New Right and corporatist perspective

                First and foremost, the New Right perspective (Buchanan, 1968) takes an unmistakably critical view of pressure groups. Whereas pluralism claims that such groups contribute positively to American democracy, the New Right offers a particularly robust critique of pressure group activity. It claims that pressure groups are in the business of procuring resources from the government in order to meet the needs of their members. In doing so, the government is held hostage to influential pressure groups. An ever-expanding government inevitably marginalizes those institutions that hold society together, such as the family and the church; in order to placate influential groups. A good example of this point is the role of the welfare state. Government schemes such as Medicare and Medicaid end up performing many of those roles that could be done by the individual (such as caring for family members who are sick and elderly) or within the community.

Secondly, the government undermines economic growth by placing an ever-expanding burden upon the taxpayer. According to the New Right perspective, the frontiers of the state need to be reduced in order to restore individual liberty. The New Right also claims that regulatory agencies effectively capture the political process, thereby serving their own interests at the expense of what the people want and need. Pressure groups thereby contribute to both government overload and regulatory (or agency) capture. As with all other theoretical perspectives, the persuasiveness of the argument depends in part upon our ability to ‘buy into’ the assumptions that lie behind it (i.e. that government spending is too high).

                Corporatism emerged as a critique of the pluralist perspective. Whereas pluralism takes a positive view of pressure groups, corporatism claims that only a small number of interest groups are purposefully engaged within the decision-making process. As such, a large number of pressure groups are effectively excluded or at the very least marginalized from those who make the decisions that really matter. Decision-makers listen to those who provide something to them (such as campaign funds or specialist knowledge) whilst excluding/marginalizing those groups that serve no useful purpose to them. Ultimately, the relationship between politicians and pressure groups is reciprocal. Without the potential for mutual benefit; the relationship would not exist.

                Rather than America being a pluralist democracy serving the people, the corporatist perspective claims that the decision-making process is dominated by those who can offer something of benefit to politicians. For instance, both labor unions and big businesses will always exert influence because they have something valuable to give. According to the corporatist perspective, the state merely adopts a co-ordinating role in which it provides the necessary choice architecture for the ‘right’ decision to be reached. Inevitably, this choice architecture is biased towards influential organizations.