Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T17:03:21.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Devolution and Corporatism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

H. M. Drucker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATWE DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT THE relationship of individuals to the state. It commonly invokes mechanistic metaphors about the relationship between these individuals and their governments. Corporatism is about the relationship of certain, apparently relationship indispensable, functional groups to each other in the society which, collectively , they comprise. It is commonly referred to in organic metaphors, specifically it holds that each function is organically related to each other function and that each is irreplaceable. None can be dispensed with and each can do its appointed task provided all others do theirs.

Type
Original Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1977 , pp. 178 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a general description see Ionescu, G., Centripetal Politics: Government and the New Centres of Power, London, 1975 especially chapters II & IIIGoogle Scholar

2 Beer, S., Modern British Politics: A Study of Politics and Pressure Groups, London, 1965.Google Scholar

3 See, for example Pahl, R. E. and Winkler, J. T., ‘Corporatism in Britain’ The Times, 26 03 1976, p. 14 Google Scholar and Joseph, K., ‘Corporatism and liberty do not go together’ ibid., 17 05 1976, p. 14.Google Scholar

4 Kellas, J. G., The Scottish Political System, Cambridge, 1973, Chapter IIIGoogle Scholar

5 Hunter, D., ‘The Reorganized Health Service: A Scottish Perspective’ in Clarke, M. G., and Drucker, H. M., Our Changing Scotland, Edinburgh, 1976 pp. 30 ffGoogle Scholar

6 Cited in Drucker, H. M., ‘Will Politics Wreck the Health Service in Scotland’, Health & Social Services Journal, 17 03 1976, p. 588.Google Scholar

7 Lord President of the Council, Devolution to Scotland & Wales Supplementary Statement, paragraph 17

8 Royal Commission on the Constitution, Comnd. 5460, 1973 paragraph 1064

9 Rose, R., ‘The Future of Scottish Politics: A Dynamic Analysis’ Fraser of Allander Institutes Speculative Paper No. 3, Glasgow, 1975. pp. 24–6Google Scholar

10 The Scotsman, 17 September 1976.

11 The Guardian, 7 June 1976.

12 See J. G. Kellas, ibid.

13 Bain, D., ‘The Mandate Question’, Question, 8 10 1976. p. 2 Google Scholar

14 R. Rose, op. cit. p. 24

15 Labour Manifesto for 1966 reprinted in Craig, F. W. S., British General Election Manifestos 1900–1974. London, 1975. p. 296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Royal Commission, paragraphs 532 ff

17 Taylor, R., ‘Unions and their Money’, Socialist Commentary, 09, 1974, p. 8.Google Scholar

18 The Times, 10 August 1976, p. 4.

19 Ibid.

20 The Scotsman, 29 September 1976, p. 8.

21 For the information in this paragraph I am indebted to Gordon Brown for allowing me to see his unpublished paper on devolution and the Labour Party.