Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T19:35:50.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preceptoral Politics, Yeoman Democracy and the Enabling State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

David Marquand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

TRIADS ARE IN FASHION. IN POLITICS AND MARKETS, Charles Lindblom distinguishes between three kinds of social relationships — the exchange relations characteristic of markets; the authority relations characteristic of states; and what he calls ‘preceptoral’ relations, the relations of teachers to pupils, of advertisers to consumers, of indoctrinators to the indoctrinated. In the epilogue to The Liberal Theory of Justice, Brian Barry proposes a different, but in some respects complementary, triad. There are, he suggests, three ‘models’ of social collaboration.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , 01 July 1988 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1988

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 Lindblom, Charles E., Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-Economics, New York, Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar

2 Barry, Brian, The Liberal Theory of Justice, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973 Google Scholar.

3 Streeck, W. and Schmitter, P., ‘Community, Market, State — and Associations? The Prospective Contribution of Interest Governance to Social Order’, in W.Streeck and P. Schmitter (eds), Private Interest Government, London and Beverly Hills, Sage, 1985.Google Scholar

4 Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities-fir Prosperity, New York, Basic Books, 1984, p. 275.Google Scholar

5 O. Streeck and P. Schmitter, op. cit., p. 6.

6 Michael J. Piore and Charles Sabel, op. cit., p. 305–6.

7 Jeremy Bentham, An Introductionto the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. Burns, J. and Hart, H.L.A., London, Athlone Press, p. 12 Google Scholar, quoted in Bell, Daniel, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, London, Heinemann, 2nd. ed., 1979, p. 257.Google Scholar

8 Brian Lee Crowley. ‘The Limitations of Liberalism: the Self, the Individual and the Community in Modern British Political Thought with Special Reference to F.A. Hayek and Sidney and Beatrice Webb’, London University Ph.D., 1985, p. 218 77.

9 The term is borrowed from Heald, David, Public Expenditure, Oxford, Martin Robert son, 1983.Google Scholar

10 For public expenditure/GDP ratios see David Heald, op. cit., Table 2.3, pp. 30–1. For ‘corporatism’ and economic growth, see Colin Crouch in Lindberg, Leon N. and Maier, Charles S. (eds), The Politics of Inflation Economic Stagnation, Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1985.Google Scholar

11 Clarke, Peter, Liberals, and Social Democrats, Cambridge University Press, 1978, esp. pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Michael J. Piore and Charles Sabel, op. cit., p. 305.

13 Stuart Mill, John, Essays on Politics and Culture (ed. G. Himraelfarb), New York, 1963, p. 186 Google Scholar, quoted in Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven and London, 1982.Google Scholar

15 Goodin, Robert, ‘Laundering Preferences’, in Eister, Jon and Hylland, Aanund (eds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 75–101.Google Scholar