Elite theory

Matias López Interdisciplinary Network for Studies of Social Inequality

(NIED), at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

abstract This article reviews contemporary elite theory in political sociology and political science. Elite
theory is based on the assumption that elite behavior has a causal relationship with general patterns of
state–society relations. The article presents classical concepts of elite theory, such as elite inevitability and
elite circulation, while privileging contemporary challenges and trends in elite theory. The discussion
addresses elite origins of democracy and elite origins of the welfare state, as well as elites/non-elites inter-
dependence.
keywords democracy ◆ elites ◆ elite theory ◆ new elitism ◆ welfare state

Overview
This article reviews contemporary elite theory in Elite theory is deep-rooted in classical sociology,
political sociology and political science. The concept especially that of Weber (2005 [1922]), Pareto
of ‘elites’ is based on the notion that every society (1935), Mosca (1939) and Michels (2009 [1915]).
holds a ruling minority, a group that controls and dis- These authors are usually labeled as ‘classical elitists’.
putes the most important power sources. Not only do Beyond its strong roots in classical sociology, elite the-
elites dispute power (reaching different levels of con- ory developed into a vibrant theoretical field, inter-
flict and violence), but new elites also enter the game secting other theories, such as rational choice theory
through different mechanisms of elite recruitment. and political culture theory.
Thus, the core of elite theory relies in explaining elite Most elite theory reviews (e.g. de Hollanda, 2011;
behavior, elite interaction, elite transformation and, Khan, 2012) focus on the work of classical elitists,
ultimately, the connection between those instances considered to be the founding fathers of the elitist
and state outcomes. school. Classical authors are important references and
The link between elite behavior and regime change I will briefly review their work as well, yet my inten-
led a number of authors to almost naturalize elite the- tion is to privilege contemporary elite theory and
ory as ‘regime theory’ (e.g. Dogan and Higley, 1998; research, highlighting empirical findings and current
Higley and Burton, 2006). Yet elite theory is not research challenges.
restricted to the study of regime change and regime Classical and current elite theorists share the ambi-
support. Although studies do tend to focus on the tion of explaining state outcomes through elite behav-
political realm, elite researchers often explore power ior. If political sociology is concerned with the
relations inside the market and civil society as well. An relationship between state and society (see
important focus within elite research is the emergence Sociopedia.isa article on political sociology by
of welfare states, a political phenomenon directly Botelho, 2011), elite theory is based on the assump-
related with market regulation and the state’s capacity tion that elite action has a causal effect on such a rela-
to penetrate society (e.g. de Swaan, 1988; Reis and tionship. Thus, regime types, regime change,
Moore, 2005; Verba and Orren, 1985; Verba et al., liberalization, stateness, secularization and many other
1987). Elite theory also approaches the question of political phenomena fit within the scope of elite
social development and modernization in both theory.
Western and non-Western contexts (e.g. Cardoso, Currently, there is an important effort to
1964; de Swaan et al., 2000; Lipset and Solari, 1967; unify/synthesize elite theory (e.g. Field and Higley,
López, 2013; Reis and Moore, 2005). 2012; Higley and Burton, 2006). This effort is often

Sociopedia.isa
© 2013 The Author(s)
© 2013 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)
Matias López, 2013, ‘Elite theory’, Sociopedia.isa, DOI: 10.1177/2056846013112

1
 López Elite theory

associated with the idea of a new elite paradigm, or tory is (and could only be) nothing but a ‘cemetery
simply new elitism. However, several other authors of elites’. The notion of political class, which is cur-
develop elite research (i.e. research that uses elite rently less frequent in elite studies, defines elites as a
behavior to explain political outcomes) without class of political rulers, in opposition to a mass of fol-
labeling their work as ‘elitism’. For this reason I will lowers. Finally, the iron law of oligarchy synthesizes
mostly refer to elite theory, including authors that the notion of elite inevitability formulating it as a
identify with elitism and others that make no men- natural law.
tion of it, while doing relevant elite research. Many consider Weber (2005 [1922]) to be a
Elite theory is often treated as contrasting social founding father of elitism as well, due to domination
class theory and other structural approaches. Critics theory (Weber, 2005 [1922]: 695). Indeed Weber’s
claim that the assumption that elite behavior holds a concepts of power and domination, as well as his the-
causal effect on state outcomes suggests a voluntaris- oretical work on political parties and the related
tic argument, overlooking structure (Cammack, affirmation that social classes are not necessarily
1990; Collier, 1999). In this article I argue that this social actors (Weber, 2005 [1922]: 682), are funda-
is a caricature of elite theory. Being deep-rooted in mental pillars of contemporary elite theory. As I will
classical sociology, elite theory is very much con- argue later on, current elite theory often tends to be
cerned with structures, especially authority struc- Weberian.
tures. Furthermore, elite theorists have incorporated It is curious to notice that the two most influen-
important features of social class theory into elite tial authors in classical elitism, Pareto and Weber,
theory (e.g. de Swaan 1988, 2005; Domhoff, 2009 were not primarily concerned with elite theory.
[1967]; Mills, 1956; Reis and Moore, 2005). Weber’s main theoretical interests are well known,
However, the idea that elite theory is opposed to yet Pareto is often reduced to elite theory, while he
social class theory does not comes out of nowhere. It actually devoted most of his work to a general theo-
comes from the classical debate over the causes of ry of social behavior. Pareto’s general theory was fol-
political regimes in pre-World War II sociology and lowed closely by key authors in sociology, such as
was later on reinforced by important names in Parsons and Aron. Also, Pareto’s work reaches
Marxism, such as Poulantzas (apud Codato and beyond sociology and political science, being as well
Perissinotto, 2009). Nevertheless, some key Marxist known (or even more known) for his work in eco-
authors such as Mills (1956) and Domhoff (2009 nomics. Currently, some authors have recovered
[1967]) have made extensive use of elite theory. much of Pareto’s contribution to political sociology
Currently, elite literature presents concerns over and political science (see the works of Femina, 2006;
both elite action’s effect on structure and structural Finer, 1968; Higley and Pakulski, 2012; Sartori,
constraints for elite action. Since elite behavior is 1987).
particularly hard to measure, elite research has Another interesting fact is that the first reception
engaged in sophisticated and clever methodological of elitism outside of Europe was not overall positive.
tools, ranging from elite surveys to political ethnog- During the first half of the 20th century, and even
raphy. afterwards, many scholars considered elitism to be
anti-democratic in essence because of notions such as
Classical elitism and the law of the small the law of the small number. Indeed, Pareto, Mosca
number and Michels were not good examples of democrats of
The core of classical elitism is the notion of elite their time, but there is nothing anti-democratic
inevitability. Classical elitists used the inevitability of about elite theory per se, unless one considers realism
elite rule as a premise to counter argue with political and democracy as incompatible notions (Sartori,
liberalism and Marxism. They claimed that both 1987). In current political sociology and political sci-
democracy (as the government of the people or ence, one of the main purposes of elite theory relies
demos) and socialism (as a classless regime) were on finding the causes of democratic rule, thus admit-
impossible outcomes because society is necessarily ting democracy and, implicitly, prizing it.
elite driven. In the elitist view, elites could only be
substituted by another set of elites, meaning that the The concept of elites
majority is necessarily ruled by a minority. This In the classical elitist literature, elites were often (but
notion was expressed in Pareto’s (1935) law of elite not only) defined through capacity, personality and
circulation, in Mosca’s (1939) notion of political class skill. For instance, Pareto (1935) distinguished elites
and in Michels’ (2009 [1915]) iron law of oligarchy. between those who resembled the lion (domination
The principle or law of elite circulation holds that by force) and those who resembled the fox (domina-
elites alternate in power as a result of either peaceful tion by persuasion and skill), a typology that resem-
or violent competition. In Pareto’s (1935) terms, his- bles Machiavelli’s political philosophy. Mosca (1939)

2
 López Elite theory

made mention of material conditions, but also of the lower classes. For instance, a workers’ strike, from
intellectual and moral superiority of elites. elite theory’s perspective, would imply a conflict
Current elite theory defines ‘elites’ as actors con- between union leaders (labor elites) and corporate
trolling resources, occupying key positions and relat- elites. Even a socialist revolution would be seeing as
ing through power networks (Yamokoski and a case of elite circulation, where elites are overturned
Dubrow, 2008). Thus, the state-of-the-art concept of by other elites.
elites is more closely related to the Weberian notion The example of a workers’ strike brings up the
of power, understood as the capability of implement- subject of elite sectors. Elites in complex societies are
ing one’s will, even against the will of others (Weber, not a homogeneous group, nor share the same
2005 [1922]: 696). Power can be achieved through amount of power. According to the definition of
material and/or symbolic resources. Consequently, elites, power comes from different sources, meaning
elites can be defined as those in possession of those that there are different types of elites emerging from
resources (Reis and Moore, 2005). different organizations and movements.
This definition does not appear to be that distant Political elites probably constitute the most
from the Marxist notion of ruling class, which is researched elite sector, and often in the literature we
based on the possession of the means of production. find the term ‘elite’ being used as a synonym for
However, the concept of elite power is not based on ‘political elite’. Nonetheless, there is abundant litera-
economic assumptions, it is based instead on politi- ture on business elites (e.g. Boschi and Diniz, 2004;
cal assumptions. Also, elite theory usually conceives Cardoso, 1964; Carrol and Sapinski, 2010;
the elite as a smaller group than social class. Heemskerk and Fennema, 2009), military elites (e.g.
In addition, elites can emerge among dissident Janowitz, 1964; Mills, 1956), media elites (e.g.
movements and even from dominated classes or Davis, 2003; López, 2012), state administrative
groups (Dogan and Higley, 1998). As Higley and elites (e.g. de Swaan, 1988; Putnam, 1977), religious
Burton (2006: 7) argue, elites are persons occupying elites (e.g. Olson and Carrol, 1992; Wald, 1992),
the top of powerful organizations and movements, among other elite sectors.
thus capable of affecting political outcomes both Each sector has a specific dynamic of elite recruit-
substantially and regularly. ment. Elite size and sub-divisions may vary in differ-
The current concept of elites is often criticized, ent social contexts, from tribal organizations to the
because the notion of elites emerging from move- multi-state organizations such as the European
ments and organizations may lead to a vast array of Union. The mechanisms of elite recruitment within
elite sources, contradicting the notion of elites as a a single elite sector may change over time as well.
small group (Cammack, 1990). This is an important The dynamics of elite recruitment and of elite-to-
theoretical problem, because elite theory acknowl- elite relationships constitute a key aspect of elite
edges that elites may come from anywhere, as long as research.
they find the necessary tools to exercise power. Thus,
elites may come from the state and the corporate Elite research methods
worlds, but also from guerilla, unions, the media, Methods in elite research often rely on an opera-
NGOs, any kind of social movement and so on. tionalization of the concept of elites based on insti-
However, elite theory limits elites to a necessary tutions of different types, such as political parties,
minority. Therefore, provided with the necessary governmental agencies, private enterprises, unions,
tools, anyone but not everyone could eventually social movements and so on. The position method
become a member of the elite. (Hoffmann-Lange, 2007) is the main sampling strat-
Elite theory does not provide an objective bound- egy associated with an institutional frame of elites. It
ary to separate powerful from non-powerful institu- aims first at powerful institutions and then to the
tions or movements, a limitation that reinforces main positions within those institutions. Several elite
criticisms. Nevertheless, Higley et al. (1990) argue surveys follow this sampling strategy in order to
that this problem is not limited to elite theory. Key achieve a significant sample size.
concepts in sociology and political science have Other operationalizations of the concept of elites
imprecise empirical definitions, such as ‘state’, ‘mar- rely on reputation, thus targeting those perceived as
ket’, ‘social class’ and so on. According to these leaders by others. Another method of elite sampling
authors, the concept of elites is actually more specif- targets decision makers within a circumscribed polit-
ic and detailed than the ones just mentioned. ical event, for instance the passing of a bill in con-
gress or the making of a given policy. Both methods
Elite sectors are very effective in micro-level decision making
Elites dispute power, meaning that they may find studies.
more antagonism among themselves than among the Overall, elite research methods are broad. The

3
 López Elite theory

most popular among elite researchers are elite sur- these contexts, elite typologies regarding different
veys (often using the position method), network political regimes also gained importance. In that
analysis, comparative historical analysis, political regard, although they are not strictly elite studies, the
ethnography and in-depth interviews. Throughout works of Linz (2000), Stepan (1973, 1978) and Linz
this review I will provide several examples and results and Stepan (2011) constitute good examples of the-
concerning those methods. orization on totalitarian elites and authoritarian
elites.
Unequivocal elite theory gained new strength
Empirical evidence and assessments during the processes of democratization in Southern
of empirical research and Eastern countries in the late 20th century. In the
context of the third wave of democratization, to use
As noted, American scholars had previously rejected Huntington’s term (1991), sociologists and political
Pareto’s and Mosca’s work because of their supposed scientists throughout the world were eager to under-
anti-democratic quality. Those who embraced elite stand what made democracy possible in former
theory in the US often referred to it as realism authoritarian countries. The collapse of real social-
(Grynszpan, 1999). Nevertheless, in the post-World ism in Eastern Europe and the almost sudden
War II period, elite theory migrated to the United democratization of traditionally authoritarian coun-
States and authors such as Mills (1956), Domhoff tries in Southern Europe and Latin America chal-
(2009 [1967]), Putnam (1976) and Dahl (1958, lenged former interpretations based on rigid notions
1961, 1971) delved into the elite question in demo- of structural constraints and cultural determinism.
cratic societies, bringing democracy to the fore as the As facts developed, the role of elites in constructing
main research interest in elite theory. and negotiating political regimes in these recent and
Mills emphasized the existence of a power elite often unstable democracies became a meaningful
within the upper class, arguing that democratic insti- research interest.
tutions in the US played a smaller role in decision
making when compared to interest groups deep The new elite paradigm
rooted in politics, the corporate world and the mili- The theoretical effort to model regime change and
tary. Domhoff (2009 [1967]), instead, presented the democratization led to a new formal understanding
American political agenda as dominated by corpora- of elite theory, often referred to as the new elite para-
tions, arguing that decision makers in the US are few digm or simply as new elitism. The main references in
and strongly interconnected. this regard are the works of Higley and several co-
On the other hand, Dahl (1971) pictured elites as authors (Best and Higley, 2010; Burton and Higley,
pluralistic and argued that democracy is the result of 1987; Dogan and Higley, 1998; Field and Higley,
a complex set of elite bargaining, dispositions toward 2012 [1981]; Higley and Burton, 1989, 2006;
conflict or agreement, and political culture. Dahl’s Higley et al., 1990). The American Sociological
democratic theory and typological work relied heav- Review articles ‘Elite settlements’ (Burton and
ily on elite theory’s assumptions, turning him into a Higley, 1987) and ‘The elite variable in democratic
key author in current elite research. His work was transitions and breakdowns’ (Higley and Burton,
also more ambitious than Mill’s and Domhoff ’s, who 1989) marked this new theoretical venture and a
are more restricted to American politics. Putnam number of critical and enthusiastic publications fol-
(1976) also achieved a wider scope, presenting dif- lowed in their wake.
fuse elite power in contemporary democracies. The Encouraged by the context of democratization,
author highlighted how decision making tended to the new elite paradigm relates to Huntington’s theo-
spread into complex sets of bureaucratic organiza- ry on democratic waves. New elitists use
tion within the state, fractionalizing power through Huntington’s ‘waves’ to build typologies of elite
a wider and more technical set of elites. interaction at different points in history. Alongside
During the Cold War the division between a lib- Huntington’s influence, the new elite paradigm is
eral democratic bloc in the West and a communist much more Weberian in scope, incorporating a long-
totalitarian one in the East stimulated some elite term comparative perspective and highlighting elite
research (e.g. Hoffmann-Lange, 1971; Hoffmann- behavior according to broader historical scenarios of
Lange et al., 1980; Matthews, 2011 [1978]). Yet authority transformation.
dozens of non-democratic regimes (some of them After several publications, the Higley and Burton
Western allies) fell outside the scope of the (2006) model provided a well-established typology
West–East divide, including military dictatorships in of elite dynamics based on the capacity of elites to
South America, traditional monarchical regimes in share interests and act cohesively, despite inter-elite
Asia and sultanistic regimes in the Middle East. In disputes. Higley and Burton (2006) open their book

4
 López Elite theory

Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy referring to convergences in the West, especially in England
recent failed attempts to democratize countries using (elite union since 1689), the Netherlands (elite
force, pointing to the example of Iraq. They claim union since 1813) and the United States (elite union
that such efforts fail because the bases of previous since 1789), reinforcing their causal argument in
non-democratic rule persist as elites remain disunit- light of the classical debate on Western exceptionali-
ed. Among the examples of democratization based ty. Simultaneously, the authors argue that most
on elite settlements provided by the authors are the European countries presented sets of disunited elites,
end of apartheid in South Africa, some Latin thus politically unstable, up until the 20th century.
American cases and others in Europe. The new elit- New elitists also call attention to many aspects of
ist literature is usually based on comparative histori- political development that influence elite unity and
cal analysis, although there was some use of network disunity, such as former colonial rule, economic
analysis among the first empirical studies (Higley et opportunities, war, political violence, ideological
al., 1991). movements, the masses’ animosity and so on. Higley
New elitists propose a typology of elite configura- and Gunther (1992) argued that elite settlements are
tion: elites could be (a) disunited, (b) consensually often a reaction to social or political crisis, where
united or (c) ideologically united. Consensual unity is non-elites (or ‘the masses’) threaten elite positions or
associated with stable democracies, while elite dis- elite interests. Higley and Burton (2006) later on
unity is associated with unstable democracies and strengthened the importance of non-elites in elite
authoritarian regimes. Ideological unity relates to theory with the notion of interdependence. Yet the
totalitarian regimes, adopting Linz’s (2000) typology, notion of elites/non-elites interdependence was also
where elites legitimize and submit to a highly cen- developed by de Swaan (1988) and empirically
tralized ideological command. addressed by several other authors (e.g. Clarke and
The new elitist model points to several cases in Sison, 2003; Hossein, 2005; Hossein and Moore,
history where elites migrated from one type to the 2005; López, 2013; Reis, 2011; Reis and Moore,
other (mainly from elite disunity to consensual 2005) who do not always refer to the theoretical
unity), and how elite configuration is an important model of new elitism.
cause of political regimes. Along with elite types, two Since there are now many democracies in the
important concepts are presented by the model: elite world, the new elite paradigm ends up proposing an
settlements and elite convergence. New elitists argue interesting research challenge: to distinguish the
that most democratization processes in recent histo- democracies with consensually united elites (i.e.
ry, and several more in the past, are a result of elite those that will last) from those democracies where
settlements. An elite settlement is a rare event in the elites remain in disunion (i.e. future non-democra-
history of national communities, in which previous- cies or unstable democracies).
ly confronting elites choose to negotiate a new polit- Nevertheless, the new elite paradigm has not (so
ical order, thus recognizing each other as legitimate far) provided an efficient universal measurement of
political actors (Higley and Burdon, 2006; Higley elite unity/disunity. Although it provides a plausible
and Gunther, 1992). The result of an elite settlement understanding of democratization and democratic
is some sort of democratic rule, be it a full democra- erosion, it does not provide a potent tool to predict
cy or an electoral or pseudo-democracy. them. Higley and Burton realize that contingency
Elite convergence is defined as a phenomenon plays a major role in their model, and elite configu-
that often follows elite settlements. It denotes a rations are analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
process in which, in an unstable democracy, politi- Despite criticisms, the new elite paradigm is
cally organized anti-system elites abandon radical highly influential in elite theory and enthusiasm for
opposition and adopt a coalition strategy in order to it sometimes gives the impression that new elitism
amplify their chances of electoral gain. Thus, previ- implies current elite theory in its totality. In that
ously radical elites accept the rules of the game, con- regard, contributions to elite theory based on inputs
verging with governing elites in the legitimation of from political culture theory (e.g. Hoffmann-Lange,
democracy and the rule of law. This process of elite 2010; Lijphart, 1969; Verba and Orren, 1985; Verba
convergence is often associated with the transition et al., 1987) or rational choice modeling (e.g. de
from an unstable democracy to a consolidated Swaan, 1988, 2005) are often understated.
democracy where no elite group significantly chal-
lenges the regime. Further assessments on democracy
In sum, the new elitist model argues that sustain- and welfare
able democracies are the result of elite consensus. In
order to demonstrate this thesis, Higley and Burton As previously acknowledged, elite research is prima-
(2006: 45) point to the early settlements and elite rily dedicated to the elucidation of state outcomes

5
 López Elite theory

through elite behavior. In this section I will explore the new elitist perspective, democracy can be the
two topics in elite research: elite origins of democra- result of a pact between elites, who sometimes per-
cy (beyond new elitism) and elite origins of the wel- ceive more advantages in accepting elite circulation
fare state. Of the two, the topic of democracy is than in promoting a ‘zero sum’ game. Yet new elitists
definitely predominant in elite literature. Yet the also acknowledge that democracy may come without
topic of welfare is a perfect example of how elite the- elite consensus. In their view, democracies built by
ory can explain state transformations, beyond regime disunited elites are unstable democracies, because the
change. At the end of this section I will also briefly source of stability (elite union) is absent.
make note of other perspectives and topics on elite Overall, the relationship between elites and
research, namely gender, ethnic relations and micro- democracy is heavily researched, using different
sociological perspectives. methods, but also different assumptions about elite
behavior. Different research questions are responsi-
Elite origins of democracy ble for a great number of differences in the literature,
As seen, one of the main research interests in elite lit- yet it is also true that different conceptions about
erature concerns the relationship between elites and elite behavior may lead to opposite causal claims
democratic/non-democratic outcomes. Regime the- within similar research concerns. One example is the
orists usually include the elite variable in their mod- expected effect of elite perceptions of threats. Using
els of democratization (e.g. Dahl, 1971; Diamond, rational choice modeling, Acemoglu and Robinson
1999; Lijphart, 1969; Linz and Stepan, 2011; (2000) claim that social democratic regimes were the
Sartori, 1987) and their work is often incorporated result of elites’ threat perception. They argue that
by elite theorists (e.g. Higley and Burton, 2006; elites preferred to include the masses in the political
Hoffmann-Lange, 2010). game in order to prevent political and economic
Although elite researchers agree that elite behav- threats posed by non-elites. Therefore, threat percep-
ior causes regimes, there is less agreement on what tion would tend to lead to stronger democracies.
motivates elites. For instance, political culture theo- Meanwhile, Stevens et al. (2006) used elite surveys
ry is definitely not at the heart of classical elite theo- and came to the conclusion that, when threatened,
ry, and yet several elite researchers explain elite elites tend to adopt authoritarian values. As they
behavior through political culture (e.g. Altmeyer, assume authoritarian regimes to be based on author-
1996; Diamond, 1994; Feldman, 2003; Hoffmann- itarian values, threat perception would tend to lead
Lange, 2011; Stevens et al., 2006; Verba and Orren, to less democracy.
1985; Verba et al., 1987). Researchers that merge This type of contrast is revealing of how elite the-
elite theory with political culture theory often make ory absorbs other theories, such as rational choice
use of considerably large n elite surveys to sustain theory and political culture theory. Yet it is also an
their arguments (e.g. Hoffmann-Lange, 2010; important call for dialogue within elite research,
Stevens et al., 2006; Verba et al., 1987). On the especially concerning measurement and competing
other hand, important authors in political culture causes. In this case, if one joins both causal claims,
literature such as Inglehart and Welzel (2005: 2) threat perception appears to be a necessary yet insuf-
implicitly criticize elite theory by arguing that ficient condition for both democratization and
‘democracy is not simply the result of clever elite bar- authoritarian rule, thus not a good predictor of
gaining’. either. Both arguments neglect the role of inter-elite
Within a less cultural vein, Dahl (1971) argues dynamics, which may elucidate the mechanisms that
that elite beliefs and values are key elements to sus- explain democratic/authoritarian outcomes.
tain democracy, yet the author highlights that values
should not be taken as explicatory variables, but as Elite origins of the welfare state
intervenient variables. The idea that values are Another important concern among elite researchers
important, yet not causal, is significant even among is the formation of the welfare state in both Western
some celebrated authors within the political culture and non-Western countries. Once again, an impor-
literature, such as Lipset (1981) and Huntington tant part of the elite literature on the topic relies on
(1996), who claim that democracy is a result of both the notion of political culture. Meanwhile, another
socioeconomic modernization and cultural settings. set of literature relies on a combination of rational
Then again, the new elite paradigm (or new elit- choice modeling and comparative historical analysis.
ism) reframed circulation theory to introduce the Verba and Orren (1985) and Verba et al. (1987)
notions of elite settlements, elite convergences, elite are the main authors to defend the importance of
unity and elite disunity as the determinants of elites’ political values in the shaping of welfare states.
democratization processes worldwide (Field and They argue that the welfare structure found in devel-
Higley, 2012 [1981]; Higley and Burton, 2006). In oped countries is a result of political struggles over

6
 López Elite theory

the idea of ‘equality’ (Verba et al., 1987). Based on (1987). Overall, the elite origin of the welfare state
elite surveys in the US, Sweden and Japan, the in current egalitarian societies has contributed to the
authors argue that such values are not homogeneous understanding of elite dynamics in highly unequal
across countries or even within countries. They also societies.
argue that different elite conceptions of equality
result in a plurality of welfare state models through- A note on gender, ethnic relations and
out the world. micro-sociological perspectives
Taking a different approach, de Swaan (1988, Although elite positions are predominantly occupied
2005) argues that the welfare state was a result of by men, few studies focus on gender relations regard-
elite reactions to negative consequences of poverty. ing the elite world (an exception is Vianello and
By combining elements of rational choice theory (see Moore, 2004). The same can be said about elite’s
Sociopedia.isa article on rational choice theory by racial or ethnic backgrounds, at least in Western and
Sato, 2013) and comparative historical analysis, de Latin American contexts, with the important excep-
Swaan (1988) argues that elites have historically ben- tion of elite studies about the South African case (e.g.
efited from poverty, as it provided workers, soldiers, Higley and Burton, 2006; Kalanti and Manor, 2005;
consumers and voters. Yet, throughout the 19th cen- Kotzé and Toit, 1995; Lieberman, 2001, 2003).
tury, with great industrialization and urbanization, Some authors have committed to elite studies
West European and North American elites started to within a micro-sociological perspective. For instance,
experience major negative externalities of poverty, Yamokoski and Dubrow (2008) use in-depth inter-
such as epidemics, political threats and violence. In views to approach the mechanisms through which
that regard, de Swaan argues that elites could actual- elites build notions of power and influence based on
ly prevent those negative outcomes by improving the their individual strategies of prestige building. Also
life conditions of the poor through private assistance using in-depth interviews, Silber (2012) demon-
and charity. The problem was that some elites (or a strates how elites can feel frustrated about state
great deal of them) tended to act as free riders as they action, arguing that feelings of anger help to shape
realized that they could benefit from the results of political attitudes.
poverty mitigation without sharing its costs. Free In a different research tradition, tribal elites in
riding made mitigation too expensive and risky for African contexts have continued to be studied by
those willing to act. That frustration led elites in political anthropologists. In a way, those studies
toward the state, which was the only actor capable of strengthen elite theory’s ambition of universality and
imposing costs and guaranteeing results. In the long could be further considered by elite researchers in
run the welfare state was born. sociology and political science.
Nonetheless, the development of an empirical
research agenda based on that approach led de Swaan
himself among other authors to question the notion Discussion
of elites as moved solely by rational interest (de
Swaan et al., 2000; Reis and Moore, 2005). Quite Elite theory’s roots in classical sociology still account
often elites may have found themselves pressured by for many of its core concepts, such as elite circula-
negative externalities of poverty, such as epidemics or tion and elite inevitability. As I have shown, those
violence, without reacting to them according to the concepts are summarized by the law of the small
European and American experience. That was the number, attributed to the combined works of Pareto,
case in South America (López, 2013; Reis, 2000, Mosca and Michels. Max Weber is also highly refer-
2005, 2011), South Africa (Kalanti and Manor, enced in elite theory reviews, mainly because of
2005), Malawi (Kalebe-Nyamongo, 2010), domination theory, but also due to his theoretical
Bangladesh (Hossein, 2005; Hossein and Moore, work on political parties and his extensive work on
2005), the Philippines (Clarke and Sison, 2003), political development. It is my conception that cur-
among others. rent elite theory often benefits from a more
Elite research outside of the developed world led Weberian turn.
to a critical adaptation of de Swaan’s theoretical I have shown that there are significant efforts in
model, and political values were often reintroduced rebuilding/unifying elite theory, as well as important
in order to explain outcome variance between contributions from researchers that do not claim to
Western and non-Western countries (Clarke and be elitists. The new elite paradigm constitutes the
Sison, 2003; Hossein and Moore, 2005; López, main theoretical venture in current elite literature,
2013; Reis, 2005, 2011). Nonetheless, those authors presenting a model of regime change based on elite
do not tend to approach values as explicatory vari- unity/disunity.
ables, as did Verba and Orren (1985) and Verba et al. Throughout this article I have discussed how

7
 López Elite theory

contemporary elite theory developed into different Dogan and Higley, 1998; Higley and Gunther,
research concerns, absorbing contributions from 1992; López, 2013; Reis, 2011).
other theories such as political culture theory and Decades after the third wave, we have a signifi-
rational choice theory. Nonetheless, I also argued cant accumulation of research on the European and
that different approaches within similar research Latin American transitions. Nevertheless, democrat-
concerns may lead to contradictory causal claims. ic stability also represents a great challenge for elite
Contradictory arguments in the elite literature researchers today. In some cases, such as Brazil, and
call for dialogue. In this regard, the International South Africa, elites sustain fairly stable democratic
Political Science Association’s Research Committee institutions and yet tolerate settings of extreme social
on Political Elites must be saluted, and elite research inequality, violence and state inefficiency. With no
activities within the Research Committee on consensus about the mechanisms that would con-
Political Sociology, shared by the International duct elites toward distributive and inclusive meas-
Sociological Association and the International ures, elite research is still far from predicting which
Political Science Association, should be encouraged. paths new democracies are likely to adopt. Will they
Despite theoretical diversity, elite researchers resemble Western egalitarian democracies? Or is this
share the assumption that elites are key actors in as much change as we should expect?
shaping political and social outcomes. Many criticize Western societies have also changed a great deal
elite theory for supposedly overlooking structural and we do not know yet how elites will follow along.
constraints and competing causes of political phe- Inequality has increased in North America and
nomena (Cammack, 1990; Collier, 1999, Inglehart Europe and immigration is rapidly transforming the
and Welzel, 2005). Furthermore, elite theory has social landscape of the most egalitarian Western
been criticized for working with a vague definition of democracies. Cultural cleavages incentivize radical
the term ‘elite’, consequently with vague distinctions political elites to enter the democratic game and
between elites and non-elites (Cammack, 1990). extreme right-wing leaders have broadened their
It is my belief that Higley et al. (1990) are correct influence in countries like France, the Netherlands
in affirming that elite theory does not deny structur- and Switzerland. This phenomenon is being
al constraints of elite action. Furthermore, structural addressed by elite researchers in panels and research
constraints of elite behavior are currently much dis- committees in the International Sociological
cussed and measured in elite research. Authors such Association (ISA), the International Political Science
as Dogan and Higley (1998), de Swaan (1988, Association (IPSA) and the European Consortium
2005), Reis (2011) and Reis and Moore (2005) have for Political Research (ECPR), so we should expect
pictured elites as reactive actors, often exposed to relevant publications in the near future.
social threats. They argue that elite behavior can be Furthermore, we are now facing rapid regime
shaped by external threats, such as epidemics, com- changes in Islamic societies, whose patterns hardly
peting ideologies, social violence and political vio- resemble those of Eastern and Southern transitions.
lence. In that regard, the interdependence between As former autocratic regimes fall, it is not clear yet
elites and non-elites (or simply the ‘masses’) has what types of elites are likely to prevail in the after-
become a key dimension of elite theory. math of great social upheavals. Egypt, for instance,
Finally, what should we consider as the ‘real’ seems to experience violent elite disunity, with mas-
advantages of elite theory in contrast to competing sive conflicts between military elites and
theories within political sociology and political sci- political/religious elites. The relationship between
ence? Elite theory maintains its great advantage of elites and non-elites seems to be critical in such junc-
doing macro-theory while operating with a small- tures.
group/personal level of conceptualization (Marcus, Last but not least, the world economy is chang-
1983, apud Higley et al., 1990). This advantage ing and many key global players are either former
results in a very close relationship between theory authoritarian countries, such as Brazil, Russia and
and empirical research. In sum, elite theory worries South Africa, or current authoritarian countries,
about the state, without reifying the state. essentially China but increasingly Russia once again.
This means that a growing amount of the world’s
Future directions in elite research power resources depends on elites that come from
As said, the third wave of democratization encour- different attitudinal and ideological backgrounds in
aged a revival of elite research due to elite theory’s comparison with Western elites. It is noteworthy
suitability for the study of rapid political transforma- that the democratic status of successful new democ-
tions. Along with this revival, came new theoretical racies is often lower than those of old Western
understandings of elite behavior as well as empirical democracies, frequently due to limitations in
research on the follow-up of regime changes (e.g. individual freedoms and the rule of law (at least

8
 López Elite theory

according to the most renowned indexes, such as book includes good single-case studies regarding
Freedom House and the Transformation Index BTI). Mexico, Uruguay, Peru, Brazil and the Dominican
Should we expect some of these new democracies to Republic in Latin America, and Portugal, Italy and
erode? What attitudes should we expect from Spain in Europe, as well as comparative works on
Colombia, Costa Rica and Venezuela, and Argentina
increasingly powerful non-Western elites? These are
and Chile.
important questions ahead for elite research. Hoffmann-Lange U (2007) Methods of elite research.
In: Goodin RR (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of
Political Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Acknowledgments pp. 910–27.
This chapter on elite research is an excellent
I am grateful to Prof. Graziella Moraes Silva who was a methodological guide for beginning elite researchers.
reader of earlier versions of this article and to the entire It is a systematic and broad review of research
team of the Interdisciplinary Network for the Study of methods, capturing several nuances of elite research,
Social Inequality (NIED). I also thank the editor and two from conceptualization to data collection.
anonymous reviewers for their suggestions, especially Williams C (2012) Researching Power, Elites and
‘Reviewer 2’, for his/her sharp observations. Leadership. London: Sage.
This book approaches techniques and common
demands of elite research. It distinguishes the
Annotated further reading concepts of power, elites and leadership as well as
their methodological implications. It is not the
Higley J and Burton M (2006) Elite Foundations of typical methods book and its eclectic perspective
Liberal Democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and sometimes risks being interpreted as holistic.
Littlefield. Nevertheless, elite researchers are likely to benefit
This book extends the new elitist approach of regime from it.
change. It provides excellent tools for scholars De Swaan A (1988) In Care of the State: Health Care,
interested in reproducing the new elitist analytical Education, and Welfare in Europe and the USA in the
model. The volume represents, in my opinion, the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
most complete version of the new elite paradigm. This book is an excellent example of elite theory’s
The volume is based on extensive research, published incorporation of other theories. The author makes an
in previous edited books and journals. The book original argument about the origins of the welfare
presents key concepts, such as elite settlements, elite state in Europe and in the US by combining
convergence, elite unity and elite disunity, while comparative historical analysis, rational choice
discussing the effects of inter-elite dynamics in the modeling and elite theory. His argument is that the
political order. welfare state is an unanticipated result of elite
Dogan M and Higley J (eds) (1998) Elites, Crises, and reactions to negative externalities of poverty. The
the Origins of Regimes. Lanham, MD: Rowman and analytical model offered by de Swaan is elegant and
Littlefield. replicable. Despite being a model for successful
This edited book addresses elite reactions to political welfare states, it was adopted by several researchers to
crises and their effect on political regimes. The book explain failed welfare states in Africa, Latin America
is divided into a theoretical section and a section and Asia.
with case studies. Dogan and Higley present an Reis E and Moore M (eds) (2005) Elite Perceptions of
ambitious causal argument linking crises, elite Poverty and Inequality. London: Zed Books.
behavior and regimes. The focus on severe social and This edited book presents case studies on elite
political crises indicates the importance of the reactions to poverty in five cases: Brazil, Bangladesh,
interdependence between elites and non-elites. The Haiti, the Philippines and South Africa. It is a
case studies presented are most relevant: Russia, unique book in its purposes. It follows de Swaan’s
Germany, Poland, Hungary, Japan and South Africa. model, yet focuses rather on failed welfare states.
Hoffmann-Lange’s chapter on the German unique Results show that elites have different reactions to
transition from Nazi rule to both communism and poverty in developing countries, based on a mix of
democratic rule, and from communism again to cultural drive, historical heritage and strategic
democratic rule, is notable. reactions. A digital version of the book is offered free
Higley J and Gunther R (eds) (1992) Elites and of charge by CROP at:
Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and www.crop.org/storypg.aspx?id=209.
Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Verba S, Kelman S, Orren G, Miyake I, Watanuki J,
Press. Kabashima I and Ferree D (1987). Elites and the Idea
Although published more than two decades ago, this of Equality: A Comparison of Japan, Sweden and the
edited book remains an excellent compilation of United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
empirical elite research. Its main goal is to explain Press.
regime change in Europe and Latin America using Despite being more than two decades old, this book
the analytical model of the new elite paradigm. The remains a key reference in elite research concerned

9
 López Elite theory

with political culture and the welfare state. Both the Jorge Zahar Editor.
concept of political culture and the main author, De Swaan A (1988) In Care of the State. Oxford: Oxford
Sidney Verba, are strongly criticized in contemporary University Press.
political science. Nevertheless, the use of ambitious De Swaan (2005) Elite perceptions of the poor:
elite surveys and the comparison proposed between Reflections for a comparative research project. In:
well-defined types of welfare systems must be Reis E and Moore M (eds) Elite Perceptions of Poverty
recognized. The authors are successful in measuring and Inequality. London: Zed Books, pp. 182–94.
and analyzing elite behavior in both cross-case and De Swaan A, Manor J, Øyen E and Reis E (2000) Elite
within-case analysis. The book’s findings are perceptions of the poor: Reflections for a
controversial and deserve further discussion. comparative research project. Current Sociology 48(1):
43–54.
Diamond LJ (1994) Toward democratic consolidation.
References Journal of Democracy 5(3): 4–17.
Diamond L (1999) Developing Democracy: Toward
Acemoglu D and Robinson J (2000) Why did the West Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and Press.
growth in historical perspective. The Quarterly Dogan M and Higley J (eds) (1998) Elites, Crises, and
Journal of Economics 115(4): 167–99. the Origins of Regimes. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Altmeyer B (1996) The Authoritarian Specter. Littlefield.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Domhoff GW (2009 [1967]) Who Rules America?
Best H and Higley J (2010) Democratic Elitism: New Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Leiden: Feldman S (2003) Enforcing social conformity: A theory
Koninklijke Brill NV. of authoritarianism. Political Psychology 24(1): 41–71.
Boschi R and Diniz E (2004) Empresários, interesses e Femina J (2006) Pareto and Political Theory. New York:
mercado: dilemas do desenvolvimento no Brasil. Belo Routledge.
Horizonte: Editora UFMG. Field GL and Higley J (2012 [1981]) Elitism. London:
Botelho A (2011) Political sociology. Sociopedia.isa. Routledge.
Available at: www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/ Finer SE (1968) Pareto and pluto-democracy: The
politicalsociology.pdf. retreat to Galapagos. The American Political Science
Burton M and Higley J (1987) Elite settlements. Review 62(2): 440–50.
American Sociological Review 52: 295–307. Grynszpan M (1999) La théorie des élites aus États-
Cammack P (1990) A critical assessment of the new elite Unis: conditions sociales de réception et
paradigm. American Sociological Review 55(3): s’apropriation. Genèses 37(4): 27–43.
415–20. Heemskerk E and Fennema M (2009) Network
Cardoso FH (1964) Empresário industrial e dynamics of the Dutch business elite. International
desenvolvimento econômico no Brasil. São Paulo: Difel. Sociology 24(6): 807–32.
Carrol WK and Sapinski JP (2010) The global corporate Higley J and Burton MG (1989) The elite variable in
elite and the transnational policy-planning network, democratic transitions and breakdowns. American
1996–2006: A structural analysis. International Sociological Review 54(1): 17–32.
Sociology 25(4): 501–38. Higley J and Burton M (2006) Elite Foundations of
Clarke G and Sison M (2003) Voices from the top of the Liberal Democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
pile: Elites perceptions of poverty and the poor in the Higley J and Gunther R (eds) (1992) Elites and
Philippines. Development and Change 34(2): 215–42. Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and
Codato A and Perissinoto RM (2009) Marxismo e Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
elitismo: dois modelos antagônicos de análise social? Press.
Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 24(71): 143–95. Higley J and Pakulski J (2012) Pareto’s theory of elite
Collier RB (1999) Paths toward Democracy: The Working cycles: A reconsideration and application. In: Femina
Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America. J (ed.) Vilfredo Pareto: Beyond Disciplinary
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boundaries. Farmham: Ashgate, pp. 111–31.
Dahl R (1958) A critique of the ruling state model. Higley J, Burton MG and Field GL (1990) In defense of
American Political Science Review 52: 463–9. elite theory: A reply to Cammack. American
Dahl R (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an Sociological Review 55(3): 421–6.
American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Higley J, Hoffmann-Lange U, Kadushin C and Moore
Press. G (1991) Elite integration in stable democracies: A
Dahl R (1971) Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale reconsideration. European Sociological Review 7(1):
University Press. 35–53.
Davis A (2003) Whither mass media and power? Hoffmann-Lange U (1971) Die Veränderungen in der
Evidence for a critical elite theory. Alternative Media Sozialstruktur des Ministerrates der DDR 1949–1969.
Culture Society 25(5): 669–90. Düsseldorf: Droste.
De Hollanda CB (2011) Teoria das elites. Rio de Janeiro: Hoffmann-Lange U (2007) Methods of elite research.

10
 López Elite theory

In: Goodin RR (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries.
Political Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
pp. 910–27. Linz J (2000) Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes.
Hoffmann-Lange U (2010) The salience of the socio- Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
economic cleavage in old and new democracies. In: Linz JJ and Stepan A (2011) Problems of Democratic
Van Beek UJ (ed.) Democracy under Scrutiny: Elites, Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South
Citizens, Cultures. Opladen: Barbara Budrich, pp. America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore:
173–200. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoffmann-Lange (2011) The salience of the socio- Lipset SM (1981) Political Man: The Social Basis of
economic cleavage in old and new democracies. In: Politics, expanded edn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Gouws A (ed.) Democracy under Scrutiny: Elites, University Press.
Citizens, Cultures. Opladen: Barbara Budrich, pp. Lipset S and Solari A (1967) Elites y desarrollo en America
173–201. Latina. Buenos Aires: Paidos.
Hoffmann-Lange U, Neumann H and Steinkemper B López M (2012) Ideologies of equality? Public
(1980) Konsens und Konflikt zwischen representations of poverty in unequal democracies.
Führungsgruppen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Working paper at the Second ISA Forum of
Frankfurt: Lang. Sociology, II ISA conference Buenos Aires, 1–4
Hossein N (2005) Productivity and virtue: Elite August 2012.
categories of the poor in Bangladesh. World López M (2013) The state of poverty: Elite perceptions
Development 33(6): 965–77. of the poor in Brazil and Uruguay. International
Hossein N and Moore M (2005) So near yet so far: Sociology 28(3): 351–70.
Elites and imagined poverty in Bangladesh. In: Reis Matthews M (2011 [1978]) Privilege in the Soviet Union:
E and Moore M (eds) Elite Perceptions of Poverty and A Study of Elite Life-styles under Communism.
Inequality. London: Zed Books, pp. 91–126. London; Routledge.
Huntington SP (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization Michels R (2009 [1915]) Political Parties: A Sociological
in the Late Twentieth Century Norman: University of Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Democracy.
Oklahoma Press New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Huntington SP (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Mills SR (1956) The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford
Remaking of World Order. New York: Penguin Books. University Press.
Inglehart R and Welzel C (2005) Modernization, Mosca G (1939) The Ruling Class. London: McGraw-
Cultural Change, and Democracy. Cambridge: Hill Book Company.
Cambridge University Press. Olson DV and Carroll JW (1992) Religiously based
Janowitz M (1964) The Military in the Political politics: Religious elites and the public. Social Forces
Development of New Nations. Chicago: University of 70(3): 765–86.
Chicago Press. Pareto V (1935) The Mind and Society. London:
Kalanti N and Manor J (2005) Elite perceptions of Jonathan Cape Limited.
poverty and the poor in South Africa, In: Reis E and Putnam RD (1976) The Comparative Study of Political
Moore M (eds) Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Inequality. London: Zed Books, pp. 156–81. Putman RD (1977) Elite transformation in advanced
Kalebe-Nyamongo C (2010) Mutual interdependence industrial societies: An empirical assessment of the
between elites and the poor. In: Amsden AH, theory of technocracy. Comparative Political Studies
DiCaprio A and Rinson J (eds) The Role of Elites in 10(3): 383–412.
Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Reis E (2000) Percepções da elite sobre pobreza e
Press, pp. 200–30. desigualdade. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais
Khan SR (2012) The sociology of elites. Annual Review 15(42): 144–52.
of Sociology 38: 361–77. Reis E (2005) Perceptions of poverty and inequality
Kotzé H and Toit PD (1995) The state, civil society, and among Brazilian elites. In: Reis E and Moore M (eds)
democratic transition in South Africa: A survey of Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality. London:
elite attitudes. Journal of Conflict Resolution 39(1): Zed Books, pp. 26–57.
27–48. Reis E (2011) Elite perceptions of poverty and inequality
Lieberman ES (2001) National political community and in Brazil. In: Blofield M (ed.) The Great Gap:
the politics of income taxation in Brazil and South Inequality and the Politics of Distribution in Latin
Africa in the twentieth century. Politics and America. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
Society 29(4): 515–55. University Press, pp. 89–109.
Lieberman ES (2003) Race and Regionalism in the Politics Reis E and Moore M (eds) (2005) Elite Perceptions of
of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge: Poverty and Inequality. London: Zed Books.
Cambridge University Press. Sartori G (1987) The Theory of Democracy Revisited.
Lijphart A (1969) Consociational democracy. World Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Politics 21(2): 207–25. Sato Y (2013) Rational choice theory. Sociopedia.isa.
Lijphart A (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian Available at www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/

11
 López Elite theory

rationalchoicetheory.pdf Verba S, Kelman S, Orren G et al. (1987) Elites and the

Silber OF (2012) The angry gift: A neglected facet of Idea of Equality: A Comparison of Japan, Sweden and
philanthropy. Current Sociology 60(3): 320–37. the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Stepan A (1973) Authoritarian Brazil. New Haven, CT: University Press.
Yale University Press. Vianello M and Moore G (eds) (2004) Women and Men
Stepan A (1978) The State and Society: Peru in in Political and Business Elites: A Comparative Study in
Comparative Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton the Industrialized World. London: Sage.
University Press. Wald KD (1992) Religious elites and public opinion:
Stevens D, Bishin BG and Barr RR (2006) Authoritarian The impact of the bishops’ peace pastoral. The
attitudes, democracy, and policy preferences among Review of Politics 54(1): 112–43.
Latin American elites. American Journal of Political Weber M (2005 [1922]) Economia y sociedad. Mexico
Science 50(3): 606–20. DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Verba S and Orren G (1985) Equality in America: The Yamokoski A and Dubrow JK (2008) How do elites
View from the Top. Cambridge, MA: Harvard define influence? Personality and respect as sources of
University Press. social power. Sociological Focus 41(4): 319–36.

Matias López is a researcher at the Interdisciplinary Network for Studies of Social Inequality
(NIED), hosted by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At NIED, Matias is involved
in a comparative project on elite attitudes in unequal democracies. He also participates in the
working group Political Inequality (RC 18 Political Sociology) at the ISA and in the Research
Committee on Political Elites (RC 02) at the IPSA. His main interests are in the fields of com-
parative politics, political sociology and research methods. [email: [email protected]]

résumé Cet article revoit la théorie des élites en sociologie politique et en science politique. La théorie
des élites est basée sur l’hypothèse que les comportements des élites ont un lien de causalité avec les formes
plus générales des relations entre l’État et la société. Cet article présente les concepts classiques de la
théorie des élites, comme l’«inévitabilité des élites» et la circulation des élites, tout en privilégiant les défis
et les tendances contemporains dans la théorie des élites. La discussion porte sur les origines élitistes de
la démocratie et les origines élitistes de l’État-providence, ainsi que sur l’interdépendance entre élite et
non-élite.
mots-clés la démocratie ◆ élites ◆ État-providence ◆ neo-élitisme ◆ la théorie des élite

resumen Este artículo revisa la teoría de las élites en la sociología y en la ciencia política contemporánea.
La teoría de las élites asume que el comportamiento de las élites se relaciona causalmente con modos
generales de interacción entre estado y sociedad. Este artículo presenta los conceptos clásicos de la teoría
de élites, como la inevitabilidad de las élites y la circulación de las élites, mientras privilegia a los desafíos
y tendencias contemporáneos de dicha teoría. La discusión incluye los orígenes de la democracia y del
estado de bien-estar social en perspectiva elitista, así como la relación de interdependencia entre élites y
no-élites.
palabras clave democracia ◆ élites ◆ estado de bien estar social ◆ nuevo elitismo ◆ teoría de las
élites

12