Search

Lipset's 'Democracy in Private Government' was a remarkable publication for three reasons. It was his first attempt to challenge Michels' 'iron law of oligarchy' and would lead to a programme of research that that would culminate with the publication of the widely admired classic study Union Democracy. Second, the inspiration for this work came from Lipset's student days when he was a socialist activist trying to understand why leftist governments often failed to carry out substantial programmes of social reform. Third, although it was one of his earliest publications it bears all the hallmarks of the work that would subsequently make Lipset a giant of political sociology: the enthusiasm for classic sociological problems; the appreciation of history; and the ingenious use of the small n comparative approach. Finally, I would argue that Lipset's study of democracy within private government represents a missed opportunity for sociology though there are signs that this is being rectified in recent years.

This is a response to Runciman's reply to my critique of his 1993 article. I argue that although the First World War brought about many changes in British society, it did not initiate a new stage in its development, for these changes were largely an acceleration of existing tendencies. Runciman's argument that the similarities between the 1930s and the 1980s show that British capitalism was essentially the same in both periods does not allow for the different directions in which British society was moving in the 1930s and in the 1980s. His treatment of the 1980s changes as another phase in the political cycle fails to grasp what was new about the 1980s or locate these changes in their wider economic and global context.