sociolpolitolВестник Московского университета. Серия 18. Социология и политологияMoscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science1029-37362541-8769Publishing House of Lomonosov Moscow State University10.24290/1029-3736-2014-0-4-109-121sociolpolitol-58Research ArticleСОЦИОЛОГИЯ ПОЛИТИКИSOCIOLOGY OF POLITICSЭволюция и современное состояние теории групп интересовThe evolution and present state of the theory of interest groupsКаневскийПавел СергеевичKanevskiyP. S.baggio-18@yandex.ruМГУ имени М.В. ЛомоносоваRussian Federation20140112201404109121Copyright © Каневский П.С., 20142014Каневский П.С.Kanevskiy P.S.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://vestnik.socio.msu.ru/jour/article/view/58

Представителей группового подхода объединяет точка зрения, что в обществе существует множество каналов выражения групповых интересов, которые постоянно вступают друг с другом в конфликт и конкуренцию за право доступа к центрам принятия решений. Однако если внимательнее посмотреть на эволюцию и особенности теории групп интересов, то выяснится, что данная школа вовсе не является однородной.

Interest groups theory holds a remarkable place in the subject of the political sociology. Evolving through multiple methodological disputes it finally became of the cores for study of the political process and decision making. Wherein, among some other political-sociological sub-disciplines, interest groups theory keeps progressing in the XXI century. This article is dedicated to analyses of different approaches for interest groups research and current state of the theory.

групповой подходтеория плюрализматеория групп интересовinterest groupadvocacy groupdecision makingpolitical networkpolitical elitepluralismdemocracyneopluralismelite pluralismcollective actionReferencesАрсюхин Е. “Кустарная” доля американского бизнеса // Российская Бизнес-газета. 2007. 6 марта. № 594.Арсюхин Е. “Кустарная” доля американского бизнеса // Российская Бизнес-газета. 2007. 6 марта. № 594.Ашин Г.К. Дискуссии о структуре власти и структуре элит в США // Общественные науки и современность. 2001. № 1.Ашин Г.К. Дискуссии о структуре власти и структуре элит в США // Общественные науки и современность. 2001. № 1.Олсон М. Логика коллективных действий: общественные блага и теория групп. М., 1995.Олсон М. Логика коллективных действий: общественные блага и теория групп. М., 1995.Bosso C. Rethinking the concept of membership in nature advocacy organizations // Policy Studies J. 2003. Vol. 31. N 3.Bosso C. Rethinking the concept of membership in nature advocacy organizations // Policy Studies J. 2003. Vol. 31. N 3.Brownlee W.E. Funding the modern American State, 1941-1995: the rise and fall of the era of easy finance. Cambridge, 2003.Brownlee W.E. Funding the modern American State, 1941-1995: the rise and fall of the era of easy finance. Cambridge, 2003.Dahl R. Who governs? Democracy & power in an American city. New Haven, 1961.Dahl R. Who governs? Democracy & power in an American city. New Haven, 1961.Domhoff W. State autonomy or class dominance? Case studies on policy making in America. N.Y., 1993.Domhoff W. State autonomy or class dominance? Case studies on policy making in America. N.Y., 1993.Facebook and Microsoft help fund rightwing lobby network, report finds // Guardian. 2013.14.11. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/facebook-microsoft-rightwing-lobby-network-spnFacebook and Microsoft help fund rightwing lobby network, report finds // Guardian. 2013.14.11. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/facebook-microsoft-rightwing-lobby-network-spnHeclo H. Issue networks and the executive establishment // The New American Political System / Ed. by E. King. Washington, 1978.Heclo H. Issue networks and the executive establishment // The New American Political System / Ed. by E. King. Washington, 1978.LaVaque-Manty M. Bentley, Truman, and the study of groups // Annual Rev. of Political Science. 2006. N 9.LaVaque-Manty M. Bentley, Truman, and the study of groups // Annual Rev. of Political Science. 2006. N 9.Lowery D. A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests // Political Research Quarterly. 2004. March.Lowery D. A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests // Political Research Quarterly. 2004. March.Lowi T. American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory // World Politics. 1964. Vol. 16. N 4.Lowi T. American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory // World Politics. 1964. Vol. 16. N 4.Rhodes R.A.W., Marsh D. Policy networks in British government. Oxford, 1992.Rhodes R.A.W., Marsh D. Policy networks in British government. Oxford, 1992.Sabatier P.A., Jenkins-Smith H.C. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach (theoretical lenses on public policy). Colorado, 1993.Sabatier P.A., Jenkins-Smith H.C. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach (theoretical lenses on public policy). Colorado, 1993.Schattschneider E. Party government. N.Y., 1977.Schattschneider E. Party government. N.Y., 1977.Thompson W., Hickey J. Society in focus. Boston, 2005.Thompson W., Hickey J. Society in focus. Boston, 2005.Truman D.The governmental process. N.Y., 1953.Truman D.The governmental process. N.Y., 1953.Walker J. Mobilizing interest groups in America: patrons, professions, and social movements. Michigan, 1991.Walker J. Mobilizing interest groups in America: patrons, professions, and social movements. Michigan, 1991.Womersley D. Liberty and American experience in the eighteenth century. Indianapolis, 2006.Womersley D. Liberty and American experience in the eighteenth century. Indianapolis, 2006.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.