ABSTRACT
Let’s consider, to begin with, his argument about the necessity of corporatecontrolled, private enterprise economies for polyarchies. Lindblom points out that all existing polyarchal systems-that is, once again, all actually existing representative democracies-are associated with “market-oriented” economic systems. In 1977, when Lindblom’s book was published, there were no examples that combined polyarchal politics with centrally planned economies,1 and more than thirty years aer that date that continues to be the case. On the other hand, Lindblom also notes that in 1977 a majority of market-oriented economies were combined with authoritarian, non-polyarchal governmental systems.2 Since 1977 many of the examples of this combination that he cites-Spain, Portugal, and most of Latin America-have been transformed from authoritarian governments into polyarchies, but “non-communist Asia” is still market oriented but largely authoritarian, and some formerly (so-called) communist societies such as Russia and perhaps even China have been transformed into market economies but have retained an authoritarian political system. So it remains the case today that there are many combinations of market economies and non-polyarchal political systems, even as it is still true that there are no polyarchal systems that are not market oriented. Wherever there are polyar-
chies there are market economies associated with them, but wherever there are market economies there may or may not be polyarchies connected with them. A private-enterprise, market economy, in others words, is necessary but not sufficient for polyarchy.
