State and Society State and society linked through different forms of political participation Some states can handle demands and govern effectively (Strong states) Others overwhelmed (Weak states) Crisis of governability = government rules but does not govern

Political Participation Occurs in democratic and authoritarian political systems, in many different forms Legitimate (voting, running for office) Illegitimate (violent revolt) Depends on opportunity structure created by political system Groups engage in different forms of political participation depending on opportunities for influence different political structures create (e.g., European political systems create more opportunity for Green Parties; US creates more opportunity for green interest groups)

Political Participation Groups seek weakest point of political access Participation depends on resources political actors can mobilize and opportunities to deploy them Engage different forms of participation simultaneously (environmental parties and interest groups) One form paves way for another (elections in Serbia, the Ukraine, and Iran triggered mass protests) Different types of participation sequentially (US Civil Rights Movement)

Political Participation Inextricable link between political participation and improving people’s capabilities People must act collectively to succeed Four types of collective action linking state and society Political Parties Interest Groups Social Movements Patron-Client Relations

Political Parties Emerge where people have diverse interests and values Unlike other forms of participation, recruit and nominate candidates for public office Criticisms Threaten unity of political order Corruption Pandering to special interests Serve needs of office-seekers, not greater society

Why Parties? People have diverse interests and values Parties help structure political conflict and organize government Parties “stage the battle”: formulate issues, give them relevance, and offer choice of candidates Democratic systems = parties compete to win elections, form governments; sense of what public wants is transmitted through party competition Authoritarian systems = parties common even in absence of competitive elections; used to convey government policies down to the people and promote legitimacy

Party Systems Entail stable forms of party competition, distinguished by Number of parties Multi-party systems (3+) much more common than US two-party system Ideological breadth Degree of institutionalization Strong vs. Weak parties

Strong vs. Weak Political Parties CharacteristicsWeak PartiesStrong Parties MembershipLowHigh Party Identification among Voters LowHigh Electoral VolatilityHighLow Party Unity in the Legislature LowHigh

Party Systems What shapes party systems? Deeply rooted social divisions Western democracies still shaped by key historical conflicts (class, urban-rural, national-local, and church-state) Electoral Laws Winner-take-all (plurality voting) in US elections creates bias toward two-party system; proportional representation (PR) in many European elections creates bias toward multi-party systems

Evaluating Parties Not all parties, party systems created equal Some contribute more to developing citizens’ capabilities than others Quality of link between state and society through political parties depends on level of party organization, discipline, and program articulation Programmatic parties link citizens using a broad appeal and common party program Poorly-institutionalized parties, parties built around personalities, and parties built on patronage less good at promoting citizens’ capabilities

Interest Groups Form when people with common interests organize for purpose of influencing policy- makers Engage in many of the same activities as political parties: raising money, mobilizing voters, campaigning for candidates Key distinction = Do not nominate candidates to run for office

Interest Groups Interest group formation faces number of challenges Requires resources, time, and leadership Free-Rider problem = individuals rationally seek benefits without costs of membership Challenges can be overcome through Material and non-material incentives Technological innovations (e.g., internet) Professional advocacy organizations

Interest Groups Political structures affect interest groups just as they affect political parties Number of interest groups Divided, decentralized policy-making structures allow for more interest groups because there are multiple points of access (e.g., US) Unitary, centralized structures limit access and number of interest groups (e.g., Sweden) Type of interest groups Pluralist systems vs. Corporatist systems

Pluralist and Corporatist Interest Groups Characteristics Pluralist Groups (US, Canada, Italy) Corporatist Groups (Austria, Sweden) Number of Interest Groups ManyFew Internal OrganizationDecentralizedHierarchical CoverageLow densityEncompassing Relationship to Government Lobbying Participates in policy- making

Table 3.1

Evaluating Interest Groups Interest group behavior has consequences for people’s capabilities Quality of link between state and society through interest groups depends on level of cooperation and efficiency Pluralist interest groups compete, preventing cooperation and efficiency Corporate interest groups do not experience these problems, and can achieve broader appeal Fewer and bigger really is better

Social Movements Engage in more unconventional and confrontational forms of political participation (than political parties or interest groups) From peaceful assemblies to protest marches Not as formally organized or hierarchical More ideological and contentious Require more demanding level of participation Often personal attendance or sacrifice Seek to promote group acceptance and enact changes in policy

Social Movements Facilitated by spread of democracy Early social movements focused on economic demands (1700s) Post-industrial social movements address cultural and economic divides New social movements have more decentralized structures (e.g., 1997 Nobel Peace Prize and International Campaign to Ban Landmines) Increasing global interdependence has led to growth of international-level social movements (e.g., World Social Forum)

Patron-Client Relations System in which patron offers or withholds some material benefit in return for political support Access to work or land, school tuition, medical care Most common in countries with widespread poverty and lawlessness where “haves” are in position to bargain for support from “have-nots” Based on norms of reciprocity Continuous and direct contact between patron and client reinforces feelings of obligation Mutually-reinforcing relationship between clientelism and poverty

Weak States Overloaded by demands of state-society linkages (political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations) Crisis of governability = government rules but does not effectively govern E.g., lack of effective public health infrastructures in Africa contribute to AIDS epidemic Often cannot maintain law and order, exerting little authority beyond capital E.g., Taliban effectively rules over rural portions of Afghanistan and Pakistan Corruption is often high

Strong States Able to effectively respond to demands of state- society linkages, transforming demands into executed policy Effectively maintain law and order, collect taxes, execute policies, and enjoy high levels of popular legitimacy Have autonomy from public pressures Equipped to respond to social pressures, but are simultaneously insulated from conflict and can act in public interest Better at promoting people’s capabilities (infant mortality, literacy rates, political violence, and democracy; figures )

Conclusions Linkages between state and society include political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relationships Citizens engage in forms of political participation depending on resources they have and their opportunities to deploy them Strong states can manage flow of demands through these linkages and govern effectively Weak states become overwhelmed and suffer crisis of governability Strong states more conducive to developing citizens’ capabilities than weak states

Critical Thinking Questions 1.Is more political participation by citizens always better? 2.Can democracy exist without political parties? 3.What are the differences between political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations ? Under what circumstances do people use one as opposed to another form of participation? 4.How would you operationally define strong and weak states? 5.What can be done to improve state quality; to transform failed states into sustainable states?

Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others? Question asked by Putnam’s book, Making Democracy Work Compares effectiveness of 15 regional governments in 1970’s Italy Governments looked identical on paper, but had very different levels of government effectiveness Hypothesis: Regional institutions in Italy would be shaped by and reflect social context in which they operated

Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others? Good performance depended on Ability of institutions to manage internal affairs Appropriateness and extensiveness of legislative solutions Bureaucratic responsiveness Regional institutions with best performance were located in areas with high levels of civic trust and many local organizations