1. Durkheim, E., The Division of Labour in Society (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

2. Interestingly, it has proven a resilient hypothesis and has found a place not only in consensualist writings, but also in approaches which, like that of Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (London: Allen Lane, 1977)Google Scholar, are deeply concerned with conflict and power.

3. See, for example, Friedman, W., The State and the Rule of Law in a Mixed Economy (London: Stevens, 1971), 1–25Google Scholar.

4. Thus Beck, S., “Corporate Power and Public Policy,” in Bernier, I. and Lajoie, A. (eds.), Consumer Protection, Environmental Law and Corporate Power (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 184Google Scholar, gloomily comments that “Few Canadians would have even a vague understanding of the complexities of the NEP or FIRA or their economic effects.”

5. For a more complete outline of such processes, as well as a broad discussion of the withering away of the parliamentary function in Canada, see Courtney, J., “The Size of Canada's Parliament: An Assessment of the Implications of a Larger House of Parliament,” in Aucoin, P. (ed.), Institutional Reforms for Representative Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Mallory, J., “The Continuing Evolution of Canadian Constitutionalism,” in Cairns, Alan and Williams, C. (eds.), Constitutionalism, Citizenship and Society in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar; van Loon, R., “Kaleidoscope in Grey: The Policy Process in Ottawa,” in Whittington, M. and Williams, G. (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980s (Toronto: Methuen, 1981)Google Scholar and; Atkinson, M., “Parliamentary Government in Canada,” in Whittington, and Williams, (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980sGoogle Scholar. The process of restricting legislative control to the inner core of the executive and to senior cadres of the public service is general to Western democracies. On this, see for example Miliband, Richard, The State in Capitalist Society (London: Quartet, 1973)Google Scholar and Atiyah, P., The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 715–735Google Scholar.

6. Of 500 private member's bills introduced during the first session of the 32nd Parliament, only one received royal assent, Dobell, P., “Some Comments on Parliamentary Reform,” in Aucoin, (ed.), Institutional Reforms for Representative Government, 52–53Google Scholar and; Atkinson, , “Parliamentary Government in Canada,” 271Google Scholar.

7. It may be argued that the Charter has changed all of this and that the judiciary are now supreme by virtue of their capacity to invalidate laws for reasons other than the federal division of powers. Yet as Brun, H., “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an Instrument of Social Development,” in Beckton, C. and Mackay, A. (eds.), The Courts and the Charter (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 6Google Scholar makes clear, the supremacy of Parliament remains unweakened, simply because “The Charter has changed nothing in the field of constitutional law relating to the functioning of the state. The laws can be challenged in the courts, but only Parliaments can make law. The Charter permits no one, not even the courts, to replace Parliaments.” Courtney, , “The Size of Canada's Parliament,” 12Google Scholar.

8. Observation of this process is, of course, not restricted to academic observers. Recently the Canadian Bar Association Committee on the Independence of the Judiciary in Canada (1985) commented that “Parliament has transferred all of its authority over day to day decisionmaking, and much of its ultimate authority, as well, to the Cabinet and ministries.” More generally see also, Miliband, , The State in Capitalist Society, 145–148 andGoogle Scholar; Stanbury, W., Business Interests and the Reform of Canadian Com-petition Policy 1971-1975 (Toronto: Carswell/Methuen, 1977), 19Google Scholar.

9. Presthus, R., Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)Google Scholar.

10. Evidence also suggests that the upper echelons of the civil service are key policy formation areas (Stanbury, , Business Interests, 19–21 andGoogle Scholar; Presthus, , Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics, 211)Google Scholar. It is therefore significant that fifty-one percent of business associations' primary targets were in this sector, as against only thirty-two percent of labour groups. Unfortunately the full significance of this difference is unclear, as Presthus does not investigate the possibility that labour and business access the public service at different levels. Taking a lead from the responses concerning Cabinet access, it would appear likely that far more of the business targets were in the upper echelons of the service than was true for labour.

11. Presthus, , Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics, 178Google Scholar.

12. It should not be thought that this lesser capacity of the union movement for contact at the Cabinet level reflects a different strategy rather than a weaker position. Kwavnick's, D. (Organized Labour and Pressure Politics (Montreal: McGill/Queen's University Press, 1972), 222)Google Scholar study of the Canadian Labour Congress makes it clear that for this organisation “The most effective means of obtaining favours within the limits of government planning is the development of close day-to-day working relations with civil servants and ministers. Frantic pressure campaigns are rarely mounted and then only as a last resort.”

13. Fournier, P., The Quebec Establishment: The Ruling Class and the State (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1976), 70–75Google Scholar.

14. Ibid. For an extension of this point, see Mishler, W., “Political Participation and Democracy,” in Whittington, and Williams, (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980sGoogle Scholar, who also reports that only twenty-four percent of a sample of Canadians had ever contacted any kind of public official, while only four percent reported themselves as being active political party members.

15. Quinney, R., The Social Reality of Crime (New York: Little, Brown, 1970)Google Scholar; Chambliss, W., Crime and the Legal Order (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969)Google Scholar; and Thorburn, Hugh, Interest Groups in the Canadian Political System (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

16. For summaries of many interest group studies see Roshier, B. and Teff, H., Law and Society in England (London: Tavistock, 1980)Google Scholar; Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime and; Chambliss, Crime and the Legal Order. For an extended review of Canadian analyses, see Thorburn, Interest Groups and the Canadian Political System and for two major in-depth Canadian case studies, see Stanbury, Business Interests; Presthus, R., “Interest Groups and the Canadian Parliament: Activities, Interaction, Legitimacy and Influence,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4 (1971), 444–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Presthus, Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics.

17. Stanbury, Business Interests.

18. Ibid., 29-33.

19. Work of this type may also be seen as undermining the ‘pluralist’ view that all important needs or interests will become organised and will be represented in state policy. The example of the consumer interest indicates not only how organisational re-sources are unequally distributed, but also how significant interests may go unrecognised even by those most directly concerned. Ibid., 199-209.

20. Dicey, A.V., Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century (London: Macmillan, 1905), 13Google Scholar.

21. Paulus, Ingeborg, The Search for Pure Food (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1974)Google Scholar.

22. This may also be illustrated by problems experienced by the women's groups lobbying over constitutional reform in the early 1980s. For example, women in English speaking provinces focused on federal intervention and regarded the provincial governments as hostile or unconcerned. In consequence they were unable to present a unified front with Quebec women who articulated their cause with the more progressive Quebec provincial government Hosek, C., “Women and the Constitutional Process,” in Banting, K. and Simeon, Richard (eds.), And No-one Cheered (Toronto: Methuen, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Schultz, R., “Interest Groups and Government Negotiation. Caught in the Vise of Federalism,” in Meekison, P. (ed.), Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality? (Toronto: Methuen, 1977), 375–376 andGoogle Scholar; Presthus, , “Interest Groups and the Canadian Parliament,” 446Google Scholar.

23. For more detailed consideration of the relationship between these questions and the points raised by Paulus and Rock in the foregoing discussion, see O'Malley, Pat, “Accomplishing Law: Structure and Negotiation in Legislative Process,” British Journal of Law and Society 7 (1980), 22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Quinney, R., The Problem of Crime (New York: Dodd Mead, 1970), 11Google Scholar.

25. Similarly Scutt, J., “Sexism in Criminal Law,” in Mukherjee, S. and Scutt, J. (eds), Women and Crime (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1981)Google Scholar shows how specifically male interests and definitions are expressed in criminal laws relating to prostitution, domestic violence and infanticide without ever having to be represented as such. See also Friedman, L., Law and Society (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 99Google Scholar.

26. Beck, Consider, “Corporate Power and Public Policy,” 185Google Scholar whose view is that “if economic policy is to be effectively carried out, the collaboration and support of business is essential. In that sense business is an interest group in our society like no other [and] government has to heed its voice and attend to its concerns or risk frustration and failure of its policies.“ Such matters may be entirely tacit components of politics, but it is also almost a routine strategy of capital to influence policy by directly threatening the electoral base of a government. Cairns, Alan, “The Governments and Sources of Canadian Federalism,” Canadian Journal of Political Science (1977), 712Google Scholar, for example, refers to the threat of a flight of capital from British Columbia should an NDP Government be elected.

27. Cairns, , “The Governments and Sources of Canadian Federalism,” 711–712Google Scholar.

28. Boldt, M., “Introduction,” in Boldt, M., Long, J. and Bear, L. Little (eds), The Quest for Justice. Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights (TorontoUniversity of Toronto Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Ponting, J. and Gibbins, Roger, Out of Irrelevance A Socio-Political Introduction to Indian Affairs in Canada (TorontoButterworths, 1980), 26–28Google Scholar.

30. Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime and; Chambliss, Crime and the Legal Order.

31. Hindess, B., “Power, Interests and the Outcomes of Struggles,” Sociology 16 (1982), 499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Stanbury, , Business Interests, 201–203Google Scholar.

33. Hindess, , Power, Interests and the Outcomes of Struggles,” 505Google Scholar.

34. Quinney, R., “Crime Control in Capitalist Society,” in Taylor, I. et al. (eds.), Critical Criminology (LondonRoutledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 192Google Scholar.

35. Ibid., 194.

36. For similar ideas see Chambliss, W., “The State and Criminal Law,” in Chambliss, W. and Mankoff, M. (eds.), Whose Law, What Order? (New YorkJohn Wiley, 1976)Google Scholar, Shannon, P., “The New Zealand Accident Compensation Act, 1972,” in Tomasic, R. (ed.), Legislation and Society m Australia (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1980)Google Scholar, and Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society.

37. Cook, S., “Canadian Narcotics Legislation: A Conflict Model Interpretation,” Canadia Review of Sociology and Anthropology 6 (1969), 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Comack, Elizabeth, “‘We Will Get Some Good Out of This Riot Yet’: The Canadian State, Drug Legislation and Class Conflict,” in Brickey, Steven and Comack, Elizabeth, (eds.), The Social Basis of Law (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

39. Ibid., 83.

40. Young, B., “Corporate Interests and the State,” Our Generation 10 (1974), 70–83Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 73.

42. For a critique of Young's account of this legislative process, see Smandych, R., “Marxism and the Creation of Law. Re-examining the Origins of Canadian Anti-Combines Legislation 1890-1910,” Canadian Criminology Forum (1983), no. 1, 49Google Scholar.

43. A good illustration of this problem is to be found in Hagan, and Leon's, (“The Development of Canadian Juvenile Justice. A Background for Reform,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 15 (1977), 71–106)Google Scholar analysis of the instrumentalist claims concerning the formation of Canadian delinquency legislation. Noting previous instrumental analysis which attributed such legislation to bourgeois interventions aimed at training labour for industrial discipline, Hagan and Leon were unable to discover evidence of effective pressure from this source. Rather, they discovered evidence that the changes were fought over by police defending a traditional disciplinary approach to juvenile correction and more liberal reformers. The victory of the latter meant that the reforms stemmed from the interventions of middle class and bureaucratic agents who were apparently concerned with straightforward ideas of humane intervention and moral correction.

44. Hindess, “Power, Interests and the Outcomes of Struggles.”

45. Beck, , “Corporate Power and Public Policy,” 185Google Scholar.

46. In such instances it is often argued that capital permitted the legislation establishing such bodies only when it was assured that the resulting system would be ineffective. The legislation, in short, is intended as a mere sop to those clamouring for control. While this may be the case in certain instances, there are grave dangers in adopting the position which suggests that all concessions in the direction of genuine regulation of capital fall into this category. Were it the case, then it would be difficult indeed to ex-plain the current wave of deregulation which is characterising most of the advanced capitalist states. Why should those espousing the interests of capital bother to sweep away a set of state practices which serve an important ideological function, unless they operated at some significant expense to profitability or competitiveness?

47. Miliband, , The State in Capitalist Society, 55Google Scholar.

48. Panitch, Leo, “The Role and Nature of the Canadian State,” in Panitch, L. (ed.), The Canadian State (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 11Google Scholar.

49. Brym, R., “Anglo-Canadian Sociology,” Current Sociology 34 (1986), 78–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. While the focus here is upon class, it is also clear that ethnic and gender selectivity also operates. Olsen concludes from his analysis that “the Canadian state elite is primarily an elite composed of middle class Canadian males of British and French ethnicity.” Olsen, D., “The State Elites,” in Panitch, (ed.), The Canadian State, 217Google Scholar and Ibid., 207. White, R., Law, Capitalism and the Right to Work (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1986), 37–38Google Scholar, indicates that on average, women make up five percent or less of federal and provincial legislators and judges.

51. Clement, W., “The Corporate Elite, the Capitalist Class and the Canadian State,” in Panitch, (ed.), The Canadian State, 231Google Scholar.

52. Fox, J. and Ornstein, M., “The Canadian State and Corporate Elites in the Post-War Period,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 23 (1986), 302Google Scholar.

53. It must certainly be recognised that the Canadian judiciary has frequently denied that it adopts a law making—rather than law applying—role. While it will be argued that such judicial conservatism has played a strong role in Canadian history, it may be noted briefly that such a denial of judicial policy making can scarcely be maintained in the face of changes instituted by the Charter. In particular, I refer here to the capacity to render laws invalid on grounds other than limitations of federal powers. For an extended discussion of these ‘two models’ of judicial practice, see Weiler, P., “Two Models of Judicial Decision-Making,” Canadian Bar Review 46 (1968), 406–471Google Scholar.

54. Risk, R., “The Law and the Economy in Nineteenth Century Ontario. A Perspective,” in Flaherty, , Essays in the History of Canadian Law (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1981 Volume 1), 91Google Scholar.

55. Olsen, D., The State Elites (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1980), 51Google Scholar. As indicated in this passage, not only class but also gender selectivity is marked among the Canadian judiciary. In 1985 it was still the case that only one member of the bench of the Supreme Court was a woman, as were only 28 out of 630 federally appointed judges and 22 of 657 provincially appointed judges. (White, , Law, Capitalism and the Right to Work, 37–38)Google Scholar. The same is true for legislators of the first instance, where of 1018 provincial and federal members in 1982, only 67 were women. (Ibid., 37). Likewise in the public service, where only 0.2 percent of management positions are occupied by women and 0.5 percent by indigenous people. (Kernaghan, K., “Representative and Responsive Bureaucracy: Implications for Canadian Regionalism,” in Aucoin, (ed.), Regional Responsiveness and the National Administrative State (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 18Google Scholar.

56. As Adams and Cavalluzzo conclude in their study of the Supreme Court of Canada “judicial selection comes near the end of the judicial recruitment process. It acts to reinforce the socialization process by choosing those lawyers who have conformed to the established norms and who therefore give promise of fulfilling the judicial role in the expected manner.” Adams, G. and Cavaluzzo, P., “The Supreme Court of Canada: A Biographical Study,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 7 (1969), 63 andGoogle Scholar; Olsen, , The State Elites, 42–46Google Scholar.

57. Martin, R., “The Judges and the Charter,” in Brickey, and Comack, (eds.), The Social Basis of Law.Google Scholar

58. Weiler, P.C., “The Slippery Slope of Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court and Canadian Labour Relations,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 9 (1971), 77Google Scholar.

59. Quoted by Panitch, L. and Swartz, D., “From Free Collective Bargaining to Permanent Exceptionalism: The Economic Crisis and the Transformation of Industial Relations in Canada,” in Swimmer, G. and e (eds.), Conflict or Compromise? The Future of Public Sector Industrial Relations (Ottawa: Institute for Research in Public Policy, 1983), 112Google Scholar.

60. Pound, R., “Economic Interpretation and the Law of Torts,” Harvard Law Review 53 (1940), 250–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61. Deane v. Clayton (1817, 7 Taunton 489) and Bird v. Holbrook (1824, 4 Byng 628).

62. Thompson, E.P., Whigs and Hunters (London: Allen Lane, 1975), 265Google Scholar.

63. Bendix, R., Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait (London: Methuen, 1968), 890Google Scholar; and Freund, J., The Sociology of Law (London: Allen Lane, 1978), 229–331Google Scholar.

64. Freund, , The Sociology of Law, 230Google Scholar.

65. A similar point is made by Marxists. Engels (Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, The Marx-Engels Reader, Tucker, R. (ed.) (New York: Norton, 1972), 645)Google Scholar for example argues that in a modern state the law must be consistently applied and developed, for where “a code of law is the blunt, unmitigated, unadulterated expression of the domination of a class—this in itself would offend the conception of justice.”

66. Bader, M. and Burstein, E., “The Supreme Court of Canada, 1892-1902. A Study of Men and their Times,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 8 (1970), 503–548Google Scholar; Slayton, P., “Quantitative Methods and Supreme Court Cases,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 10 (1972), 429–440Google Scholar; and Weiler, , “The Slippery Slope of Judicial Intervention,” 75Google Scholar.

67. Sawer, G., Australian Federalism in the Courts (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1967), 72Google Scholar.

68. It is important to note that it is being argued both that the judiciary will tend to be politically conservative, as a result of the kinds of process outlined in the text and juridically conservative. The latter refers to the tendency to conserve by applying established rules rather than to reform by taking account of social, political or philosophical changes in the society. Canada's judiciary have tended strongly toward a juridical conservatism (Nedelsky, Jennifer, “Judicial Conservatism in an Age of Innovation. Comparative Perspectives on Canadian Nuisance Law 1880-1930,” in Flaherty, J. (ed.), Essays in the History of Canadian Law (volume 1))Google Scholar. Juridical conservatism generally implies political conservatism as well, because the decision to opt for such a stance itself implies political decision not to opt for reform in law (Cf. Mossman, M., “Feminism and Legal Method: The Difference It Makes,” Australian Journal of Law and Society 3 (1986), 30–53)Google Scholar. Even so, the two are not necessarily related and some politically conservative judges are not juridically conservative.

69. Mossman, “Feminism and Legal Method.”

70. Quoted by Ibid., 32.

71. Nedelsky, “Judicial Conservatism in an Age of Innovation.”

72. Tremblay, G., “The Supreme Court of Canada: Final Arbiter of Political Disputes,” in Bemier, I. and Lajoie, A. (eds.), The Supreme Court of Canada as an Instrument of Social Change, 184Google Scholar.

73. Lajoie, A., Mulazzi, P. and Gamache, M., “Political Ideas in Quebec and the Evolution of Canadian Constitutional Law,” in Bernier, and Lajoie, (eds.), The Supreme Court of Canada as an Instrument of Social ChangeGoogle Scholar.

74. This point is closely akin to, but not identical with that made by Mandel, M., “The Rule of Law and the Legalisation of Politics in Canada,” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 13 (1985), 273–287Google Scholar, who argues that there are “two opposing senses of the rule of law: the democratic and the judicial.” The former arises out of popular participation and institutions and is generally to be regarded as progressive. The latter is to be regarded as generally repressive. This identification of the popular and the progressive appears rather romantically over-generalised.

75. Dahrendorf (1967, 64-67); Thorburn (1977, 23-38); Giddens (1973, 201-203).

76. Poulantzas, N., Political Power and Social Classes (London: NLB, 1973), 123Google Scholar.

77. Bourque, G., “Class, Nation and the Parti Québecois,” Studies in Political Economy 2 (1980), 129–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78. Panitch, Leo, “Elites, Classes and Power in Canada,” in Whittington, and Williams, (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980s, 184Google Scholar.

79. Marshall, T., Citizenship and Social Class (London: Cambridge University Press, 1950)Google Scholar; Arthurs, Harry, “Developing Industrial Citizenship,” Canadian Bar Review 45 (1967), 786–830Google Scholar; and Fraser, A., “Legal Theory and Legal Practice,” Arena 44/45 (1976), 145–146Google Scholar.

80. There is a surprising tendency among Marxists and other critical theorists to impute a degree of ignorance or lack of perception among the working classes in this respect. It should be noted that studies have consistently revealed high levels of cynicism and distrust of government in Canada (Johnston, R., Public Opinion and Public Policy in Canada: Questions in Confidence (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986))Google Scholar. One of the most striking findings was that of Beck, N. and Peirce, J., “Political Involvement and Party Allegiances in Canada and the United States,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology (1977), 29Google Scholar, who indicated that in the 1960s between 83 and 90 percent of Canadians interviewed felt that government was run by big business.

81. Bourque, , “Class, Nation and the Parti Québecois,” 138–140Google Scholar; Stevenson, G., “Federalism and the Political Economy of the Canadian State,” in Panitch, (ed.), The Canadian StateGoogle Scholar; Stevenson, G., “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations,” in Whittington, and Williams, (eds.), Canadian Politics in the 1980sGoogle Scholar.

82. Stevenson, , “Federalism and the Political Economy of the Canadian State,” 79Google Scholar.

83. This is not to deny that networks develop which override some of these divisions. Yet none overrides all such lines of demarcation. The Business Council on NationalIssues certainly is playing an increasingly important role in coordination at a national level, yet it nevertheless represents a distinct constituency, and cannot claim to represent interests covered, say, by the Canadian Organisation of Small Business.

84. Panitch, L., “Dependency and Class in Canadian Political Economy,” Studies in Political Economy 6 (1981), 24–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85. Banting, K., “Images of the Modem State,” in Banting, K. (ed.), State and Society. Canada in Comparative Perspective (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 16–17Google Scholar.

86. Clement, , “The Corporate Elite,” 301Google Scholar.

87. Marx, and Engels, , The Marx-Engels Reader, 644Google Scholar.

88. Block, F., ‘The Ruling Class Does Not Rule,” Socialist Revolution 33 (1977), 6–28Google Scholar; Giddens, A., The Nation State and Violence (London: Polity Press, 1985)Google Scholar; and Mann, M., “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results,” in Hall, J. (ed.), States in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google Scholar.

89. Stevenson, , “Federalism and the Political Economy of the Canadian State,” 79Google Scholar.

90. Poulantzas, N., State, Power, Socialism (London: NLB, 1978)Google Scholar.

91. Mahon, Rianne (“Canadian Public Policy: The Unequal Structure of Representation,” in Panitch, (ed.), The Canadian State, 191)Google Scholar interprets this as the effect of recognition by such officials that to act otherwise would result in more obstructive Indian opposition to state policy. This may certainly have been one motivation, but there are dangers in seeing all such moves as forms of bourgeois manoeuvering. Palmer's, I. (“State Theory and Statutory Authorities' Points of Convergence,” Sociology 19 (1985), 523–540)CrossRefGoogle Scholar research into state agencies dealing with aboriginal demands in Australia suggests that state officials may identify authentically with popular causes and, within the constraints of office, work genuinely to represent them. This appears less conspiratorial and determinist than Mahon's implied scenario.

92. An added complexity is that in certain areas of administration issues may be so contentious and contradictory that agencies emerge which achieve a high degree of insulation from class influences (Mahon, Rianne, “Regulatory Agencies: Captive Agencies or Hegemonic Apparatuses,” Studies in Political Economy (1979), 162–200)Google Scholar. One such area is the regulation of the press, which has been dealt with in Canada, as else-where, by regulatory agencies expressive of highly contradictory forces (O'Malley, Pat, “Regulating Contradictions: The Australian Press Council and the ‘Dispersal of Social Control,’” Law and Society Review 21 (1987), 83–108)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93. Poulantzas, , State, Power, Socialism, 190Google Scholar.

94. Mahon, , “Canadian Public Policy,” 175Google Scholar. See van Loon (“Kaleidoscope in Grey”) for an outline of how such negotiation tends to occur in practice.

95. Poulantzas, , State, Power, Socialism, 161–189Google Scholar.

96. This emerges clearly in the debate between Cuneo, C. (“State Mediation of Class Contradictions in Canadian Unemployment Insurance 1930-1935,” Studies in Political Economy 3 (1980), 37–65)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pal, Leslie (“Relative Autonomy Revisited: The Origins of Canadian Unemployment Insurance,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 19 (1986), 71–92)CrossRefGoogle Scholar over the origins of unemployment insurance in Canada. For Cuneo, UI was the result of class struggle within the state over the need to control labour. Pal argues that it was the result of state expertise, fiscal capacity and juristic categorisation, which were constituted in bourgeois terms but operated with their own effectivity. However, this particular debate is eventually settled, the only possible conclusion will be in terms of the instance at hand. Few would doubt that even were Pal proven correct (or at least more persuasive) in the instance of UI, the types of struggle outlined by Cuneo were also at work, and in other instances were doubtlessly more influential. Marxist theorists, it seems are rather reluctant to recognise that the articulations of capital and the state are multiple and flexible, not singular and rigid.

97. Note the use of the term ‘tendency’ here, for it is implied neither that all of these will be present in any one situation, nor that any of them will be determinative except in degree. There is no intention here to repeat the errors of the approaches already reviewed which assume that the frequently occurring is therefore the necessary, the exclusively effective or the unsubstitutable.

98. O'Connor, J., The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: Scribner, 1973), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99. Hindess, B., “Marxism and Parliamentary Democracy,” in Hunt, A. (ed.), Marxism and Democracy (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1980), 40–41Google Scholar.

100. It is important to distance this account from the marxist-functionalism which held sway until recently. In this view, the state necessarily functioned to reproduce capitalism (Althusser, L., Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (London: NLB, 1971)Google Scholar; Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes). As with Talcott Parsons and other functionalists of more conservative persuasion, adherents vied with each other in locating the concealed function of every social arrangement. One result was that either the state or capitalism (anthropomorphised) took on a godlike appearance of omniscience and omnicompetence. Unerringly it could isolate the long-term needs of capital from the maelstrom of conflicting bourgeois pressures and class struggles. Irresistably it could sweep aside or coopt opposition and install the functionally necessary arrangements. As with its predecessors, this approach failed not only because of its implausibility, but also because it could provide too few insights into the complexities of political struggle. For a vitriolic critique see Thompson, E.P., The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin, 1978)Google Scholar.

101. Monahan, Patrick, “The Supreme Court and the Economy,” in Bernier, I. and Lajoie, A. (eds.), The Supreme Court of Canada as an Instrument of Social ChangeGoogle Scholar.

102. Ibid., 162.

103. See for example, Horwitz, R., “Understanding Deregulation,” Theory and Society 15 (1986), 130–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104. Monahan, , “The Supreme Court and the Economy,” in Bernier, and Lajoie, (eds.), The Supreme Court of Canada, 165–166Google Scholar.

105. Pashukanis, E., Law and Marxism (London: Ink Links, 1978)Google Scholar and Balbus, I., “Commodity Form and Legal Form: An Essay on the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of the Law,” Law and Society Review 11 (1977), 571–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106. Monahan, , “The Supreme Court and the Economy,” 165Google Scholar.