¹ The Politics, Translated by T. A. Sinclair (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1962) 237Google Scholar.

² “The Chartists,” New York Daily Tribune, August 25,: 852. Reprinted in Bottomore, T. B. and Rubel, Maximilien, eds., Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1963) 204–7Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

³ Considerations on Representative Government (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1862) 170Google Scholar.

⁴ Lipset, Seymour Martin, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (New York: Doubleday, 1960Google Scholar.

⁵ Ibid., 230. Lipset took the term “democratic class struggle” from the title of the book by Anderson, Dewey and Davidson, Percy, Ballots and the Democratic Class Struggle (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1943)Google Scholar.

⁶ Lipset (fn. 4), 239.

⁷ Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Changing Class Structure and Contemporary European Politics,” in Graubard, Stephen R., ed., A New Europe? (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964) 337–69, at 345Google Scholar.

⁸ Lenski, Gerhard E., Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁹ This description, of course, is consistent with Kuznets's argument that the development-inequality relation follows an inverted U-shaped curve. See Kuznets, Simon, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review 45 (March 1955), 1–28Google Scholar; Bollen, Kenneth A. and Jackman, Robert W., “Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of In-come,” American Sociological Review 50 (August 1985), 438–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Lenski (fn. 8), 318.

¹¹ See, e.g., ibid., 319–24, 378–80.

¹² Key, V. O. Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf, 1949) 307Google Scholar. Key's discussion provided the framework for much of the analysis of the role of interparty competition in redistributive politics, starting with Dawson, Richard E. and Robinson, James A.“Inter-party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States, Journal of Politics 25 (May 1963), 265–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy,” American Political Science Review 71 (December 1977), 1467–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tufte, Edward R., Political Control of the Econ omy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), chap. 4Google Scholar. For a survey of these and relatec studies, see Alt, James E. and Chrystal, K. Alec, Political Economics (Berkeley and Los: Angeles University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For example, Dahl, Robert A., Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982) 174–75Google Scholar; Page, Benjamin I., Who Gets What from Government (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983) 144–45Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Hollingsworth, Roger and Hanneman, Robert, “Working-Class Power and the Political Economy of Western Capitalist Societies,” in Tomasson, Richard F., ed., Comparative Social Research, V (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982) 61–80Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Stephens, Evelyne Huber and Stephens, John D., “The Labor Movement, Political Power, and Worker's Participation in Western Europe,” in Zeitlin, Maurice, ed., Political Power and Social Theory, III (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982) 215–49Google Scholar; Shalev, Michael, “The Social Democratic Model and Beyond: Two Generations of Comparative Research on the Welfare State,” in Tomasson, Richard F., ed., Comparative Social Research, VI (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1983) 315–52Google Scholar; Weir, Margaret and Skocpol, Theda, “State Structures and the Possibili-ties for 'Keynesian' Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States,” in Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 107–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., and Dennis, Christopher, “Partisan Eras and the Distribution of Net Income,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 1985Google Scholar. Similar views can be found in, for example, Esping-Andersen, Gosta, Friedland, Roger, and Wright, Erik Olin, “Modes of Class Struggle and the Capitalist State,” Kapitalistate 3 (Summer 1976), 186–219Google Scholar, and Griffin, Larry J., Devine, Joel A., and Wallace, Michael, “On the Economic and Political Determinants of Welfare Spending in the Post-World War II Era,” Politics and Society 12 (No. 3, 1983), 331–72Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Lenski (fn. 8), 436.

¹⁸ For discussion on this point, see Jackman, Mary R. and Jackman, Robert W., Class Awareness in the United States (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983) esp. chap. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Surprisingly—given the title of his book—Korpi makes no reference to Lipset's discussion of the democratic class struggle. The only allusion to Lenski is contained in one brief sentence (p. 186); Anderson and Davidson (fn. 5) are nowhere cited.

²⁰ Parties of the left are commonly understood to include all parties of the noncomtnunist left, and include Socialist, Social Democratic, and Labor Parties. For a recent classification of parties in the industrial democracies according to their location on a left-right ideological scale, see Castles, Francis G. and Peter Mair, “Left-Right Political Scales: Some 'Expert' Judgments,” European Journal of Political Research 12 (March 1984), 73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ This process is clearly distinct from that involved in a revolutionary class struggle. Its origins can be traced to revisionist figures like Eduard Bernstein who, in the late-10th century, denied the inevitability of a Marxist class struggle and argued the case instead for an evolutionary or gradual form of socialism based on parliamentary procedures.

²² The phrase is taken from Kendall, Willmoore, John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1941) 128–29Google Scholar.

²² Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956) chap. 2Google Scholar.

²⁴ See The Federalist Papers, especially Nos. 10 and 51 by Madison.

²⁵ Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Willmoore, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1956) chap. 2Google Scholar.

²⁶ Rae, Douglas W., The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, rev. ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

²⁷ See also Epstein, Leon D., “What Happened to the British Party Model?” American Political Science Review 74 (March 1980), 9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Note, too, that four of these five countries have very small populations.

²⁹ Strom, Kaare, “Minority Governments in Parliamentary Democracies: The Rationality of Nonwinning Cabinet Solutions,” Comparative Political Studies 17 (July 1984), 199–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Ranney, Austin, The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government: Its Origins and Present State (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954) 20–21Google Scholar; emphasis in original. Ranney devotes chapter 2 to an outline of the responsible-parties model.

³¹ Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 25, 28Google Scholar.

³¹ This approach to parties is not unique to rational-choice spatial modelers. For example, Epstein defines a party as “any group, however loosely organized, seeking to elect govern-mental office-holders under a given label. Having a label … rather than an organization is the crucial defining element.” Epstein, Leon D., Political Parties in Western Democracies (New York: Praeger, 1967) 9Google Scholar.

³³ Indeed, Downs has often been criticized for his single-dimensional spatial model, and for his primary emphasis on two-party systems. See, e.g., Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976) chap. 10Google Scholar.

³⁴ Schlesinger, Joseph A., “On the Theory of Party Organization,” Journal of Politics 46 (May 1984), 369–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Downs (fn. 31), 97.

³⁶ Ibid.; Davis, Otto A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C., “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process,” American Political Science Review 64 (June 1970), 426–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C., An Introduction to Positive Political Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973) chaps. 11 and 12Google Scholar.

³⁸ Calvert, Randall L., “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence,” American Journal of Political Science 29 (February 1985), 69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Page, Benjamin I., “The Theory of Political Ambiguity,” American Political Science Re-view 70 (September 1976), 742–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Downs (fn. 31), chaps. 8 and 9. Downs also suggested that ambiguity is prevalent in multiparty systems: “Voters in multiparty systems are indeed faced with definite and well-integrated policy sets, but none of these sets will in fact govern them. Only coalitions can govern, and ambiguity and compromise are introduced on a secondary level whenever coalitions are formed” (p. 155; emphasis added).

⁴⁰ Butler, D. E. and King, Anthony, The British General Election of 1964 (London: Macmillan, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964)Google Scholar. Proponents of a symbolic interpretation of politics often suggest that their approach is incompatible with rational-choice perspectives. For example, Elder, Charles D. and Cobb, Roger W., in The Political Uses of Symbols (New York: Longman, 1983)Google Scholar, argue that the process is neither rational nor irrational, but instead “arational.” Their use of the term is, however, quite unclear. Symbolic interpretations of politics seem perfectly consistent with the idea that political actors (voters, candidates, and others) are selfish utility-maximizers.

⁴² See, e.g., Rae, Douglas W. and others, Equalities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

⁴³ See, e.g., Parkin, Frank, Class Inequality and Political Order (New York: Praeger, 1971)Google Scholar; Jencks, Christopher and others, Inequality (New York: Basic Books, 1972)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ For particularly interesting discussions on this point, see Schaar, John H., “Equality of Opportunity and Beyond,” in Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W., eds., Equality, NOMOS IX (New York: Atherton Press, 1967) 228–49Google Scholar; Dorn, Edwin, Rules and Racial Equality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Key, The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 2Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ On agenda-setting, see Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., Power and Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Downs (fn. 31), chap. 13.

⁴⁸ Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) esp. chaps. 1 and 2Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Edelman (fn. 41), chap. 2.

⁵⁰ Lindblom, Charles E., Politics and Markets: The World's Political-Economic Systems (New York: Basic Books, 1977) chap. 15Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Dahl (fn. 14), 43.

⁵² Ibid., chap. 3.

⁵³ Parkin (fn. 43), 184–85; emphasis added. See also Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society (New York: Basic Books, 1969)Google Scholar. Oddly, Korpi classifies Parkin as an example of “mainstream … pluralist” thought (p. 184), according to which all groups have “roughly equal opportunities to mobilize power” (p. 8).

⁵⁴ Michels, Robert, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (New York: Dover Books, 1958) 391Google Scholar. See also Michels, , “Some Reflections on the Sociological Character of Political Parties,” American Political Science Review 21 (November 1927), 753–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ Michels's conclusion was anticipated to some degree (and in fragmentary form) by Weber's suggestion that parties “are oriented toward the acquisition of social 'power,' that is to say, toward influencing a communal action no matter what its content may be.” Weber, Max, “Class, Status, Party,” in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 180–95, at 194Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Lipset, Political Man (fn. 4), expanded and updated ed. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), 503–21.

⁵⁷ In August 1931, MacDonald dissolved the cabinet and then formed a new National (coalition) cabinet, which lasted from 1931 to 1935. He was expelled from the Labour Party in September 1931. For an account of these events, see, e.g., Pelling, Henry, A Short History of the Labour Party (London: Macmillan, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ For recent examples of suggestions along these lines, see Castles, Francis G. and McKinlay, R. D., “Public Welfare Provision, Scandinavia, and the Sheer Futility of the Sociological Approach to Politics,” British Journal of Political Science 9 (April 1979), 151–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review 49 (December 1984), 726–50, at 729CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ “Spain's New Team Backs Austerity,” New York Times, August 12, 1985, p. 24.

⁶⁰ “A Labour Government Sets Things Right,” The Economist, June 1, 1985, pp. 17–20. The program itself is described by the Hon. Douglas, Roger O., the Minister of Finance, in Statement on Taxation and Benefit Reform 1985 (Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printing Office, August 1985)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ See Sawyer, Malcolm, “Income Distribution in OECD Countries,” OECD Economic Outlook, July 1976, p. 19Google Scholar (Tables 10 and 11). Indeed, the Netherlands is generally counted as one of the welfare-state leaders on a variety of counts; see, for example, Wilensky, Harold L., Luebbert, Gregory M., Hahn, Susan Reed, and Jamieson, Adrienne M., Comparative Social Policy: Theories, Methods, Findings (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, Research Series Monograph No. 62, University of California, 1985), 80Google Scholar.