Similarities and Differences between Dominance and Pluralistic Economy
The United States economy can be explained in terms of dominance and pluralistic perspective. Pluralistic economy involves a society based on multiple centers of power hence it is a liberalism economy (Davis, 2006). In dominance economy, managers of large organizations inevitably control greater part of the economy. In addition, classes of property owners govern the economic policies and activities in the society (Mills, 1999).
Pluralism system shows that there is no class or a group of elites in the economy that has a dominate power. In this respect, there are no large disparities in wealth and power because they are dispersed among various groups in the society. Therefore, in pluralism system, there is no hierarchy, however, oligarchy exists (Davis, 2006). Most notably, various groups in the society have power on different issues.
Moreover, pluralistic economy is based on free-market economy. Political leaders contest for votes through an electoral process in the same way that capitalist contest for buyers in the market. Further, the market systems give the consumers sovereignty and freedom over the capitalists (Davis, 2006). Most notably, the government is neutral in case of conflicts between the consumers and owners (Mills, 1999). Therefore, the administration has no integral interest in the relationship hence it can arbitrate in case of competing interests.
In dominance, a social class controls the economic and political power. Besides, a lot of taxes and credits are also born by the class of powerful individuals (Ver Eecke, 2008). They also control media such as television and radio. Consequently, the classes of individuals are able to enter politics and formulate favorable policies (Davis, 2006). The policies serve to protect their interest and as insurance pact for the high social class at the expense of the exploited class.
Moreover, leaders of big bureaucratic organizations also dominate the economy. It put less focus on class conflict than it is necessary (Mills, 1999). Therefore, it does not fully appreciate the level in which company owners and managers govern other managers of small institutions (Davis, 2006). For instance, the majority of elected officers within the political arena depends on the wealthy individuals and leaders of various companies for the