Lobbying et patronage : modes de médiation en contexte démocratique*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.L'imprécision couramment observée dans les discours sur les pratiques du patronage et du lobbying, respectivement, tient en très grande partie à un flou conceptuel auquel cet article propose précisément de remédier au moyen d'une comparaison de la fonctionnalité de ces deux formes de médiation entre la société et les institutions politiques. Adoptant une perspective proprement politique, tout en tenant compte du statut normatif différencié qui marque chacune des deux pratiques, nous présentons d'abord en parallèle leurs traits distinctifs pour ensuite, quasi paradoxalement, mieux saisir leurs similarités. Les dynamiques que traduisent les échanges au cœur d'une relation patron-client, dans le cas du patronage, et d'une relation lobby-titulaire de charge publique, dans le cas du lobbying, ont pour effet de transformer les rapports de force qui structurent les relations du patron et du lobby avec leurs rivaux-concurrents. Par ailleurs, à l'encontre de présupposés largement répandus qui associent ces pratiques à des stades différents du développement des sociétés, nous montrons leur coexistence possible dans les pratiques politiques contemporaines. Notre exercice, principalement conceptuel, peut par ailleurs se révéler utile pour poser des diagnostics adéquats sur la vie démocratique … dont certains dysfonctionnements ne peuvent être corrigés qu'au moyen d'interventions appropriées. Abstract. Patronage and lobbying are currently discussed with vague concepts. This article suggests a comparison of the two phenomena by pointing to their respective roles in the conduct of relations between the society and the political institutions. In a properly political perspective, we consider their own status in normative terms and then present both their differences and similarities. The exchanges between a patron and a client and between a lobby and a public office holder result in transforming the power balance in the relations of a patron with rivals and of a lobby with competitors. Contrary to common assumptions which relate patronage and lobbying to societies at different stages of their development, we also show that they can coexist in contemporary political practices. We claim that our exercise, mainly conceptual in its nature, could serve to diagnose more adequately democratic malfunctioning and, consequently, to define more appropriate correctives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".