The ambiguity of concepts is a constant obstacle faced by political scientists. Some of the most popular concepts are characterized by their imprecision and their use in very different contexts of study. This article analyses one of these equivocal notions: corporatism. Following Goertz (Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide), a conceptualization of meso-corporatism is constructed and operationalized through the case of agriculture in Quebec, Canada. This exercise highlights the theoretical, empirical and comparative contributions of conceptual analysis to scientific inquiry.
BenoitM (2010) La gouvernance corporatiste en débat: le cas du corporatisme agricole québécois. Mémoire de maîtrise [non publié], Université Laval, Québec.
2.
BernyN (1999) L’Union des producteurs agricoles et les interventions gouvernementales sur les problèmes d’environnement d’origine agricole: participation et contribution d’un acteur à un processus de décision publique. Mémoire de maîtrise [non publié], Université Laval, Québec.
3.
BernyNHudonROuelletM (2009) Regulating farm pollution in Quebec: Environmentalists and the Union des producteurs agricoles contest the meaning of sustainable development. In: AdkinLE (ed.) Environmental Conflict and Democracy in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, 33–50.
4.
BraudP (2008) Sociologie politique. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
5.
BullMJ (1992) The corporatist ideal-type and political exchange. Political StudiesXL: 255–272.
6.
CampbellJLPedersenOK (2007) The varieties of capitalism and hybrid success: Denmark in the global economyComparative Political Studies40: 307–332.
7.
CapdevielleJ (2001) Modernité du corporatisme. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques.
8.
CawsonA (1985) Organized Interests and the State: Studies in meso-corporatism. London: Sage Publications.
9.
CawsonA (1986) Corporatism and Political Theory. Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell.
10.
ChubbJE1983Interest Groups and the Bureaucracy: The politics of energy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
ColasD (1988) L’Etat et les corporatismes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
12.
ColemanWDSkogstadGAtkinsonMM (1996) Paradigm shifts and policy networks: Cumulative change in agriculture. Journal of Public Policy16: 273–301.
13.
Commission sur l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois (2007) Agriculture et agroalimentaire: choisir l’avenir. Document de consultation, Québec.
14.
Commission sur l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois (2008) Agriculture et agroalimentaire: assurer et bâtir l’avenir. Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois, Québec.
15.
CoulombPDelormeHHervieuB. (1990) Les agriculteurs et la politique. Paris: Les Presses de la Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques.
16.
Cour du Québec (2004) Union des producteurs agricoles c. Jean-Claude Roy, no. 505-22-008831-028, 14 janvier.
17.
Cour supérieure du Québec (2000) Maurice Lapalme c. Union des producteurs agricoles, no. 505-05-000132-883, 9 mars.
18.
Cour supérieure du Québec (2006) Union des producteurs agricoles c. Guy R Rocheleau, no. 455-05-000537-014, 455-17-000092-023, 15 février.
19.
DaigneaultP-M (2010) L’analyse conceptuelle ‘pour les nuls’. Comment utiliser les outils de conceptualisation pour juger de la qualité et améliorer les recherches en analyse des politiques. Communication présentée au Colloque étudiant du Centre d’analyse des politiques publiques, 26mars2010, Université Laval, Québec.
20.
DaigneaultP-MJacobS (2009) Toward accurate measurement of participation: Rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation30(3): 330–348.
21.
Gaboury-BonhommeM-E (1998) Analyse de la participation des producteurs et productrices agricoles du Québec dans leur union (l’UPA): le cas du syndicat de Plessisville. Mémoire de maîtrise [non publié], Université Laval, Québec.
22.
GerringJ (1999) What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. PolityXXXI: 357–393.
23.
GoertzG (2006) Social Science Concepts: A user’s guide. Oxford/Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
GranadosFJKnokeD (2005) Organized interest groups and policy networks. In: JonoskiTAlfordRHicksA. (eds) The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, civil society, and globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 287–309.
25.
HalpinD (2005a) Agricultural interest groups and global challenges: Decline and resilience. In: HalpinD (ed.) Surviving Global Change? Agricultural interest groups in comparative perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1–28.
26.
HalpinD (2005b) Conclusions: The fate of groups in a ‘globalizing era’. In: HalpinD (ed.) Surviving Global Change? Agricultural interest groups in comparative perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, 215–239.
27.
HassenteufelP (1990) Où en est le paradigme corporatiste?Politix12: 75–81.
28.
HewittJJGoertzG (2005) Conceptualizing interstate conflict: How do concept-building strategies relate to selection effects?International Interactions31: 163–182.
29.
JobertB (1988) La version française du corporatisme: définition et implications pour la modernisation de l’Etat dans une économie en crise In: ColasD (ed.) L’Etat et les corporatismes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 3–18.
30.
JobertBMullerP (1987) L’Etat en action: politiques publiques et corporatismes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
31.
JordanGHalpinDMaloneyWA (2004) Defining interests: Disambiguation and the need for new distinctions?British Journal of Politics & International Relations6: 195–212.
32.
KatzensteinPJ (1985) Small States in World Markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY/London: Cornwell University Press.
33.
KestemanJ-PBoisclairGKirouacJ-M. (2004) Histoire du syndicalisme agricole au Québec: UCC-UPA 1924–2004. Louiseville: Les Editions du Boréal.
34.
LehmbruchG (1979) Concluding remarks: Problems for future research on corporatist intermediation and policy-making. In: SchmitterPCLehmbruchG (eds) Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage Publications, 299–310.
35.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT/ London: Yale University Press.
36.
McCallumJ. (1986) Unemployment in the OECD countries in the 1980s. Economic Journal96: 942–960.
37.
MolinaORhodesM (2002) Corporatism: The past, present, and future of a concept. Annual Review of Political Science5: 305–331.
38.
MontpetitE (1999) Corporatisme québécois et performance des gouvernements: analyse comparative des politiques environnementales en agriculture. Politique et Sociétés18: 79–98.
39.
MorissetMCoutureJ-M (2010) Politique et syndicalisme agricoles au Québec. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
40.
MorissetMGouinD-M (1990) Aperçu du Québec agricole. In: FranquenJ (ed.) Agriculture et politiques agricoles en France et au Québec: transformations économiques et sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan, 21–29.
41.
MullerPSaezG (1985) Néo-corporatisme et crise de la représentation. In: D’ArcyF (ed.) La représentation. Paris: Editions Economica, 121–140.
42.
PaloheimoH (1984) Distributive struggle and economic development in the 1970s in developed capitalist countries. European Journal of Political Research12: 171–190.
43.
PedersenOK (2006) Corporatism and beyond: The negotiated economy. In: CampbellJLHallJAPedersenOK (eds) National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism: The Danish experience. Montreal/Kingston/London/Ithaca, NY: McGill University Press, 245–270.
44.
PekkarinenJPohjolaMRowthornB (1992) Social Corporatism: A superior economic system?Oxford: Clarendon.
45.
ReinaldaB (2005) Foreword. In: HalpinD (ed.) Surviving Global Change? Agricultural interest groups in comparative perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, xi–xv.
46.
SartoriG (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science ReviewLXIV: 1033–1053.
47.
SchmitterPC (1974) Still the century of corporatism?Review of Politics36: 85–131.
48.
SchmitterPC (1979) Still the century of corporatism? In: SchmitterPCLehmbruchG (eds) Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage Publications, 7–52.
49.
SchmitterPC (1985) Neo-corporatism and the State. In: GrantW (ed) The Political Economy of Corporatism. New York: St Martin’s Press, 32–62.
50.
SchmitterPCStreeckW (1985) Preface. In: CawsonA (ed) Organized Interest and the State: Studies in meso-corporatism. London: Sage Publications, vii–viii.
51.
SiaroffA (1999) Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement. European Journal of Political Research36: 175–205.
52.
SkogstadG (2005) The uphill struggle to prevail: National farm organizations in Canada. In: HalpinD (ed.) Surviving Global Change? Agricultural interest groups in comparative perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, 189–212.
53.
SkogstadG (2008) Internationalization and Canadian Agriculture: Policy and governing paradigms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
54.
StewartJ (1992) Corporatism, pluralism and political learning: A systems approach. Journal of Public Policy12: 243–255.
55.
StreeckWKenworthyL (2005) Theories and practices of neocorporatism. In: JonoskiTAlfordRHicksA. (eds) The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, civil society, and globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 441–460.
56.
TraxlerF (2004) The metamorphoses of corporatism: From classical to lean patterns. European Journal of Political Research43: 571–598.
57.
UPA (2009a) Rapport annuel – Portrait de l’Union 2008–2009. Québec: Union des producteurs agricoles.
58.
UPA (2009b) Rapport annuel – Rapport financier 2008–2009. Québec: Union des producteurs agricoles.
59.
WilliamsonPJ (1989) Corporatism in Perspective: An introductory guide to corporatist theory. London: Sage Publications.
60.
YeeAS (2004) Cross-national concepts in supranational governance: State–society relations and EU policy making. Governance17: 487–524.
