Breaking down the question
The question has a descriptive part and an evaluative part. First, what are the theoretical models of societal power — which asks you to lay out the main sociological accounts of how power is distributed: the pluralist, the elite and the Marxist, at least. Second, which one is most applicable in advanced industrial societies — which demands a reasoned judgement, defended with argument and evidence, not a bare assertion.
The trap is to describe the three models and then pick one arbitrarily. The examiner wants the choice argued: why the favoured model fits the concentrated corporate and bureaucratic character of advanced industrial society better than its rivals. A candidate may legitimately choose the elite or the Marxist model; what matters is the reasoning.
Threads to develop:
- Pluralism — power dispersed among competing groups.
- Elite theory — power concentrated in a cohesive minority.
- Marxist theory — power rooted in ownership of the means of production.
- A defended verdict on advanced industrial societies.
How to approach it
Begin by framing power as the capacity to shape collective decisions, then set out the three principal models in turn, each with its leading exponent and its picture of how power is distributed. Keep the exposition crisp so that space remains for the evaluation.
Then argue the second part. Weigh the models against the observable features of advanced industrial societies — concentrated corporate ownership, a powerful state bureaucracy, mass media, and the apparent but limited reach of democratic competition. Build a case that the elite or ruling-class models capture the concentration of real power better than pluralism, while conceding what pluralism rightly sees. Anchor the discussion in the note on the sociological theories of power.
Close with a clear, defended judgement.
Model answer
Power — the capacity of an actor or group to shape collective decisions and to prevail even against opposition — is distributed very differently according to rival sociological models. Three dominate the field.
The pluralist model, associated with Robert Dahl, holds that power in a democracy is dispersed. No single group monopolises it; rather, many organised interests — business, labour, professions, associations — compete and bargain, and the state acts as a broker among them. Power is fragmented across issues, so that a group influential in one arena is checked in another. Dahl's study of New Haven concluded that decision-making was open and shared. Pluralism thus presents advanced democracies as genuinely responsive to a plurality of voices.
The elite model reverses this. Following Pareto, Mosca and above all C. Wright Mills, it argues that in every society power is concentrated in a cohesive minority. In Mills's account of the United States, a power elite drawn from the commanding heights of the corporate economy, the executive government and the military forms an interlocking directorate that takes the decisions of national consequence, while the wider public is reduced to a passive mass and the legislature to a middle level of power. Elite theory insists that organisation and resources inevitably favour the few, whatever the formal democratic machinery.
The Marxist model locates power in the economic structure. The class that owns the means of production is the ruling class, and the state is, in the classical formulation, an instrument that manages the common affairs of the bourgeoisie. Power is not a matter of competing pressure groups but a reflection of class domination; ideology and consent secure it as much as coercion. Later Marxists such as Gramsci and Poulantzas refined this into subtler theories of hegemony and the relative autonomy of the state.
Which fits advanced industrial societies best? Pluralism captures something real — organised interests do compete, and democratic institutions constrain rulers. But it flatters these societies. The decisive weakness is its inattention to the concentration of resources: in economies dominated by giant corporations, where wealth, ownership of the media and access to the state are grossly unequal, the assumption that all groups compete on comparable terms is untenable. Business enjoys a structural advantage no consumers' association can match; many issues never reach the agenda at all.
The elite model, and the Marxist account that overlaps with it, therefore fits advanced industrial societies more convincingly. The interlocking of corporate, political and bureaucratic power that Mills described has, if anything, deepened with globalisation, corporate lobbying and the concentration of ownership. Key decisions on investment, taxation and technology are shaped disproportionately by a small stratum whose members share background, outlook and interest. Where the elite model stresses the cohesion of this minority, the Marxist model explains why it holds power — its command of the productive base — and both converge on the conclusion that power in these societies is far more concentrated than pluralism allows.
The most defensible verdict, then, is that an elite model, enriched by the Marxist emphasis on economic ownership, is most applicable to advanced industrial societies, while pluralism's insight into the real competition among organised interests survives as a qualification rather than a refutation.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner wants the three models set out accurately, each tied to its exponent — Dahl, Mills, Marx — and then a defended choice for advanced industrial societies. The single commonest failing is to describe the models fully and then nominate one in a sentence with no argument; in a twenty-marker the reasoning behind the verdict carries much of the credit.
Strong scripts weigh the models against the actual features of advanced industrial society — corporate concentration, media ownership, lobbying, an entrenched bureaucracy — and use these to explain why pluralism underrates the concentration of power. Naming Mills's power elite and connecting the elite and Marxist accounts, rather than treating them as unrelated, signals depth.
Either the elite or the Marxist model is a defensible answer; a candidate could even defend a qualified pluralism. What distinguishes the top band is a judgement that acknowledges the merits of the rejected models while making a clear, evidenced case for the one chosen.