Question

A person who believes many groups healthily compete for access to decision-makers

Answer 1

The belief that many groups compete for access to decision-makers is associated with the concept of pluralism in political science, suggesting a diverse representation of interests in democracy.

Step-by-step explanation:

A person who believes many groups healthily compete for access to decision-makers can be associated with the concept of pluralism in political science. This perspective contends that such competition among diverse interests is beneficial for democracy and fosters representative governance. Pluralists like David Truman posit that people naturally form groups which then compete to influence policymakers, enabling a diverse range of interests to be heard and considered. Robert Dahl, another supporter of pluralism, argues that this competition allows for all 'active and legitimate groups' to make themselves known in political processes.

However, there is also an acknowledgment of the dominance of certain interests such as businesses and the wealthy, highlighting the potential for imbalances in representation. Elite critiques suggest these advantaged groups are overrepresented due to their resources which include the ability to employ lobbyists and make financial contributions to politicians. Neopluralist scholars recognize that while some interests, due to their resources, are in a privileged position, they do not always get what they want as their influence is conditioned by factors like public opinion and the mobilization of opposing interests.

Answer 2

Pluralists believe in healthy competition among diverse interests for access to policymakers, contributing positively to democracy. However, elite critics argue that wealthier interests have a disproportionate influence, while neopluralists see this influence as conditional upon multiple factors.

Step-by-step explanation:

A person who believes that many groups healthily compete for access to decision-makers is often described as a pluralist. Pluralist thinkers, such as David Truman, posit that this competition among diverse interests is beneficial to democracy. The theory suggests that it can enhance the democratic process by ensuring various groups have the potential to influence policy and access decision-making platforms. This is contrasted by the elite critique, which argues that wealthy and business interests have disproportionate influence, gaining easier access to decision-makers due to their resources and ability to overcome collective action problems as noted by Mancur Olson.