Abstract: ABSTRACT Who sets the agenda in Soviet politics? Three answers to that question are considered in this review article. According to the totalitarian model, the selection of action goals is the privilege of a relatively autonomous supreme leadership in control of hierarchically structured sub‐systems. The pluralist model, by contrast, is based on the assumption that issues acquire significance through efficient pressures by mobilized group interests. While the totalitarian interpretation emphasizes the active element in the conduct of the supreme leadership, the pluralist model stresses the reactive and reflective ingredients. The bureaucratic model similarly assumes that vertical information flows can to a large extent be controlled from below, but it differs from the pluralist model in that it defines the key political conflicts as tensions among various bureaus. As a theory of fragmentation in large organizations, the bureaucratic model of the Soviet political system may have considerable relevance for the study of Western European government as well.
Publication Year: 1977
Publication Date: 1977-09-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 18
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot