Pluralist Model vs Elite Model of Social Development and Power

Pluralist- unlike Marxist, does not only consider economic class interest as determine force of other social relations, but suggests the social relations can be determined not only by economic force, but also by gender, religious, race and ethic group and so on.

Political is of the views as dispersed among the social groups, as long as politicians are open to multi-influence, it is possible to have democracy. The government is not only an instrument for the interest of bourgeoisie, but is a neutral and effective autonomy.

Therefore, the activist groups represent different social groups have channel to promote their own interest to the government, there is channel available to voice their concerns.

Empirical Evidence for Pluralist Model:-

• capital has had to accommodate the countervailing power of organized labour in the workplace


• The economy is increasingly political regulated, as the state plays a more interventionist through nationalization, such as water, electricity


• Owners of capital have become fragmented with the rise of joint stock companies and large corporations, and with diversified shareholding rather than concentrated ownership


• The increased scale and size of economic enterprises has required the expansion of managerial control of companies
  

Criticism for Pluralism

There are always certain institutions or individuals who are more powerful than others, which causes inequality in power relation. Particular interest groups, such as big business, multinational corporations, occupy positions of great influence and are therefore able to exercise more political muscle than others in order to influence government policy making.

Power Structure

Micael Mann: points out that there are four sources of power: Ideological, economic, military and political. While Marxists think Economic power determines the rest, Manne suggests all four types of power are playing important roles.

In modern society, there is observation that power structure changing to power networks:

Michel Foucault- Knowledge is power. "Micro-physics of power" refers to systemically exercised in everyday life on the part of all kinds of "expert" (parents, teachers, social workers, doctor, lawyers etc.)

There must be willing compliance so that people believer themselves to be making their own decision and reaching own conclusion rationally and according to the "truth"

Elite Moder- an analysis of politics that views power as concentrated among the rich, it is closely tied to social-conflict paradigm. It rejects the Pluralist assertion that various centers of power serve as checks and balances on one another.

C.W. Mill 1956 argued that the upper class holds the bulk of society's wealth, prestige and power. The elites control the economic, government and political power, and by inter-marriage, kinship and business dealings, they are able to turn national agenda towards their own interest.

Which model, do you think, can well explain the Singapore political and government system?