Publication: El estudio del Gobierno de partidos y la autonomía de las instituciones políticas
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2003
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Las dos corrientes principales de la teoría del Estado, el pluralismo y el marxismo, se han encontrado enfrentadas en su concepción de las instituciones políticas y en particular del Gobierno, desde sus orígenes. El Gobierno era considerado un mero instrumento sin entidad propia en el pluralismo tradicional y un reflejo del dominio de los grupos económicamente más poderosos en la corriente marxista. No obstante, en los últimos desarrollos de ambas escuelas se está produciendo una convergencia creciente en torno al reconocimiento de la autonomía, cuando menos relativa, de las instituciones políticas y de su calidad de actores con entidad propia, alejándose de los modelos predominantemente societarios que las caracterizaban. Ese reconocimiento de un margen de autonomía de lo político encuentra confirmación en los estudios empíricos de Gobierno de Partidos que se han realizado en los últimos años, en los que se muestra que la actividad gubernamental no puede ser explicada desde ninguna tesis de dependencia societaria debido a la particular posición en la que se ubica el Gobierno dentro del sistema político. No obstante, esa convergencia aún está escasamente difundida en nuestro ámbito académico. Por otra parte, a pesar de lo coincidente de sus conclusiones y propuestas, no existe ninguna referencia cruzada entre el trabajo teórico de neopluralistas y neomarxistas y la labor empírica del estudio del Gobierno de Partidos. Este artículo se orienta a mostrar las líneas principales de esa convergencia de paradigmas politológicos. Para ello se analizan brevemente los desarrollos del pluralismo tradicional hasta su reformulación en el neopluralismo contemporáneo y la evolución del neomarxismo desde su variante estructuralista hasta el neomarxismo postestructuralista de Bob Jessop, a la vez que se pretende mostrar su adecuación a los hallazgos empíricos de los estudiosos del Gobierno de Partidos.
The two main streams in the field of the theory of the State, pluralism and marxism, have been always confronted in his explanation of the political institutions, especially about the government. The government was regarded as only an instrument in the traditional pluralism and as a reflex of the economically strongest groups in the marxist tradition. However, the last development of both approaches shows an increasingly agree around the recognition of the autonomy of the political institutions, leaving the traditional societary approaches. This recognition of an autonomy for the political field is also recently proved by the empirical works of the party Government studies, showing that we are not able to explain the governmental activity focusing on a societary dependence because of the special position where the government is placed in the political system. However, on the one hand, this evolution is almost unknown in our academic field. On the other hand, despite the coincidence on the conclusion, there is no reference between the work of the neopluralist and neomarxist approaches and the empirical work of the party Government study. This article tries to show the main arguments of this convergence analysing briefly the developments of the traditional pluralism and his evolution to the contemporary neopluralism and also for the structural neomarxism to the Bob Jessop’s postestructuralist neomarxism. At the same time we show that this approach is absolutely coherent with the empirical conclusions that the party government view has recently reached.
The two main streams in the field of the theory of the State, pluralism and marxism, have been always confronted in his explanation of the political institutions, especially about the government. The government was regarded as only an instrument in the traditional pluralism and as a reflex of the economically strongest groups in the marxist tradition. However, the last development of both approaches shows an increasingly agree around the recognition of the autonomy of the political institutions, leaving the traditional societary approaches. This recognition of an autonomy for the political field is also recently proved by the empirical works of the party Government studies, showing that we are not able to explain the governmental activity focusing on a societary dependence because of the special position where the government is placed in the political system. However, on the one hand, this evolution is almost unknown in our academic field. On the other hand, despite the coincidence on the conclusion, there is no reference between the work of the neopluralist and neomarxist approaches and the empirical work of the party Government study. This article tries to show the main arguments of this convergence analysing briefly the developments of the traditional pluralism and his evolution to the contemporary neopluralism and also for the structural neomarxism to the Bob Jessop’s postestructuralist neomarxism. At the same time we show that this approach is absolutely coherent with the empirical conclusions that the party government view has recently reached.