Corporatism versus Pluralism and Authoritarianism as Association Contexts

  • Howard J. Wiarda
  • Paul Adams
  • LAM Wai-man
  • Dwight Wilson


We tend to assume, sometimes even by definition, that civil society as it emerges will be liberal, pluralistic, and democratic. Civil society is often assumed to be non-bureaucratic, independent from the state, a force for social justice and reform. But liberal or pluralistic civil society is only one form of civil society. There are also authoritarian, corporatist, and totalitarian forms in which the state, in varying degrees, creates, structures, licenses, moderates, and controls civil society (Cavatorta 2012). There is nothing automatic or inevitable about democratic-pluralist civil society. Civil society can and does exist in a variety of forms related to levels of socio-economic development, world region, culture, and institutions. In this chapter, following a theoretical introduction by the lead author, co-authors explore the variety of civil society structures and state–society relations in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Of particular interest are the recent efforts of regimes in China, Egypt, and Russia to impose limits on civil society groups and activities. The authors close with suggestions for studying the wide variety of civil society arrangements under multiple regime types.


Civil Society Communist Party Civil Liberty Voluntary Association Fourteenth Amendment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aarts, Paul, and Francesco Cavatorta. 2012. Civil Society in Syria and Iran: Activism in Authoritarian Contexts. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Paul S. 2002. “Corporatism and Comparative Politics: A New Century of Corporatism?” Pp. 17–44 in New Directions in Comparative Politics, 3rd edition, edited by H. J. Wiarda. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Anek, Laothamatas. 1988. “Business and Politics in Thailand: New Patterns of Influence.” Asian Survey 28 (4):451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakti, Andi Faisal. 2000. Good Governance and Conflict Resolution in Indonesia: From Authoritarian Government to Civil Society. Jakarta, Indonesia: IAIN Jakarta Press and Logos Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Beckman, Bjorn, Eva Hansson, Anders Sjgoren, and Sara Rich-Dorman. 2001. Civil Society and Authoritarianism in the Third World: A Conference Book. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, Suzanne. 1981. Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism, and the Transformation of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard, Michael H., and Ekrem Karakoç. 2007. “Civil Society and the Legacies of Dictatorship.” World Politics 59:539–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bischof, Günter, and Anton Pelinka. 1996. Austro-Corporatism: Past, Present, Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, Jo-Marie. 2010. Political Violence and the Authoritarian State in Peru: Silencing Civil Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Cavatorta, Francesco. 2012. Civil Society Activism under Authoritarian Rule: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chalmers, Douglas A. 1988. “Corporatism and Comparative Politics.” Pp. 134–158 in Comparative Politics in the Post-Behavioral Era, edited by L. J. Cantori and A. H. Ziegler. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  12. Collier, David. 1995. “Trajectory of a Concept: ‘Corporatism’ in the Study of Latin American Politics.” Pp. 135–162 in Latin America in Comparative Perspective, edited by P. H. Smith. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  13. Dealy, Glen Caudill. 1974. “The Tradition of Monistic Democracy in Latin America.” Journal of the History of Ideas 35:625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedrich, Carl J., and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 1956. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hampton, Andrea Fehr. 2005. “Unlocking the Hegemonic Power of ‘The People’s Democratic Dictatorship’: An Analysis of Civil Society and the State in the PRC.” China Report 41(3):253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock, M. Donald. 1989. West Germany: The Politics of Democratic Corporatism. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  17. Heurlin, Christopher. 2010. “Governing Civil Society: The Political Logic of NGO-State Relations Under Dictatorship.” Voluntas 21:220–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jomos, K. S. N. D. State Intervention, Corporate Governance and Industrial Relations in Malaysia. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
  19. Katzenstein, Peter J. 1984. Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, Taekyoon. 2008. “Variants of Corporatist Governance: Differences in the Korean and Japanese Approaches in Dealing with Labor.” Yale Journal of International Affairs 3:83–85.Google Scholar
  21. Linz, Juan. 1964. “An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain.” Pp. 291–342 in Cleavages, Ideologies, and Parties, edited by J. Linz, E. Allard and Y. Littuneu. Helsinki: Westermarck Society.Google Scholar
  22. Lorch, Jasmin. 2006. “Civil Society under Authoritarian Rule: The Case of Myanmar.” Sudostasien Aktuell 65(2):3–37.Google Scholar
  23. Lowry, Cameron. 2008. Civil Society Engagement in Asia: Six Country Profiles. Honolulu: East-West Centre.Google Scholar
  24. Maisrikrod, Surin. 2008. “Civil Society, Accountability, and Governance in Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory Democracy.” Pp. 97–116 in Globalization and its Counterforces in Southeast Asia, edited by T. Chong. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian StudiesGoogle Scholar
  25. Malloy, James M. 1976. “Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern.” Pp. 3–22 in Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America, edited by J. M. Malloy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  26. Morck, Randall K., and Bernard Yeung. 2010. “Corporatism and the Ghost of the Third Way.” Capitalism and Society 5(3):1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morse, Richard M. 1964. “The Heritage of Latin America.” Pp. 123–177 in The Founding of New Societies, edited by L. Hartz. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Google Scholar
  28. Newton, Ronald C. 1970. “On ‘Functional Groups,’ ‘Fragmentation,’ and ‘Pluralism’ in Spanish American Political Society.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 50: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newton, Ronald C. 1974. “Natural Corporatism and the Passing of Populism in Spanish America.” The Review of Politics 36:34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norton, Augustus R. 2001. Civil Society in the Middle East. New York: Brill.Google Scholar
  31. Park, Soyang. 2010. “Inoperative Community in Post-Authoritarian South Korea: Football Fandom, Political Mobilization and Civil Society.” Journal for Cultural Research 14:197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pike, Frederick, and Thomas Stritch eds. 1974. The New Corporation: Social-Political Structures in the Iberian World. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Quadir, Fahimul. 2003. “How ‘Civil’ Is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Partisan Civil Society, and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies 24:425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rock, Michael T. 2002. “Exploring the Impact of Selective Interventions in Agriculture on the Growth of Manufactures in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.” Journal of International Development 14(4):485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodan, Garry. 2003. “Embracing Electronic Media but Suppressing Civil Society: Authoritarian Consolidation in Singapore.” The Pacific Review 16:503–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1974. “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics 36:85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartz, Frank J. 2003. “Introduction: Recognizing Civil Society in Japan.” Pp. 1–22 in The State of Civil Society in Japan, edited by F. J. Schwartz and S. J. Pharr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spires, Anthony J. 2011. “Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs.” American Journal of Sociology 117:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stauffer, Robert B. 1977. “Philippine Corporatism: A Note on the ‘New Society’.” Asian Survey 17(4):393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Unger, Jonathan, and Anita Chan. 1995. “China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model.” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 33:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valiente, Celia. 2012. “Civil Society, Dictatorship and Democracy.” South European Society and Politics 17:109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vasu, Norman. 2012. “Governance Through Difference in Singapore: Corporatism’s Composition, Characteristics, and Complications.” Asian Survey 52(4):734–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker, J. A. 1999. “Civil Society, the Challenge to the Authoritarian State, and the Consolidation of Democracy in Nigeria.” A Journal of Opinion 27:54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiarda, Howard J. 1997. Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great Ism. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  45. Wiarda, Howard J. 2003. The Soul of Latin America: The Cultural and Political Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wiarda, Howard J. 2012. Civil Society: The American Model and Third World Development. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  47. Worboys, K. 2006. “Letting in the Light: The Emergence of an Information-Based Civil Society in Post Dictatorship Argentina, 1984–2004.” History of Education Review 35:58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard J. Wiarda
    • 1
  • Paul Adams
    • 2
  • LAM Wai-man
    • 3
  • Dwight Wilson
    • 4
  1. 1.USA
  2. 2.USA
  3. 3.China
  4. 4.USA

Personalised recommendations