Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:06:03.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theories of Power, Poverty, and Law: In Commemoration of the Contributions of Peter Bachrach

Why Inequality in Outcome Was Not Peter Bachrach's Theme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2010

Jane Mansbridge
Jane Mansbridge
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For the APSA panel commemorating Peter Bachrach, I was asked to speak to the “notions of inequality and inequity” in his work. For a while the topic stumped me. Then I realized why. Talking about inequality in Peter Bachrach's work, I decided, is much like talking about just distribution in Marx. It misses the point.

Type
Profession Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 89 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bachrach, Peter. 1967. The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter. 1971. Political Elites in a Democracy. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter. 1975. “Interest, Participation, and Democratic Theory.” In Participation in Politics: NOMOS XVI, ed. Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W.. New York: Lieber-Atherton.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter. 1977. “Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of Committee on the Judiciary on S.J. Res. 67.” U.S. Senate, 95th Cong., 1st sess., December 13–14.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “The Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1963. “Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytical Framework.” American Political Science Review 57: 632–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin R. 1998. “The Undemocratic Party System.” In A Passion for Democracy: American Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Arnold S. 1960. “Human Nature and Participatory Democracy.” In Responsibility: NOMOS III, ed. Friedrich, Carl J.. New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1875. Critique of the Gotha Program. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. http://www.constitution.org/jsm/rep_gov.htm.Google Scholar
Students for a Democratic Society. 1962. “The Port Huron Statement.” http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1966. “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy.” American Political Science Review 60 (2): 285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar