In summary
The relative value of elite theory must be assessed by its ability to resolve important questions about the nature of contemporary political systems. Do the rulers of society constitute a social group? Is it cohesive or divided? Is it territorially based? How are its members selected? What is the basis of their power? Is this power constrained by other groups in society? Are there differences between societies in these respects, and if so, how can we explain them.
It is clear from this survey that many of the core propositions underpinning classical elite theory are no longer tenable. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that governing elites act as cohesive, active and self-perpetuating social groups. Moreover, while the power of governing elites remains territorially based, success rests on the ability to gain competitive advantages within global market places through international networks of governance. Furthermore, when contrasted with other theories of the state, contemporary elite theory tends to be preoccupied with the nature and role of privileged elites in decision-making centres and pays less attention to developing a broader understanding of the relationship between the state and civil society or the relationship between elite circulation and the nature of state crisis and legitimation. This is because elite theory as a grand narrative remains difficult to sustain in an empirical sense.Nonetheless, elitism still provides an important focus for the work of political scientists because both the ownership and control of wealth and the monopoly of political power still resides in the hands of the few. As Domhoff (cited in Olsen and Marger (eds) 1993: 180) puts it, with regard to the United States:
we should continue to remind ourselves that members of an upper class making up less than 1 per cent of the population own 20 to 25 per cent of all privately held wealth and 45 to 50 per cent of all privately held corporate stock; they are over represented in seats of formal power from the corporation to the federal government; and they win much more often than they lose on issues ranging from the tax structure to labor law to foreign policy.
Moreover, as Pierce (2004: 1) notes of the United Kingdom:
seven hundred aristocratic landowners continue to own a tenth of the total land area of England.
Whilst this acreage may appear small, it is larger than the combined estates in England of the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and the Crown Estate.In sum, elitism continues to present a compelling critique of the Liberal democratic model in theory but has proved limited in providing the methodological tools necessary to demonstrate that all societies must be elitist in practice.
Further reading
Bottomore, T. (1993) Elites and Society (London: Routledge).
Domhoff, G. (1987) Who Rules America? (Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1977) Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown).
Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Michels, R. (1911 [1962]) Political Parties (New York: Free Press).
Mills, C. W. (1956) The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press).
Mosca, G. (1896 [1939]) The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw-Hill). Pareto, V. (1935) The Mind and Society (London: Cape).
Scott, J. (1991) Who Rules Britain? (Cambridge: Polity Press).