Classical elite theorists such as Gaetano Mosca (1939: 50), argue that the history of politics has been characterized by elite domination:

In all societies... two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first.

Classical elite theory therefore challenges the key premises of most western liberal assumptions about politics, the organization of government and the relationship between the state and civil society. For elitists’, the nature of any society - whether it is consensual or authoritarian, pacifist or totalitarian - is determined by the nature of its elite. Four key propositions underpin the classical elitist perspective on the character of political systems:

(a) the rulers of society constitute a socially cohesive group;

(b)this group is territorially based within a nation state;

(c) the ruling elite is ‘closed-off’ from the ruled; and,

(d) its members are selected by virtue of their economic, political or ideological resources.

Hence, in its classical formulation, elite theory had a clear, if problematic, set of propositions about the distribution of power in society. The elitists’ conception of a governing elite has much in common with Karl Marx’s conception of a ruling class, as both concepts highlight socio-economic and political inequalities between rulers and the masses. However, these inequalities are understood in different ways. For Marx (1847 [1971]: 3), ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle’. Thus class conflict is the commanding facet of all societies after primitive communism. Hence religious, ethnic and national divisions and conflicts are, for Marx, secondary to those of class and the conflict between classes is the catalyst to social change. In contrast, classical elitists’ view the rela­tionship between the governing elite and the masses as a passive one and by implication present a narrower understanding of the rise and decline of elites and the determinants of social change.

to explain the power position of three principal elites... business executives... military chiefs... and that of the national political leaders - but the unity of the power elite as a single group, and the basis of its power, are not explained. Why is there one power elite and not three?

More recent elitist approaches have, however, become more flexible in their treatment of these issues and this has allowed for some modifications to the core propositions underpinning elite theory:

(a) the rulers of society are engaged in an ongoing process of competitive elitism;

(b) while this group remains territorially based within a nation state, due to global imperatives it will have linkages and/or membership of global elite networks in order to maintain its power base in society;

(c) the ruling elite remains ‘closed-off’ from the ruled; and,

(d) the power bases of its members are selected by virtue of a broader range of resources -economic, political, ideological or technical.

These conceptual modifications represent a source of partial convergence with the Marxist conception of the ruling class as the outcome of class struggle and the emphasis within neo-pluralisms on the uniquely privileged role of sectional interests in contemporary policy-making. Furthermore, as the world of public policy has become increasingly small due to dramatic changes in global political and economic institutional structures and to nation states themselves, the territorial claim underpinning classical elite theory has been challenged too. A process of external ‘hollowing-out’ has occurred to different degrees in different states as a consequence of the differential impact of processes of globalization on domestic policy formation such as changes in the nature of geopolitics, political integration, the internationalization of financial markets and global communications.

Coterminously, a process of internal ‘hollowing-out’ of the state has occurred to different degrees in different countries as a consequence of the differential impact of processes of privatization, the marketization of public services, and, decentralization on both the institutional architecture of the state and domestic policy formation. This shift from traditional government to collaborative governance has increased the range of non-state actors involved in delivering public goods, transforming the character of governing elites and facilitating an opportunity structure for cross-sectoral and international policy learning. The policy agenda in many, but not all, nation states has thus become increasingly internationalized, particularly with regard to issues such as: stable economic management and economic prudence; public management based upon economy, efficiency and effec­tiveness; a change in the emphasis of government intervention so that it deals with education, training and infrastructure and not industrial inter­vention; public-private partnerships in economic development; reform of the welfare state through managed welfarism; and, reinventing government through decentralization and the opening-up of government.

This chapter provides a critical review of the content and nature of elite theory from its classical origins and assesses its contribution to our under­standing of contemporary societies. The argument is organized into three parts. Part one discusses the emergence of classical elitism and its core proposi­tions. In part two we examine the contribution of a range of modern elitist perspectives, which seek to understand the operational bases of modern governing elites. Part three focuses on four contemporary elitist approaches - the epistemic community approach, the statecraft approach, policy network analysis and urban regime theory. Each of these approaches offer an elitist perspective on the form and function of governing elites at different levels of governance: epistemic community theory at the international level; the statecraft approach at the macro level; the policy network approach at the sub-sectoral level; and, urban regime theory at the city level.