Interest Intermediation

Pluralism and Neocorporatism

In all democratic polities, social groups have generally created organizations charged with representing their respective interests. More precisely, these organizations are first, arenas within which these interests are defined and second, actors for defending them. If the aim of defining and defending interests has remained stable over time, it has nevertheless been carried out within territorial and sectoral environments that have differed widely. The principal aspect of these environments is the posture of the state regarding interest groups. Since the 1970s, political science has defined two ideal-types of state-interest group relations that constitute the two ends of a continuum used for comparative research: pluralism–neocorporatism.

According to this approach, “pluralist” relations between interest groups and states have three common traits. First, several interest groups exist in each sector (e.g., agriculture) or at national levels of intersectoral groups (such as trades unions' congresses or representatives of business). Second, these groups compete among themselves to affect public agenda setting and decision making. Third, the representatives of the state (e.g., civil servants working in ministries) keep themselves sufficiently distant from interest groups so they can choose those they want to favor at any given time.

In contrast to the pluralist model, neocorporatist relations between interest groups and states entail a close and continuous relationship between representatives of the state and their opposite numbers in interest groups. Generally, this form of relationship drastically reduces the number of groups that exist at either a sectoral or intersectoral level and, therefore, the degree of competition that takes place between them.

...