Writers on Corporatism Agree about Little but are nevertheless strikingly united in one belief, that America has failed to develop strong corporatist institutions. The two most important collections published in recent years, for instance, both contain papers explaining this supposed American uniqueness. Yet the notion that corporatism is conspicious by its absence is odd. It is indeed true that the United States has failed to develop one particularly ambitious form of corporatism — the organization of capital and labour into central institutions designed to achieve agreed national aims. The essence of corporatism consists, however, of something less than this grand social scheme. It resides in what Offe calls ‘the attribution of public status to interest groups’. Endowing private bodies with public duties and public powers involves crossing a constitutional Rubicon. Behind lie the landscapes of liberal polities, with their open political struggle and comparatively clear separation of government from civil society. Beyond the Rubicon lie the features in Schmitter’s famous description of corporatism — compulsion, hierarchy, monopoly. But these are contingent, not necessary, features. The quintessence of corporatism consists in the effort to endow private interests with sovereign authority. In so doing it challenges the great aim of a liberal polity — the separation of economic from political power — imposing in its place the ‘devolution of public policymaking and enforcement on organised private interests’.

WRITERS ON CORPORATISM AGREE ABOUT LITTLE BUT ARE nevertheless strikingly united in one belief, that America has failed to develop strong corporatist institutions. The two most important collections published in recent years, for instance, both contain papers explaining this supposed American uniqueness. Yet the notion that corporatism is conspicious by its absence is odd. It is indeed true that the United States has failed to develop one particularly ambitious form of corporatism — the organization of capital and labour into central institutions designed to achieve agreed national aims. The essence of corporatism consists, however, of something less than this grand social scheme. It resides in what Offe calls ‘the attribution of public status to interest groups’. Endowing private bodies with public duties and public powers involves crossing a constitutional Rubicon. Behind fie the landscapes of liberal polities, with their open political struggle and comparatively clear separation of government from civil society. Beyond the Rubicon lie the features in Schmitter's famous description of corporatism — compulsion, hierarchy, monopoly. But these are contingent, not necessary, features. The quintessence of corporatism consists in the effort to endow private interests with sovereign authority. In so doing it challenges the great aim of a liberal polity — the separation of economic from political power — imposing in its place the ‘devolution of public policy making and enforcement on organised private interest’.

THE PORTUGUESE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF 19 JULY 1987 initiated a profound change in the Portuguese party system and in the system of government. From 1974 onwards, Portugal had moved peacefully towards a democratic political system, enshrined in the 1976 Constitution. This evolution lasted about eight years and culminated in the revision of the Constitution in 1982. From 1982 onwards the present political regime has been a democratic one, coexisting with a capitalist economic regime attenuated by state monopoly in key sectors and by public companies which were nationalized between 1974 and 1976. It is also since 1982 that the system of government has been semi-presidential. There is pure representativeness as referendums do not exist at national level and have never been regulated at local level. But the government is semi-presidential in the sense that, owing to French influence, it attempts to balance Parliament with the election of the President of the Republic by direct and universal suffrage.

AS HE SALUTED THE GRIM FORMATIONS OF 10,000 ‘FIGHTING groups of the working class’ and thousands of other soldiers and paramilitary police in Berlin's Karl-Marx-Allee on 13 August, Erich Honecker looked quite relaxed. He knew that his colleagues Egon Krenz (crown prince and security overlord) and Erich Mielke (Minister for State Security) had taken every precaution to ensure that there would be no counter-demonstrations to mar this celebration of 25 years of the ‘anti-fascist defensive (Berlin) wall’. In this, his fifteenth year as leader of the Socialist Unity Party (SED), the 74-year-old Honecker could compliment himself on a successful party congress followed by successfully staged elections. He could also look back to a number of successful initiatives in the GDR's external relations.

Susan’s ‘Faites Vos Jeux, Messieurs. Rien Ne Va Plus’ Professor Susan Strange is widely recognised as the foremost British exponent of the meta-discipline of International Political Economy, better known under its nickname IPE. I define it as a meta-discipline because, as is well known, its purpose it to fuse into one the three previously disparate disciplines of economics, politics (notably comparative politics, political sociology and public policy) and international relations which can make sense now only when they are related to each other. The nineteenth-century founders of the social sciences had simply used the name of Political Economy. But then the unforeseeable agglomeration of empirical material led to an objective need for specialization and to a subjective professional interest which in turn led not only to a growing differentiation in the subject-matter, but also to an unnatural incompatibility of perspectives. Like many other artificial barriers which have fallen under the sweep of twentieth-century interdependence, the disciplinary barriers, and even the inadequate ‘interdisciplinary collaborations’ between the major social sciences, should now return to the initial common matrix. Whether the end result will indeed be a new, unique, science, or whether the social sciences will learn how to ‘see’ trifocally is another matter.

A FEW YEARS AGO, THE PRESENCE OF A CENTRAL AMERICAN Head of State here was an unknown event. It was also uncommon to make any reference to the countries of Central America in the area of international politics.

The Central American countries have been characterized during their century and a half of independence by their relative isolation, and by a slow process of development which forced upon us the stereotyped label of 'banana republics'. In the meantime nations emerged in our region, sometimes with problems, some with more vigour than others, but all with their traditions, their demands, their contradictions and their truths.

COSTA RICA SHAKES TWO HUNDRED MILES OF underpopulated border with Nicaragua. It has only the most limited capacity to regulate the flow of either weapons into, or refugees out of, the adjacent territory. The absence of a professional army is noteworthy (although it should not be overstated — there are some well armed, but unprofessionally led, defence forces, and the police are quite militarized). What requires emphasis is less the scarcity of soldiers than the abundance of lawyers, and the power of their profession. Last year, for example, tension built up between Managua and San José, because it was revealed that an airstrip in northern Costa Rica had been used to resupply the 'contras' in violation of Costa Rica's proclaimed policy of neutrality. The Sandinistas interpreted this as yet another proof of Costa Rican duplicity and of San José's subordination to the will of the paymasters in Washington. Nicaraguans (of all ideological persuasions) find it almost impossible to accept the Costa Rican version of this episode, which points out that the government has no power to interfere with the use of private property unless a prima facie case exists of illegal activity.

Jon Elster has made the story of Ulysses and the Sirens a central motif in his philosophical odyssey. In Elster's philosophy a paradigm of imperfectly rational behaviour is to bind yourself against the mast, as a precaution against the predictable weakness of your will which would otherwise leave you ensnared by the sirens. The use of literary analogies is frequent in Elster's work, whether he is Explaining Technical Change or Making Sense of Marx. Consequently it is not inappropriate to describe Elster's own intellectual wanderings as an odyssey. Unlike Joyce's Ulysses there is no trace in Elster of a predilection for scatological subjects, nor any danger of unreadability. But there is a similar technical and stylistic range, and a comparable breadth in intellectual debts, acquired from journeying through Western culture with several languages. Elster, like Joyce, is also crowned with the ability to make an artistic whole out of apparently disparate materials.