Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T02:37:31.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Structures and Clientelism: The French State Versus the ‘Notaires’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Ezra N. Suleiman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The autonomy of a state is thought to depend on the state's structures. This widely accepted view of the policy-making process has given rise to an uncontested assertion: states that possess centralized administrative structures are better able than decentralized states to formulate and implement policies independently of societal pressures.

Is a decentralized state more permeable than a centralized one? We seek to answer this question by treating it as a hypothesis. The empirical material derives from a case study of a reform project proposed by the French state and objected to by the group in question, the notaires.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 257 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Krasner, Stephen D., ‘Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics’, Comparative Politics, XVI (1984), 223–46, p. 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Skocpol, Theda, ‘Bringing the State Back In: False Leads and Promising Starts in Current Theories and Research’Google Scholar, paper presented at a conference on ‘States and Social Structures’, Mount Kisco, New York, 1982, p. 1.Google Scholar

3 Almond, Gabriel A., ‘Corporatism, Pluralism, and Professional Memory’, World Politics, XXXV, (1983), 245–60, p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Almond, , ‘Corporatism, Pluralism, and Professional Memory’.Google Scholar

5 Easton, David, ‘The Political System Besieged by the State’, Political Theory, IX (1981), 302–25, pp. 321–2.Google Scholar

6 See Krasner, Stephen D., Defending the National Interest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1978).Google Scholar

7 Krasner, , ‘Approaches to the State’, pp. 223–4.Google Scholar It happens that Krasner believes that there has definitely come about a change in substance. This is not a view that is widely shared, as the views of Gabriel Almond and David Easton indicate. A recent survey of changing trends in comparative politics makes no mention of the ‘state’ paradigm. See Inglehart, Ronald, ‘Changing Paradigms in Comparative Political Behavior’, paper presented at the 1982 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, Colorado, 1982.Google Scholar

8 Sec Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

9 Katzenstein, Peter J., ‘International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial Societies’, International Organization, XXX (1976), 1–45, p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Nordlinger, Eric, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 1.Google Scholar

11 See McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966).Google Scholar

12 Greenstone, J. David, ‘The Public, the Private, and American Democracy: Reflections on Grant McConnell's Political Science’, in Greenstone, J. David, ed., Public Values and Private Power in American Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. x.Google Scholar

13 This theme is treated more fully in my Privale Power and Centralization in France (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).

14 The Administration of Justice Act of 1985 removes the conveyancing monopoly of solicitors.

15 Hurson, R., Etude sur une organisation du notariat en France (Paris: A. Chevalier-Marescqe (1984), p. 11.Google Scholar

16 Saint-Hilaire, A. Jeannest, Du Notariat et des offices (Paris: Durand, 1858), p. 209.Google Scholar

17 Hilaire, Saint, Du Notariat et des offices, p. 209.Google Scholar

18 Saint-Hilaire, , Du Notariat et des offices, p. 240.Google Scholar

19 Saint-Hilaire, , Du Notariat et des offices, p. 245.Google Scholar

20 Saint-Hilaire, , Du Notariat et des offices, p. 210.Google Scholar

21 Letter of Henri Chardon, President of the Conseil Supérieur du Notariat, to Robert Badinter, Minister of Justice, VIP, 83/8 (12 1983).Google Scholar

22 Terre, François, ‘Haro sur les officiers ministériels’, Le Figaro, 14–15 01 1984.Google Scholar

23 Figaro-Magazine, 26 05 1984, p. 130.Google Scholar In his address before the Congress of Notaires two days later, Robert Badinter expressed his bitterness at Chardon's remarks.

24 Selznick, Philip, TVA and the Grassroots (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1966).Google Scholar

25 Entretien du 5 janvier 1983 à la Chancellerie (CSN), p. 5.

26 Intervention du President Chardon, Entretien du 2 fevrier 1983 à la Chancellerie (CSN), pp. 5–6.

27 Cordier, Michel, ‘Le Controle de la profession,’Google Scholar Entretien du 20 Janvier 1983 à la Chancellerie (CSN), p. 3.

28 ‘Réforme de la tarification des notaires’, Ministry of Finance, 1979, p. 1.Google Scholar

29 ‘Réforme de la tarification des notaires’, p. 3.Google Scholar

30 ‘Reforme de la tarification des notaires’, p. 3.Google Scholar

31 Worms, Jean-Pierre, ‘Le Préfet et ses notables’, Sociologie du travail, VIII (1966), 249–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Chardon, Henri, ‘Allocution au Congrès des Notaires de France’Google Scholar, Versailles, , 28 05 1984, p. 23.Google Scholar

33 Chardon, , ‘Allocution au Congrès des Notaires de France’, p. 15.Google Scholar

34 Lentner, Howard, ‘The Concept of the State: A Response to Stephen Krasner’, Comparative Politics, XVI (1984), 367–77, p. 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 See Nathan, Richard P., ‘The Reagan Presidency in Domestic Affairs’, in Greenstein, Fred I., ed., The Reagan Presidency: An Early Assessment (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Prsss, 1983), pp. 48–81.Google Scholar

36 Selznick, , TVA and the Grassroots.Google Scholar

37 McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966).Google Scholar

38 See Padioleau, Jean G., L'Etat au concret (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1982)Google Scholar and Quand la France s'enferre (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1981)Google Scholar; Ashford, Douglas, Policy and Politics in France: Living with Uncertainty (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

39 See Worms, , ‘Le Préfet et ses notables’Google Scholar; Rondin, Jacques, Le Sacré des notables (Paris: Fayard, 1985).Google Scholar

40 See Feldman, Elliot J., Concorde and Dissent: Explaining High Technology Project Failures in Britain and France (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

41 Feigenbaum, Harvey B., The Politics of Public Enterprise: Oil and the French State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 See Keeler, John T. S., ‘Agricultural Reform in Mitterrand's France’, in Ambler, John, ed., The French Socialist Experiment (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1985), pp. 60–92.Google Scholar

43 Jeanneney, Jean-Noel, Echec à Panurge: L'audiovisuel public au service de la difference (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1986).Google Scholar See also, Rubsamen, Valerie, ‘The Media and the State in France’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1987.Google Scholar

44 That even as committed a statist as Theda Skocpol can slip into using the terms ‘government’ and ‘state’ in an interchangeable way shows how difficult is both the analytical and practical distinction between them. ‘Government itself was not taken very seriously as an independent actor, and in comparative research, variations in governmental organizations were deemed less significant than the general “functions” shared by the political systems of all societies.’ See Skocpol, Theda, ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,’ in Evans, Peter, Ruesche-meyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds, Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 4.Google Scholar

45 See Birnbaum, Pierre, La Logique de l'Etat (Paris: Fayard, 1982).Google Scholar

46 The state bureaucracy has always preferred to interact with more powerful private groups, considering them more representative, and hence, more legitimate. See Suleiman, Ezra N., Politics, Power and Bureaucracy in France (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 337–45.Google Scholar