Revising classical pluralism
Classical pluralism, associated with Dahl and others, held that power is dispersed among many groups and that no group dominates every arena. Bachrach and Baratz (1962), however, pointed to a 'second face of power' that keeps some issues off the agenda altogether. Dahl (1982) himself acknowledged inequalities among organized groups and the dilemma of autonomy versus control. Neo-pluralism rewrote pluralism by accepting these criticisms.
The privileged position of business
Lindblom (1977) argued that because firms make investment and employment decisions in market economies, governments must anticipate business demands to secure economic performance. Business has influence even without lobbying, simply through the threat of withdrawing investment, and this structural privilege sets it apart from other groups. The logic connects to regulatory capture, in which industries come to dominate their regulators.
Empirical research and assessments
McFarland (2007) described how neo-pluralism developed into a process theory that considers group competition, social movements and differences across policy domains. Lowery and Gray (2004) proposed an ecological view in which the number and composition of interest groups change with their environment, and Baumgartner and Leech (1998) reviewed group research. Gilens and Page (2014) reported that US policy tracks the preferences of economic elites and business groups more closely, reviving the debate between neo-pluralism and elite theory.
FAQ
- What is neo-pluralism in simple terms?
- Groups do compete in politics, but those that control the economy, like business, start from a much stronger position.
- How does it differ from classical pluralism?
- Classical pluralism saw groups competing on roughly equal terms, while neo-pluralism sees structural inequality among them.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world's political-economic systems. Basic Books. The privileged position of business.
- Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control. Yale University Press. Dahl's own revision.
- McFarland, A. S. (2007). Neopluralism. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 45–66. A review of the field.
- Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (2004). A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 163–175. Neopluralism and interest groups.
- Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton University Press. Interest group research reviewed.
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. The second face of power.
- Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. Testing pluralism against elite theories.