Democracy, Professions and Societal Constitutionalism

  • David Sciulli
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

The entire early sociology of professions, from its founding in the 1930s to the end of functionalists' domination of this subfield, in the late 1970s, revolved around two central premises. One was that professions are unique among occupations in the economy and their associations are unique among intermediary associations in civil society or, on the Continent, among direct or indirect agencies of the state. The other premise was that the presence of professions and their associations uniquely helps to establish and consolidate an advanced democracy. Quite remarkably, however, this insight at a conceptual level in the literature of professions was never brought centrally, by Talcott Parsons or anyone else, into the literature of comparative politics. Subsequently, following the eclipse of functionalism in this subfield, the putative connection between professions and democratic quality largely dropped out of sight in the professions literature.


Civil Society Liberal Democracy Threshold Standard Constitutional Court Democratic Consolidation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alford, R.R, & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative political systems. Journal of Politics, 18(3),391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andeweg, R. B. (2000). Consociational democracy. Annual Review of Political Science,3, 509–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armony, A. C., & Schamis, H.E. (2005). Babel in democratization studies. Journal of Democracy, 16(4), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, B (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beetham, D. (2004). Towards a universal framework for democracy assessment. Democratization, 11(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, D. (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  9. Bobbio, N. (1987). The future of democracy: A defense of the rules of the game. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burrage, M., & Torstendahl, R (Eds). (1990). Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the study of the professions. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Burstein, P. (1981). The sociology of democratic politics and government. Annual Review of Sociology7, 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciobanu, M. (2009). The end of the democratic transition? Analyzing the quality of democracy in post-communism. Comparative Sociology8(1), Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Collier, D. (1995). Trajectory of a concept: ‘Corporatism’ in the study of Latin American politics. In P.H. Smith (Ed)., Latin America in comparative perspective: New approaches to method and analysis. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collier, D. & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3),430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collier, D. & Adcock, R. (1999). Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, A. (1981). Corporatism as reductionism: The analytic limits of the corporatist thesis. Government and Opposition, 16(1),78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crozier, M., Huntington, S.P., & Watanuki, J. (1975). The crisis of democracy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl, R. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy v control. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dalton, R. J. (2002). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies, 3d ed. New York: Chatham House/Seven Bridges.Google Scholar
  20. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Diamond, L. 2002. Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). An overview [of issue on Democratic Quality]. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dogan, M. (Ed). (1988). Comparing pluralist democracies: Strains on legitimacy. Boulder CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  24. Duverger, M. (1959). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen. Trans. Barbara and Robert North.Google Scholar
  25. Esping-Anderson, G. (1985). Politics against markets: The social democratic road to power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Faundez, J. (2005). Democratization through law: Perspectives from Latin America. Democratization, 12(5),749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedrich, C. J. (1941). Constitutional government and democracy: Theory and practice in Europe and America. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  28. Friedrich, C. J. (1963). Man and his government: An empirical study of politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Fulcher, J. (1987). Labour movement theory versus corporatism: Social democracy in Sweden. Sociology, 21(2), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuller, L. L. (1964/1969) 1975. The morality of law, rev. ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gasiorowski, M. J. (1996). An overview of the political regime change dataset. Comparative Political Studies, 29(4), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrison, R. H. (1980). Pluralism and corporatism: The political evolution of modern democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Karl, T. L. (2004). Latin America: Virtuous or perverse cycle. In O'Donnell, G., Cullell, J.V., & Iazzetta, O.M. (Eds.), The quality of Democracy: Theory and applications(pp. 187–195). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A, & Mastruzzi, M. (2003). Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996–2002. Washington D.C.: World Bank Policy Research Working Papers 3106 govdata2002.
  39. Levitsky, S., & Way, L.A. (2005). International linkage and democratization. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lijphart, A. (1968). Typologies of democratic systems. Comparative Political Studies,1(1), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Linz, J. J. (1973). The Future of an authoritarian situation or the institutionalization of an authoritarian regime: The case of Brazil. In Alfred Stepan (Ed.), Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, policies, future. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Linz, J. J. (1975). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.” In Greenstein, F.I., & Polsby, N.W. (Eds.), Handbook of political science, vol. 3 (pp. 175–411). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  44. Linz, J. J. (1978). Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration.” In Linz, and Alfred Stepan, A. (Eds.), The breakdown of democratic regimes(pp. 3–124). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Linz, J. J. & Stepan, A. (Eds.). 1978. The breakdown of democratic regimes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Linz, J. J. m & Stepan, A (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and postcommunist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lipset, S.M. (1960/1963). Political man: The social bases of politics. Garden City NJ: Anchor.Google Scholar
  48. Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy and the crisis of public authority. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  49. Lowi, T. J. (1995). The end of the republican era. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  50. Malloy, J. M. (Ed.). (1977). Authoritarianism and corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  51. Manzetti, L., & Wilson, C.J. (2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support? Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merkel, W., & Croissant, A. (2000). Formal institutions and informal rules in defective democracies. Central European Political Science Review,1(2), 31–48.Google Scholar
  54. Merkel, W., & Kruck, M. (2004). Social justice and democracy: Investigating the link. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (International Politics and Society), 7(1),134–58.Google Scholar
  55. Miliband, R. (1982). Capitalist democracy in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Molina, O., & Rhodes, M. (2002). Corporatism: The past, present and future of a concept. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 305–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morlino, L. (2004). What is a ‘good’ democracy? Democratization, 11(5), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morlino, L. (2005). Anchors and democratic change. Comparative Political Studies,38(7), 743–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Munck, G. L. (2001). The regime question: Theory building in democracy studies. World Politics, 54(1), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O'Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American politics. Institute of International Studies, Politics of Modernization Series, no. 9. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  61. O'Donnell, G. (1992). Transitions, continuities and paradoxes. In Mainwaring, S., O'Donnell, G., & Valenzuela, J.S. (Eds.), Issues in democratic consolidation: The New South American democracies in comparative perspective(pp. 17–56). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  62. O'Donnell, G. (1998). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O'Donnell, G. (2001). Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Studies in Comparative International Development,36(1), 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O'Donnell, G. (2004a). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O'Donnell, G. (2004b). Human development, human rights, and democracy. In O'Donnell, G., Cullell, J.V., & Iazzetta, O.M. (Eds.), The quality of democracy: Theory and applications(pp. 9–92). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  66. O'Donnell, G., Schmitter, P.C., & Whitehead, L. (Eds.). 1986. Transitions from authoritarian rule: Prospects for democracy, 4 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Panitch, L. (1980). Recent theoretizations of corporatism: Reflections on a growth industry. British Journal of Sociology, 31(2), 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perez-Diaz, V. M. (1993). The return of civil society: The emergence of democratic Spain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Przeworski, A. (1985). Capitalism and social democracy. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raz, Joseph. (1977) 1979. The rule of law and its virtue. In The authority of law: Essays on law and morality(pp. 210–229). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rohrschneider, R. (2005). Institutional quality and perceptions of representation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 38(7), 850–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sartori, G. (1966). European political parties: The case of polarized pluralism. In Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner (eds). Political parties and political development(pp. 137–176). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sartori, G (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  74. Schedler, S. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schedler, S (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In Schedler, S., Diamond, L., & Plattner, M.F. (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies(pp. 13–28). Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  76. Schmitter, P. C. (1971). Interest conflict and political change in Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Schmitter, P. C (1974). Still the Century of Corporatism? In Pike, F.B., & Stritch, T. (Eds.), The new corporatism: Social-political structures in the Iberian world(pp. 85–131). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  78. Schmitter, P. C (1979). Modes of interest intermediation and models of societal change in Western Europe. In Schmitter, P.C., & Lehmbruch, G. (Eds.), Trends toward corporatist intermediation(pp. 63–94). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Schmitter, P. C. (1981). Interest intermediation and regime governability in contemporary Western Europe and North America. In Berger, S. (Ed.), Organizing interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, corporatism, and the transformation of politics(pp. 285–327). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Schmitter, P. C. (1982). Reflections on where the theory of neo-corporatism has gone and where the praxis of neo-corporatism may be going. In Lehmbruch, G., & Schmitter, P.C. (Eds.), Patterns of corporatist policy-making(pp. 259–279). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Schmitter, P. C. (1983). Democratic theory and neocorporatist practice. Social Research, 50(4), 885–928.Google Scholar
  82. Schmitter, P. C. (1992). The consolidation of democracy and the representation of social groups. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 422–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmitter, P. C. (1995/1996). More liberal, preliberal, or postliberal? In Diamond, L., & Plattner, M.F. (Eds), The global resurgence of democracy(pp. 328–335). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Schmitter, P. C. (1996). Organized interests and democratic consolidation in Southern Europe. In Gunther, R., Dia-mandouros, P.N., & Puhle, H-J (Eds.), The politics of democratic consolidation: Southern Europe in comparative perspective(pp. 284–314). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Schmitter, P.C., & Karl, T.L. (1991/1996). What democracy is and is not. In Diamond, L., & Plattner, M.F. (Eds.), The global resurgence of democracy(pp. 49–62). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Schneider, C. Q., & Schmitter, P.C. (2004). Liberalization, transition and consolidation: Measuring the components of democratization. Democratization, 11(5), 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sciulli, D. (1992). Theory of societal constitutionalism: Foundations of a non-Marxist critical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sciulli, D. (2005). Continental sociology of professions today: conceptual contributions. Current Sociology,53(6), 915–942 [with comments by Rolf Torstendahl (Uppsala) and Maria Malatesta (Bologna) and rejoinder by Sciulli, to page 958].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shapiro, S. P. (2003). Bushwacking the ethical high road: Conflict of interest in the practice of law and real life. Law and Social Inquiry,28(1), 87–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sklar, R. L. (1987). Developmental democracy. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 29 (4), 686–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sklar, R. L. (1996). Towards a theory of developmental democracy.” In Leftwich, A. (Ed.), Democracy and development: Theory and practice(pp. 25–44). Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  92. Smulovitz, C., & Peruzzotti, E. (2000). Societal accountability in Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Stepan, A. (1971). The military in politics: Changing patterns in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Storm, L. (2008). An elemental definition of democracy and its advantages for comparing political regime types. Democratization, 15(2), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Summers, R. S. (1984). Lon L. Fuller. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Radicals in robes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  96. Teubner, G. (2004). Societal constitutionalism: Alternatives to state-centered constitutional theory? In Joerges, C., Sand, I-J., & Teubner, G. (Eds.), Constitutionalism and transnational governance(pp. 3–38). London: Hart.Google Scholar
  97. Therborn, G. (1977). The rule of capital and the rise of democracy. New Left Review, 103, 3–41.Google Scholar
  98. Torstendahl, R., & Burrage, M. (Eds.), (1990). The formation of professions: knowledge, state and strategy. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  99. Uprimny, R., & Garcia-Villegas, M. (2005). The constitutional court and social emancipation in Colombia. In Sousa Santos, B (Ed.), Democratizing democracy: Beyond the liberal democratic canon(pp. 66–100). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  100. Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Whitehead, L. (2004). Notes on human development, human rights and auditing the quality of democracy. In O'Donnell, G., Cullell, J.V., & Iazzetta, O.M. (Eds.), The quality of democracy: Theory and applications(pp. 176–186). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  102. Wigell, M. (2008). Mapping ‘hybrid regimes:’ Regime types and concepts in comparative politics. Democratization, 15(2), 230–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Sciulli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations