from additional conceptual and analytical
tools. In some measure the situation is reminiscent of that found by
analysts of the Soviet Union in the 1960s, when increasingly the totalitarian model seemed inadequate to many as an explanatory framework
for a modern state with an educated society. New approaches were
introduced, such as corporatism, convergence theory, and the ‘monoorganisational society’.14 The interest group analysis developed by
Gordon Skilling and colleagues in the early 1970s is most akin to our
work here, not because of any similarity in subject or
(Kerkvliet 2003 , 30) distinguishes the ‘dominating
state’ interpretation, which locates decision-making within the top
party echelons, from ‘mobilisational corporatism’, which accords
greater significance to the influence of mass organisations in managing
people’s relations with authority. A third, ‘dialogic’
approach places less emphasis on state capacity and points to the gaps in
state control enabling considerable local
–1922 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979),
pp. 42 and 148.
83 Carole Fink, ‘1922–23 From Illusion to Disillusion’, in Petriciolli (ed.), A Missed
Opportunity?, p. 15.
84 Jon Jacobson, Locarno Diplomacy: Germany and the West, 1925–1929
(Princeton University Press, 1972); Asquith to Cecil, 19 October 1922, Cecil
Papers, Ms. 51073.
85 The most significant writer in this school for our purposes is Michael J. Hogan,
whose path-breaking writings on ‘corporatism’ will be explored further in
Chapter 7. His main work on the inter-war period is Informal Entente: The
Private Structure of
Chalmers , Douglas. ( 1977 ),
‘ The Politicized State in Latin
America ’, in James
(ed.), Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin
America , Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh
Press , 23–45 .
A. ( 1971 ), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition