Abstract
Most political theorists share the basic assumption that the pursuit of self-interest lies at the heart of political behaviour. In consequence, theoretical approaches in political analysis, diverse though they may be, can all be assembled under one rubric — the politics of interest. In this perspective, the political realm is seen as an arena into which individual or group interests enter in some fashion, to be dealt with by certain processes and to be transformed into outcomes, policies or outputs.1 This notion of political processes treats political society, not as a single entity—a community—but as fragmented into groups that are distinguished by their respective interests. On this view, groups and their interests constitute the essence of politics, providing the conceptual terms in which political behaviour is to be explained.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Clarke E. Cohran, “The Politics of Interest: Philosophy and the Limitations of the Science of Politics”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No. 4 (November 1973), pp. 745–766.
Vernon van Dyke, “The optimum scope for political science”. In James C. Charles-worth (ed.), A Design for Political Science, Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1966.
Harold Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When and How?, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1958, pp. 208.
Oran R. Young, Systems of Political Science, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968, pp. 68.
David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1965.
Arthur Bentley, The Process of Government, Evanston, Ill.: Principia Press, 1949, p. 211.
Based on W.I. Jenkins, Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective, London: Martin Robertson, 1978, p. 15.
Cf. David G. Garson, Group Theories in Politics, Beverly Hills, California: Sage 1978.
Clarke E. Cochran, “The Politics of Interest: The Eclipse of Community in Contemporary Political Theory”, Ph.D. Thesis, Durham, North Carolina: Duke University, 1971.
ibid.
G. Majone, Uses of Policy Analysis, mimeo, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, 1983.
ibid., Chapter 4.
G. Majone, “The Uncertain Logic of Standard-Setting”, Zeitschrift fuer Umwettpolitik, 1982 (4), pp. 321.
H.E. Simon, Administrative Behavior, New York: MacMillan 1947, first edition.
J.G. March and H.E. Simon, Organizations, New York: Wiley, 1958.
C.E. Lindblom, “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 39, 1979, pp. 517–626.
Simon, 1947. Op.cit., second edition, 1957, pp. 198.
J.I. Gershuny, “Policymaking Rationality: A Reformulation”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 9 (1978), pp. 295–316.
M. Carley, Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis, London: Heinemann Educational, 1981.
H.E. Simon (1957), op.cit.
K.J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, second edition, New York: Wiley 1954.
C.E. Lindblom, the Intelligence of Democracy, New York: The Free Press, 1965, pp. 130–140.
Gershuny, 1978, op.cit.; see also Gershuny, “What should forecasters do - a pessimistic view”, in P. Baehr and B. Wittroc (eds.), Policy Analysis and Policy Innovation - Particular Problems and Potentials, London: Sage, 1981.
J. Cutt, “Policy Analysis: A Conceptual Base for a Theory of Improvement”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 6, 1975, p. 226.
H.A. Simon, “From substantive to procedural rationality”, in S.J. Latsis (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
C.E. Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling Through”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19 (1959), pp. 79–99.
Cf. D. Braybrooke and C.E. Lindblom, A Strategy of Decision, Free Press, 1963.
In this context it has also been argued that the rationalists and incrementalists are not arguing about the same things: their respective concerns are with what ought to be attempted in decision-making, and what is feasible in real-life instances of policy making. Cf. G. Smith and D. May, ‘The Artificial Debate“, Policy and Politics,Vol. 8 (1980), pp. 147–161.
A. Etzioni, The Active Society, New York: Free Press, 1968.
Y. Dror, Public Policy Reexamined,Scranton, N.J.: Chandler, 19xx.
Gershuny (1978), op.cit.
ibid., p. 302.
R.A. Dahl and C.E. Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare, New York: Harper, 1963, p. 63.
It is exactly because of this circularity that some normative models of public decision-making, such as the strategy advanced by Gershuny (op.cit.) have insisted on the need for an (never-ending) iterative component to attempts at rational decision-making.
J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1976, p. 37.
M. Douglas and A. Wildaysky, Risk and Culture, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
H.A. Simon, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 99 (1955), 99–118.
Cf. Michael Thompson, “A Three-Dimensional Model”. In: Mary Douglas (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception,London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982; see also other contributions to this volume.
The strength of this notion of cultural pluralism is that it is essentially a way of coming to terms with the dilemma of the relationship between cultural values and behaviour. It provides a conceptual basis for avoiding the apparent contradiction between those social theorists who consider cultural categories as reflections or byproducts of social action and those who see culture as the rule book that specifies what action is possible and what is seen as credible. Cf. Michael Thompson, Rubbish Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schwarz, M., Thompson, M. (1985). Beyond the Politics of Interest. In: Grauer, M., Thompson, M., Wierzbicki, A.P. (eds) Plural Rationality and Interactive Decision Processes. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 248. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02432-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02432-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-15675-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-02432-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive