Book review, Education and Science, EU – Baltic States, Latvia

International Internet Magazine. Baltic States news & analytics Friday, 29.03.2024, 14:24

Power elites in a welfare state: Danish example

Eugene Eteris, BC, prof. European Studies Faculty, RSU, Latvia, 20.08.2015.Print version
The elites’ idea is neither an abstract theory dreamt up by modern technocrats nor a wild fantasy hatched by futurists. It has become a primordial socio-economic phenomenon in absolute majority of contemporary states. Cumbersome and often too complicated “official” decision-making process in a modern state allow for a non-official, however not less efficient, way to make important decisions; and sometimes quicker to implement some of them.

Already in 2001, the Danish Parliament commissioned an analysis about “social effect of organisations, movements and economic power structures in Denmark”. At that time, there were identified over 1 800 “powerful persons”, which could be called “Danish elites”. However, researchers at that time concluded that these were not a sort of “unified elites’ faction”: elites were dispersed among different “interest sectors” –business, politics, culture, research, media, etc. The elites’ problem –even at that time- was whether elites represented broad national interests or they explored to the utmost their influence for personal advantages. The dilemma is still hanging in the air; however, it’s always good to know who and what are the people that govern and manage one’s country...      

 

From this point of view a book written by two Danish sociologists (Larsen A.G. and Ellersgaard Ch. H.) together with a journalist (Bernsen M.) –all three before their 40s- definitely deserves a closer attention.*)

 

*) Ellersgaard Ch. H., Bernsen M., Larsen A.G. Magteliten. Hvordan 423 danskere styre landet. –Politikens Forlag, JP/Politikens Forlagshus A?S, 2015.-211pp. (English title: Powerful elites: how 423 Danes govern the country). ISBN: 978-87-400-1800-4.

 

For the readers in the Baltic States the elites’ issue is a sort of novelty: hence the need for a short introduction into the phenomena’s historical retrospects, i.e. elites’ gnosiology.  


Power’s inner circles: history

Elite (in both singular and plural) is often described as “the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc.” It could be related to an exclusive position suitable for elite as well. As a noun, it depicts people of the highest social level, such as aristocracy, “blue blood”, “crème de la crème” gentility, nobility, establishment and upper class.

See: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elites.

 

In political and sociological theory, “elite” is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general, elite means the more powerful group of people. The selected part of a group is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities or has more privilege than the rest.

 

Elites sometimes are also called “the establishment” in Western societies; while in the Eastern Bloc previous elites were called nomenklatura. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite


The “elite’s power” is characterized by the organizational structures through which it positions itself as a “ruling class” as a social formation based on heritage and social ties. This is how they deem acquire wealth stemming from an unofficial power circles.  Hence, as according to an American sociologist Ch. Mills, the elite power rose from "the managerial reorganization of the propertied classes into the more or less unified stratum of the corporate rich". Reference: Mills, Charles W. (1956). The Power Elite. pp. 63–67.

 

Another US scientist, W. Domhoff clarified the elite’s power in the following terms: "The upper class as a whole does not do the ruling. Instead, class rule is manifested through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions...Leaders within the upper class join with high-level employees in the organizations they control to make up what will be called the power elite". See: Domhoff, William G, Who Rules America Now? (1997), p. 2.

 

On the opposite political spectrum, in Marxist theories, e.g. Russian scientist and politician, Nikolai Bukharin anticipated the power-elite theory. Thus in his Imperialism and World Economy, written in 1929, he argued that "present-day state power was nothing but an entrepreneurs' company of tremendous power, headed even by the same persons that occupy the leading positions in the banking and syndicate offices". See: Bukharin, Nikolai. Imperialism and World Economy (1929).  


Elite’s and other “influencing” theories

In political science and sociology, elite theory is a “theory of the state” which seeks to describe and explain the power relationships in contemporary society. The theory postulates that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Through positions in corporations and/or on corporate boards, and influence over the policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" are able to exert significant power over the policy decisions of corporations and governments.

 

Forbes magazine in the article published in December 2009 (entitled The World's Most Powerful People), listed 67 most powerful people in the world; at that time each person in the “global elites’ list” assigned to about 100 million of human population on earth.

 

In compiling the World’s Most Powerful People (Forbes, December 2009), the magazine tried to define the elites power using the following four dimensions: the influence over lots of other people, controlling relatively large financial resources compared with their peers, their power in multiple spheres, and the “activity” of using their power.

 

However, at that time there were only 67 “big shots” in the list–one for every 100 million people on the planet: so being powerful in just one area, according to Forbes, was not enough.

 

Besides, some other theories could be mentioned; for example nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs or occupation. See: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nepotism


Nepotism refers partiality to family whereas cronyism refers to partiality to an associate or friend.

 

Or favoritism, in the broadest sense of the terms, refers to being part of a favored group, rather than job performance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

 

Even when entire elites’ groups are completely excluded from the state's traditional networks of power (historically, on the basis of arbitrary criteria such as nobility, race, gender, or religion), elite theory recognizes that "counter-elites" frequently develop within such excluded groups. Negotiations between such disenfranchised groups and the state can be analyzed as negotiations between elites and counter-elites. A major problem, in turn, is the ability of elites to co-opt counter-elites. Elite theory stands in opposition to pluralism in suggesting that democracy is a utopian ideal. It also stands in opposition to the state autonomy theory.

 

One of the leading figures in elites’ research, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Italian economist and sociologist (also known for his theory on mass and elite interaction, as well as for his application of math to economic analysis) emphasized the psychological and intellectual superiority of elites, believing that they were “the highest accomplishers in any field”. He underlined – about 90 years ago- the existence of two types of elites: governing elites and non-governing elites.  

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory


Danish power elites

Researchers in Denmark have revealed recently the “powerful elites” in the country. They have calculated that in a state with 5,4 million people there are 423 persons (!?) that actually “rule the country”. They have become strongly institutionalised; people are getting so accustomed to the phenomenon that even the Danish researchers call them “popular elites”! The elites are present everywhere, as soon as important decisions are made (p.11).

 

Main guiding factor to identify an elite person, the authors argue, is the number of “connections” (i.e. posts in various networks) within the national socio-politico-economic structures. In particular those networks that were taking vital decisions for business, organisations and citizens. Being within the network, argue the authors, is in itself a form of power exposure, which, in its turn, gives the way to power elites (p.22).   


Five elites’ circles

The elites, according to authors, are “orginised” within five main “interest fields”.

 

= In corporate/business field (so-called corporate elites, ch.1) there are 184 persons (about 44% of the total); these are the richest people in the country. Some of them are members of tens of “networks” (e.g. J.M.Clausen, head of the famous Danfoss is a member of 24 networks, which “connects” him –directly-to 882 and indirectly to over 7 thousand networks, as well as 65 other elites’ clubs). Top leaders in the Danish corporate life impact directly life of many Danes: directors of 100 biggest national companies employ over 1 million people; it is only them who decide, for example, whether to keep employment or move production abroad...

 

= Politicians, members of state administration and apparatus, ch.2 (former and functioning heads of ministries and vital department’s thereof), etc. are in the so-called “political elites” group; they also are having their own networks. There are 75 people in this group (about 18% of the total); one of the most vital network here if the so-called “corporate leaders’ group” or VL-group. There are about 114 sub-groups in VL which unites over 3.800 members (p.69).

 

= Trade unions’ power elites, ch.3 unite 100 members (about 24% of the total); they include leaders of over 10 most vital trade unions, including e.g. Danish Metal with 115 thousand members, FTF-public service trade unions with 450 thousand members and FOA-union with 190 thousand members, etc.(p. 118-120).  

 

= Science and education elites, ch.4 unite 52 persons (about 12 of the total). On top of state support for research, Danish 45 most prominent funds (generally, private) distribute over €50 billion for science, culture and education. These decisions are totally that of the elites...


= Finally, the smallest group – cultural and media elites, ch.5, which is composed of just 12 persons (about 3% of the total); this group include also 8 most prominent national advocates.

 

Quite notable, the elites’ “social life” is rather busy: there over 5 thousand (!!) different networks with more than 56 thousand “positions” in them. But strange enough, there are just about 37,7 thousand “elitarian Danes” that took part in the elites’ total networks: elites are busy to move... 


The reviewer would like to share the authors’ conclusion of “people’s elites”, yet with a small reservation. When it comes to the elites’ role in “wide-public” decision-making it probably could be accepted, i.e. as, so-to-say, an unavoidable evil. But on the official account, the power elites have to be controlled.  

 

However, the present trend may continue in the future, despite an apparent dichotomy with the officially recognised decision-making process in a state.  






Search site