ABSTRACT

The study of political elites has a long tradition in political science. Because this kind of study has been subjected to reasonable criticism, as being descriptive and elitist, it has lost momentum in the post-war period. Since the mid-1970s, however, it has re-surfaced as a comparative study of bureaucratic, parliamentary and ministerial elites (Dogan 1975; Putnam 1973, 1976; Aberbach, Putnam and Rockman 1981; Czudnowski 1983). Since the late 1980s, there has been a revival of the study of political elites in connection with successive waves of democratization in southern Europe, Latin America and eastern Europe (Burton and Higley 1987; Higley and Gunther 1992; Eyal, Szelenyi and Townsley 2000). But if there have been so many similar previous studies, some of which have debatable explanatory potential, why study political elites again? Indeed, the study of elites offers a static view of society and a circumscribed view of politics, limited to the attitudes of people at the top of the political system. However, given the increasing importance of the executive branch of government throughout the twentieth century and the preponderance of the state in southern Europe, the study of social background characteristics, credentials, professional origins and career pathways of ministers constitute a first step toward explaining who holds political power, how and why.