Pluralism and Public Choice
Part A: Contrast the theories of Pluralism and Public Choice (Private Interest).
Public Choice theory and Pluralism are both expressions of an attempt to critique political structures, analyse the processes that drive them and understand their relative effectiveness in achieving stated political or social goals. The disparate perspectives that can be obtained by application of each of these political ontologies are generated by fundamental differences in these assumed goals and underlying motivators.
Pluralism can be defined in its broadest sense as an acceptance of diversity (Wikipedia contributors 2006). This philosophical concept has been used to describe tolerant theological positions, liberal social structures and a political approach that recognises and values diversity. A major proponent of Pluralist ideals as fundamental to defeating the more ignoble of human behaviour was Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997). In his last essay he wrote, “If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow”( Berlin 1998).
As such, Pluralism in any area of human endeavour is commonly regarded as a characteristic of a free society. When discussing politics, the term is generally used either as a fundamental principle which holds that peaceful coexistence of diverse groups is not only desirable but actually strengthens the democratic process, or to define an inclusive style or flavour of government that seeks to accommodate a range of constituencies and their interests, whether they be based upon morality, philosophy, religion or ethnicity(Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp.47-48). Bob Jessop writes “democratic politics… raises the question of formulating policies that will prove realistic in terms of the overall balance of forces and structural constraints confronting a party or coalition in office” (1990, p.182).
To achieve this pluralist ideal,
Public Choice theory and Pluralism are both expressions of an attempt to critique political structures, analyse the processes that drive them and understand their relative effectiveness in achieving stated political or social goals. The disparate perspectives that can be obtained by application of each of these political ontologies are generated by fundamental differences in these assumed goals and underlying motivators.
Pluralism can be defined in its broadest sense as an acceptance of diversity (Wikipedia contributors 2006). This philosophical concept has been used to describe tolerant theological positions, liberal social structures and a political approach that recognises and values diversity. A major proponent of Pluralist ideals as fundamental to defeating the more ignoble of human behaviour was Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997). In his last essay he wrote, “If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow”( Berlin 1998).
As such, Pluralism in any area of human endeavour is commonly regarded as a characteristic of a free society. When discussing politics, the term is generally used either as a fundamental principle which holds that peaceful coexistence of diverse groups is not only desirable but actually strengthens the democratic process, or to define an inclusive style or flavour of government that seeks to accommodate a range of constituencies and their interests, whether they be based upon morality, philosophy, religion or ethnicity(Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp.47-48). Bob Jessop writes “democratic politics… raises the question of formulating policies that will prove realistic in terms of the overall balance of forces and structural constraints confronting a party or coalition in office” (1990, p.182).
To achieve this pluralist ideal,
References: Buchanan, James M. 2003, ‘Public Choice: The Origins and Development of a Research Program’, Public Choice Society, George Mason University, viewed 30 March 2006, <http://www.pubchoicesoc.org/about_pc.html> Buchanan, James M Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 1993 Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for Modern Institutional Economics, Polity Press, Cambridge Jessop, Bob 1990, State Theory: Putting Capitalist States Back in Their Place, Pennsylvania State Press, Pennsylvania