle Class
99% versus the 1%
Mean
Income
30% Middle Class
Median
Income
30% Working Class

13% Working Poor

Poverty Line
Underclass
12%
 The tale of the two Milibands
Ralph Miliband: liberal democracy
= capitalist democracy; it serves
the interests of private property
and ensure the long-term stability
of capitalism and exploitation of
the working class.
Ed Miliband, 2012 “I believe that
changing the rules of capitalism will
mean a change of government. But
more generally, it will require a change
in what citizens expect and ask of
politics. The question is not so much
whether 20th-century capitalism is
failing 21st-century society but
whether politics can rise to the
challenge of changing a flawed
Limitations of Marxist theory
Overemphasises the importance of power originating in
economic relations – pays insufficient attention to non-
economic bases of political power
Exaggerates the potential for class conflict by neglecting
the possibilities for non-capitalist classes to harness
power and state control/influence in capitalist societies
Exaggerates the ability of a capitalist elite to manufacture
and perpetuate ‘false consciousness’ among the working
class majority
Underestimates the capacity for the reform of capitalism
by liberal democracy- through welfare state provision
and state regulation of the free market for example.
 Summary
Elitist Pluralist Marxist

Source of power elite grouping societal interests capitalist mode of

production

Nature of power concentrated dispersed concentrated

Analysis of neutral positive critical

power

Ultimate verdict accept the system engage with the overthrow the
system system
 Conclusion
1. Pluralist, in which power is diffused widely amongst
groups between which there is competition for political
office through the electoral system, which is open to all.
2. Elitist, in which power is concentrated in leaders who
may be elected or appointed, for whose posts there is
little or no competition, entry to which is limited.
3. Marxist, in which power is distributed according to
the accumulation of capital. Owners of capital operate
behind the scene to manipulate the political process, and
indoctrinate the mass of the working classes into
accepting the unequal economic structure of society.