¹ Burke, John P., Organizational Participation and Public Policy: A Conference Report, Center of International Studies, Princeton University, Policy Memorandum No. 41 (Princeton 1982).Google Scholar

² This definition of organization and its chief characteristics is taken from Blau, Peter M. and Richard Scott, W., Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962), 1.Google Scholar Blau and Scott (p. 5) further distinguish formal from informal according to the practice in the former of the formal establishment of organizations to achieve ends and formal creation of official rules and regulations to guide conduct and behavior.

³ Eleanor Westney, D., Organizational Development and Social Change in Meiji Japan (forthcoming), chap. 1.Google Scholar

⁴ Burke (fn. l), 28–29. Thus, studies such as Townsend, James R., Political Participation in Communist China (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969)Google Scholar, and Friedgut, Theodore H., Political Participation in the USSR (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, are concerned with output rather than with input.

⁵ Burke (fn. 1), 28.

⁶ Myers, A. R., Parliaments and Estates in Europe to 1789 (London: Thames & Hudson, 1975)Google Scholar provides a convenient introduction with a bibliography on the very extensive literature.

⁷ See, for example, Koenigsberger, H. G., Estates and Revolutions (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

⁸ During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Committee on Comparative Politics of the Social Science Research Council made a concerted effort to extend the analysis of the role of interest groups to other political systems. The preliminary CCP-SSRC report on the comparative analysis of group participation was presented by Almond, Gabriel A. in “A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 52 (March 1958), 270–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see a similar effort sponsored by the International Political Science Association: Ehrmann, Henry, ed., Interest Groups on Four Continents (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1958).Google Scholar One of the best of the earlier studies is Kaiser, Joseph H., Die Repräsentation organisierter Interessen (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1956).Google Scholar

⁹ For Britain, see Finer, Samuel, Anonymous Empire: A Study of the Lobby in Great Britain (London: Pall Mall Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Eckstein, Harry, Pressure Group Politics: The Case of the British Medical Association (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Beer, Samuel H., Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups, 2d ed. (London: Faber, 1969)Google Scholar; and Wootton, Graham, Pressure Groups in Britain, 1920–1979 (London: Allen Lane, 1975).Google Scholar For France, see Ehrmann, Henry, Organized Business in France (Princeton: Princeton Univerity Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Meynaud, Jean, Les Groupes de pression en France (Paris: Colin, 1958)Google Scholar; and Nouvelles études sur les groupes de pression en France (Paris: Colin, 1962). For Belgium, see Lorwin, Val, “Labor Organizations and Politics in Belgium and France,” in Kassalow, E. M., ed., National Labor Movements in the Post-War World (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1963).Google Scholar For Italy, see LaPalombara, Joseph, The Italian Labor Movement (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1957)Google Scholar, and LaPalombara, , Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Norway, see Kvavik, Robert V., Interest Groups in Norwegian Politics (Oslo: Universitetsvorlaget, 1976).Google Scholar For Germany, see Weber, Jürgen, Die Interessengruppen im politischen System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁰ For a general introduction to this literature and an extensive bibliography, see Schmitter, Philippe and Lembruch, Gerhard, eds., Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979)Google Scholar, and Berger, Suzanne, ed., Organizing Interests in Western Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

¹¹ Schmitter argues that corporatism arose abruptly after World War I, Pizzorno sees it as a gradual outgrowth of pluralist competition, while Offe views it as a product of the political-economic crises of late capitalism. See Schmitter, Philippe, “Interest Intermediation and Regime Governability,” 287–330 Google Scholar, Pizzorno, Alessandro, “Interests and Parties in Pluralism,” 249–86Google Scholar, and Offe, Claus, “The Attribution of Public Status to Interest Groups,” 123–58Google Scholar, all in Berger (fn. 10).

¹² See Wiarda, Howard J., “Toward a Framework for the Study of Political Change in the Iberic-Latin Tradition: The Corporative Model,” World Politics, XXV (January 1973), 206–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also, Wilensky, H. L., The “New Corporatism,” Centralization, and the Welfare State (Beverly Hills, Calif.,: Sage, 1976).Google Scholar

¹³ Schmitter, , “Still the Century of Corporatism?” in Schmitter and Lembruch (fn. 10), 13.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Lembruch, , “Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict and the New Corporatism,” in Schmitter and Lembruch (fn. 10), 53–61.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Offe (fn. 11), 133.

¹⁶ Keller, John, “Corporatism and Official Union Hegemony: The Case of French Agricultural Syndicalism,” in Berger (fn. 10), 185–206.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Hernes, G. and Selvik, A., “Local Corporatism,” in Berger (fn. 10), 103–122.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Panitch, Leo, “The Development of Corporatism in Liberal Democracies,” in Schmitter and Lembruch (fn. 10), 119–46.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Burke (fn. 1), 16–17. For general discussions of corporatism in Britain, see Crouch, Colin, “The State, Capital, and Liberal Democracy,” in Crouch, , ed., State and Economy in Contemporary Capitalism (London: Croom Helm, 1979)Google Scholar, and Perkin, Harold, The Structured Crowd (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1981), 186–95.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Barker, Anthony, ed., Quangos in Britain: Government and the Networks of Public Policy Making (London: Macmillan, 1981).Google Scholar

²¹ Schmitter, , “Interest Representation and Regime Governability in Contemporary Western Europe and North America,” in Berger (fn. 10), 316.Google Scholar This relationship may not hold in all cases, however. In Britain, under Thatcher, reliance on corporatist forms of political mediation has increased rather than decreased; see Burke (fn. 1), 16–17. See also Harrison, Reginald J., Pluralism and Corporatism: The Political Evolution of Modern Democracies (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980).Google Scholar

²² See Westney (fn. 3), chap. 1.

²³ See Ishida, Takeshi, “Interest Groups under a Semi-Permanent Government Party,” Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, No. 413 (May 1974), 2–10 Google Scholar; Tsurutani, Taketsugu, Political Change in Japan (New York: McKay, 1977)Google Scholar, chaps, 6 and 7; Pempel, T. J. and Tsunekawa, Keiichi, “Corporatism Without Labor? The Japanese Anomaly,” in Schmitter and Lehmbruch (fn. 10), 231–70Google Scholar; and the discussion of interest groups in Government Decisionmaking in Japan: Implications for the United States. Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: GPO 1982), 8–9.

²⁴ Herbert Hoover's attempts to create an “associational state” represent an exception; see Lloyd, Craig, Aggressive Introvert: Herbert Hoover and Public Relations Management (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an Associative State,” Journal of American History, Vol. 61 (June 1974), 116–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hawley, , “Three Facets of Hooverian Associationalism: Lumber, Aviation and Movies,” in McCraw, Thomas, ed., Regulation in Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), 95–123.Google Scholar

²⁵ For analysis of the noncorporate character of American politics, see Salisbury, Robert, “Why No Corporatism in America?” in Schmitter and Lehmbruch (fn. 10), 213–30Google Scholar; Wilson, Graham K., Interest Groups in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 130–46.Google Scholar

²⁶ Some reformers—such as Woodrow Wilson, A. Lawrence Lowell, and Frank Good-now—called for stronger “responsible” parties along the British model. These did not, however, materialize. See Ranney, Austin, The Doctrines of Responsible Party Government (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1954).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 1963)Google Scholar, and Stone, Alan, Economic Regulation and the Public Interest (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁸ See Heidenheimer, Arnold J., “Public Education, Health and Welfare in the U.S.A. and Western Europe: How Growth and Reform Potentials Have Differed,” British Journal of Political Science, III (July 1973), 315–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Bentley, , The Process of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908).Google Scholar

³⁰ These studies actually date from 1928, with the appearance of Odegard's, Peter Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).Google Scholar Subsequent landmark treatises include Pendleton Herring, E., Group Representation Before Congress (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1929)Google Scholar; Herring, , Public Administration and the Public Interest (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936)Google Scholar; and Herring, , The Politics of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1940).Google Scholar See also Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935)Google Scholar; Garceau, Oliver, The Political Life of the American Medical Association (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941)Google Scholar; Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951)Google Scholar; and Latham, Earl, The Group Basis of Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1952).Google Scholar For more contemporary discussions and extensive bibliographies, see Wootton, Graham, Interest-Groups (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969)Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q., Political Organizations (New York: Basic Books, 1973)Google Scholar; David Greenstone, J., “Group Theories,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), II, 243–318 Google Scholar; Robert H. Salisbury, “Interest Groups,” ibid., IV, 171–228; David Garson, G., Group Theories of Politics (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1978)Google Scholar; and G. K. Wilson (fn. 25).

³¹ Schattschneider, in particular, was critical of the lobbying, special pleading, and political bias he uncovered in his analysis of tariff policy (fn. 30).

³² See Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1942)Google Scholar, and American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties, “Toward a More Responsible Party System,” American Political Science Review, XLIV, Supplement (September 1950).Google Scholar

³³ Bauer, Raymond A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola, and Dexter's, Lewis Anthony analysis of tariff policy in American Business and Public Policy (New York: Atherton, 1963)Google Scholar, is the most sophisticated study that reached these conclusions.

³⁴ See Key, V. O., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, 5th ed. (New York: Crowell, 1964), 522 Google Scholar, and Harmon Ziegler, L. and Wayne Peak, G., Interest Groups in American Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 113–32.Google Scholar

³⁵ I.T.T., for example, did not have a full-time lobbyist until the early 1960s.

³⁶ See Milbrath, Lester, The Washington Lobbyist (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963).Google Scholar

³⁷ See McConnell, Grant, The Decline of Agrarian Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953)Google Scholar, and especially his Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1966); also Lieper Freeman, J., The Political Process (New York: Random House, 1965)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore, “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics, XVI (July 1964), 677–715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Lowi, , The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969)Google Scholar; William Domhoff, G., Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Re-examined (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978)Google Scholar; Kariel, Henry, The Decline of American Pluralism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

³⁸ See G. K. Wilson (fn. 25), 54–82.

³⁹ “Business Round Table, New Lobbying Force,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (September 17, 1977).

⁴⁰ See MacFarland, Andrew, Public Interest Lobbies—Decision-Making on Energy (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1976)Google Scholar; Wilson, G. K. (fn. 25), 83–106 Google Scholar; and Berry, Jeffrey, Lobbying for the People (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Wilson, G. K. (fn. 25), 107–29.Google Scholar

⁴² Heclo, Hugh, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment,” in King, Anthony, ed., The New American Political System (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1978).Google Scholar

⁴³ Wilson, G. K. (fn. 25), 128.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Adams, Gordon, The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting (New York: Council on Economic Priorities, 1981).Google Scholar Torke, Joachim, Die staatsbedingte Gesellchaft im moskauer Reich: Zar und Zemlja in der altrussischen Herrschaftsverfassung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ G. K. Wilson (fn. 25), 127.

⁴⁶ New York Times, June 4, 1982.

⁴⁷ Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. E., eds., African Political Systems (London: Oxford University Press, 1940)Google Scholar; Cohen, Ronald and Middleton, John, eds., Comparative Political Systems: Studies in the Politics of Pre-Industrial Societies (Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Richard, Audrey and Kuper, Adam, Councils in Action (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Keep, J.L.H., “The Decline of the Zemsky Sober,” Slavonic and East European Review, xxxvi (December 1957); 100-112 Google Scholar; Crummey, R. O., “The Reconstitute of the Boyar Aristocracy, 1613-1645,” Forschungen zur osteuropdischen Geschichte, xviii (1973), 187-330 Google Scholar; Torke, Hans-Joachim, Die staatsbedingte Gesellschaft im moskauer Reich: Zar und Zemlja in der altrussischen Herrschaftsverfassung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Rozman, Gilbert, ed., The Modernization of China (New York: Free Press, 1981), 47–106 Google Scholar, provides an introduction to this subject.

⁵⁰ Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 114–35Google Scholar: Shaw, Stanford J., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 vols. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976–1977): I, 151–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; II, 123–28; Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, 2 vols. (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982)Google Scholar; Findley, Carter V., Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789–1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 20–24.Google Scholar

⁵¹ This process of consultation is well described, on the basis of a broad knowledge of the Russian sources, in Emmons, Terence, The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1968)Google Scholar, and Field, Daniel, The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855–1861 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

⁵² Emmons, Terence, “The Russian Landed Gentry and Politics,” Russian Review, XXXIII (July 1974), 269–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hosking, Geoffrey A. and Manning, Roberta Thompson, “What Was the United Nobility?” in Haimson, Leopold H., ed., The Politics of Rural Russia, 1905–1914 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), 142–83Google Scholar; Edelman, Robert, Gentry Politics on the Eve of the Russian Revolution, 1907–1917 (New Bruswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵³ Hard, John H., Die Interessenvertretungen der Industriellen in Russland, 1905–1917 (Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus, 1978)Google Scholar; Rieber, Alfred J., “Bureaucratic Politics in Imperial Russia,” Social Science History, 11 (Summer 1978), 339–413 Google Scholar; Owen, Thomas C., Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of the Moscow Merchants, 1855–1905 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 53–172 Google Scholar; Rieber, Alfred J., Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Imperial Russia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 133–215, 259–332.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Strakhovsky, Leonid I., “Constitutional Aspects of the Imperial Russian Government's Policy Toward National Minorities,” Journal of Modern History, XIII (December 1941), 464–92Google Scholar; Pistohlkors, Gert von, Ritterschaftliche Reformpolitik zwischen Russifizierung und Revolution (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1978)Google Scholar; Amburger, Erik, Geschichte der Behördenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 176–87, 282–92.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Erlich, Alexander, The Soviet Industrialization Debate, 1924–1928 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a good example of the range of views that influenced Soviet policy making at this time.

⁵⁶ Fainsod, , How Russia Is Ruled (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 483 Google Scholar; rev. ed. (1963), 579.

⁵⁷ Joravsky, David, The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, and Hahn, Werner G., Postwar Soviet Politics: The Fall of Zhdanov and the Defeat of Moderation, 1946–53 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982)Google Scholar provide detailed documentation of this form of bureaucratic politics.

⁵⁸ Early appraisals of group politics after Stalin include Pethybridge, Roger W., A Key to Soviet Politics: The Crisis of the Anti-Party Groups (London: Allen & Unwin, 1962)Google Scholar; Linden, Carl, “Khrushchev and the Party Battle,” Problems of Communism, XII (September-October 1963), 27–35 Google Scholar; and Tucker, Robert C., “The ‘Conflict Model’,“Problems of Communism, XII (November-December 1963), 59–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ellen Jones, “Representation of Organizational Interests in the USSR: Conflict and Consensus in Soviet Collegia,” paper delivered at the 14th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1982.

⁶⁰ The best general treatments of interest-group participation in the Soviet Union are Gordon Skilling, H. and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Kirstein, Tatjana, Die Konsultation von “Aussenstehenden” durch den Partei und Staatsapparat sowie den Obersten Sowjet der UdSSR als stabilisierender Faktor des sowjetischen Herrschaftssystems (Berlin: Harrassowitz, 1972)Google Scholar; Meissner, Boris and Brunner, Georg, eds., Gruppeninteressen und Entscheidungsprozess in der Sowjetunion (Cologne: Wissenschaft & Politik, 1975)Google Scholar; Meyer, Gerd, Bürokratischer Sozialismus: Eine Analyse des sowjetischen Herrschaftssystems (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977)Google Scholar; and Hough, Jerry F. and Fainsod, Merle, How the Soviet Union Is Governed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 518–55.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Representative studies include Ploss, Sidney, Conflict and Decision-Making in Soviet Russia: A Case Study of Agricultural Policy, 1953–1963 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schwartz, Joel J. and Keech, William R., “Group Influence and the Policy Process in the Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (September 1968), 840–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Stewart, Philip H., “Soviet Interest Groups and the Policy Process: The Repeal of Production Education,” World Politics, XXII (October 1969), 29–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Abraham, The Politics of Economic Reform in the Soviet Union (New York: Praeger, 1972)Google Scholar; Friedgut, Theodore H., “Interest Groups in Soviet Policy-Making: The MTS Reform,” Soviet Studies, XXVII (October 1976), 524–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warner, Edward L. III, The Military in Contemporary Soviet Politics: An Institutional Analysis (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; Colton, Timothy J., Commissars, Commanders, and Civilian Authority: The Structure of Soviet Military Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffmann, Erik P. and Laird, Robbin F., The Politics of Economic Modernization in the Soviet Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and Ross, Dennis, “Coalition Maintenance in the Soviet Union,” World Politics, XXXII (January 1980), 258–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a critique of this approach, see Odom, William E., “A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics,” World Politics, XXVIII (July 1976), 542–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Kelley, Donald R., “Environmental Policy-Making in the USSR: The Role of Industrial and Environmental Interest Groups,” Soviet Studies, XXVIII (October 1976), 570–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remnek, Richard B., Soviet Scholars and Foreign Policy: A Case Study in Soviet Policy Toward India (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Solomon, Peter H. Jr, Soviet Criminologists and Criminal Policy: Specialists in Policy-Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Mirić, Jovan, Interesne grupe i politička moć (Zagreb: Centar za aktualni politicki studij, 1973)Google Scholar; Gati, Charles, ed., The Politics of Modernization in Eastern Europe: Testing the Soviet Model (New York: Praeger, 1974)Google Scholar; Charvin, Robert, Les États socialistes européens: Institutions et vie politiques (Paris: Dalloz, 1975)Google Scholar; and especially Triska, Jan F. and Cocks, Paul M., eds., Political Development in Eastern Europe (New York: Praeger, 1977).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Rozman (fn. 49), 255–317. See also Lampton, David M., The Politics of Medicine in China: The Policy Process, 1949–1977 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Greenblatt, Sidney L., Wilson, Richard W., and Wilson, Amy Auerbach, Organizational Behavior in Chinese Society (New York: Praeger, 1981)Google Scholar; Falkenheim, Victor C., “Democracy, Modernization, and Participatory Values in Post-Mao China,” in Schulz, Donald E. and Adams, Jan S., eds., Political Participation in Communist Systems (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), 254–73Google Scholar; Pye, Lucien, The Dynamics of Chinese Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1981)Google Scholar; and Harding, Harry, Organizing China: The Problem of Bureaucracy, 1949–1976 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The best general introduction is Huntington, Samuel P. and Nelson, Joan M., No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Individual country studies include Weiner, Myron, The Politics of Scarcity: Public Pressure and Political Response in India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Astiz, Carlos A., Pressure Groups and Power Elites in Peruvian Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Campiglia, Nestor, Los groupos de presión y el processo político: La experiencia uruguaya (Montevideo: Arca, 1969)Google Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe C., Interest Conflict and Political Change in Brazil (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Bienen, Henry, Kenya: The Politics of Participation and Control (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Akarli, Engin D. and Ben-Dor, Gabriel, eds., Political Participation in Turkey: Historical Background and Present Problems (Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Publications, 1975)Google Scholar; Özbudun, Ergun, Social Change and Political Participation in Turkey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Kim, Chong Lim, ed., Political Participation in Korea: Democracy, Mobilization, and Stability (Santa Barbara, Calif: Clio Press, 1980).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ LaPalombara, Joseph M., ed., Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Allison, Graham T. and Halperin, Morton H., “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications,” in Tanter, Raymond and Ullman, Richard H., eds., Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 40–79 Google Scholar; Halperin, Morton H., Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1974)Google Scholar; Guy Peters, B., The Politics of Bureaucracy: A Comparative Perspective (New York: Longman, 1978).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Roth, Guenther, “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-Building in the New States,” World Politics, XX (January 1968), 194–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, Cyril E., “Japan and Russia: Bureaucratic Politics in a Comparative Context,” Social Science History, 11 (Summer 1978), 414–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silberman, Bernard S., “Bureaucratic Development and Bureaucratization: The Case of Japan,” Social Science History, 11 (Summer 1978), 385–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, “Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial Administration: A Revisionist Interpretation of Weber on Bureaucracy,” World Politics, XXXI (January 1979), 197–227 Google Scholar; Dawisha, Karen, “The Limits of the Bureaucratic Politics Model: Observations on the Soviet Case,” Studies in Comparative Communism, XIII (Winter 1980), 300–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ Charles Lewis Taylor and David A. Jodice, eds., The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators III (forthcoming), Table 1.6.

⁶⁹ Huntington, Samuel P., The Soldier and the State: The Theory of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954)Google Scholar, and Huntington, , ed., Changing Patterns of Military Politics (New York: Free Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Johnson, John J., ed., The Role of the Military in Undeveloped Countries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Kolkowicz, Roman and Korbonski, Andrzej, Soldiers, Peasants, and Bureaucrats: Civil-Military Rehtions in Communist and Modernizing Societies (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Lissak, Moshe, “Modernization and Role Expansion of the Military in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, IX (April 1967), 233–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feit, Edward, “Pen, Sword, and People: Military Regimes in the Formation of Political Institutions,” World Politics, XXV (January 1973), 251–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, Cyril E., “Military Leadership and National Development,” in Mclsaac, David, ed., The Military and Society (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975), 16–35 Google Scholar; Janowitz, Morris, Military Institutions and Coercion in the Developing Nations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Interesting country studies include Craig, Gordon A., The Politics of the Prussian Army, 1640–1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955)Google Scholar; Stepan, Alfred, The Military and Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Coox, Alvin D., “Chrysanthemum and Star: Army and Society in Modern Japan,” in Mclsaac (fn. 70), 37–60 Google Scholar; Munn, Frederick M., The Military in Chilean History: Essays on Civil-Military Relations, 1810–1873 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Stavrou, Nikolaos A., Allied Politics and Military Interventions: The Political Role of the Greeks Military (Athens: Papazissis, 1976)Google Scholar; Victor Papacosma, S., The Military in Greeks Politics: The 1909 Coup d'État (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Bienen, Henry, Armies and Parties in Africa (New York: Africana, 1978)Google Scholar; and Colton (fn. 61).

⁷² Masters, Roger D., “World Politics as a Primitive Political System,” World Politics, XVI (July 1964), 595–619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace, Michael and David Singer, J., “Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System, 1815–1964: A Quantitative Description,” International Organization, XXIV (Spring 1970), 239–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skjelsbaek, Kjell, “The Growth of International Non-Governmental Organization in the Twentieth Century,” International Organization, XXV (Summer 1971), 420–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saunders, Paul R., “An Organizational Perspective on Intergovernmental Organizations,” Ph.D. diss. (Princeton University, 1978)Google Scholar; Jacobson, Harold K., Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System (New York: Knopf, 1979).Google Scholar

⁷³ On the making of international law, see Gottlieb, Gidon, “The Nature of International Law: Toward a Second Concept of Law,” in Black, Cyril E. and Falk, Richard A., eds., The Future of the International Legal Order, IV, The Structure of the International Environment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 331–83Google Scholar; and Onuf, Nicholas G., ed., Lawmaking in the Global Community (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1982).Google Scholar Weiss, Thomas G. and Jordan, Robert S., “Bureaucratic Politics and the World Food Conference: The International Policy Process,” World Politics, XXVIII (April 1976), 422–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Rycroft, Robert W. and Szylowicz, Joseph S., “The Technological Dimension of Decision Making: The Case of the Aswan High Dam,” World Politics, XXXIII (October 1980), 36–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provide interesting examples of the politics of international decision making.

⁷⁴ Some research has been done on this area, although the emphasis has been on changes in formal decisions, or discrepancies between formal decisions and informal practices, rather than on the political process through which decisions are made. See Loren R. Graham, “The Place of the Academy of Sciences in the Overall Organization of Soviet Science,” and Joravsky, David, “Political Authorities and the Learned Estate in the USSR,” both in Thomas, J. R. and Kruse-Vaucienne, U., eds., Soviet Science and Technology: Domestic and Foreign Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1977), 44–62 and 155–61.Google Scholar Olson's, Mancur The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar places a particular emphasis on the aggregation of competing interests as a factor in economic development.

⁷⁵ Kelman, Steven, Regulating Sweden, Regulating America: A Comparative Study of Occupational Safety and Health Policy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Rydell, Randy J., “Decision Making on the Breeder Reactor in Britain and the United States,” Ph.D. diss. (Princeton University, 1980)Google Scholar, is a good example of this type of study.

⁷⁷ Heidenheimer (fn. 28).

⁷⁸ An example of a case study that does analyze the significance of bureaucratic organization in a particular policy area—in this case the utilization of scientific data by policy makers—is Rich, Robert F., Social Science Information and Public Policy Making: The Interaction Between Bureaucratic Politics and the Use of Survey Data (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981).Google Scholar On the role of private-sector interest groups in foreign policy, see Trice, Robert H., Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: U.S. Policy in the Middle East (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Westney (fn. 3), chap. 1.

⁸⁰ For example, in the case of Germany, see such studies as Erdmann, Manfred, Die verfassungspolitische Funktion der Wirtschaftsverbände in Deutschland, 1815–1871 (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1968)Google Scholar; Varain, H. J., ed., Interessenverbände in Deutschland (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1973)Google Scholar, covering the period from 1848 to 1914; and Blaich, Fritz, Staat und Verbände in Deutschhnd zwischen 1871 und 1945 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979).Google Scholar

⁸¹ The rudiments of analysis of the role of interest groups in Common Market policy have already been undertaken. See the report of the Studies Research Division of the General Secretariat of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, European Interest Groups and Their Relationship with the Economic and Social Committee (Westmead, England: Saxon House, 1980)Google Scholar, and also such studies as Meynaud, Jean and Sidjanski, Dusan, Les groupes de pression dans la communauté européenne, 1958–1968 (Brussels: Institut de Sociologie, 1971)Google Scholar; Bujard, Helmut, Der Interesseneinfluss auf die europäische Zuckerpolitik (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1974)Google Scholar; and Averyt, William F. Jr, Agropolitics in the European Community: Interest Groups and the Common Agricultural Policy (New York: Praeger, 1977).Google Scholar

⁸² On the importance of goals, rewards, and incentives, see J. Q. Wilson (fn. 30); Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; and Moe, Terry M., The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).Google Scholar

⁸³ Westney (fn. 3), chap. 1.

⁸⁴ Pizzorno, (fn. 11), esp. 281 Google Scholar; also see Sabel, Charles, “The Internal Politics of Trade Unions,” in Berger (fn. 10), 209–48.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Schmitter (fn. 11), 292.

⁸⁶ See, for example, Kelman (fn. 75).

⁸⁷ See, for example, Eckstein, Harry and Gurr, Ted Robert, Patterns of Authority (New York: Wiley, 1975).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ On the distinction between distributive, regulatory, and redistributive politics, see Lowi (fn. 37).

⁸⁹ On the distinction of “exit” and “voice,” see Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970).Google Scholar