Er det muligt at undersøge forandringer i staten uden at undersøge forandringer i eliteformationer og forskydninger mellem samfundets dominerende felter? Hvordan har stat og eliter udviklet sig set i forhold til et bredere magtfelt? Hvilken påvirkning har den transnationale cirkulation af viden om stat og institutioner som en transnational elite, på nationale forhold? Hvordan skabes eliter og statslige institutioner på internationalt plan via forandringer på nationalt plan? Forandringer i staten og forskydninger mellem forskellige eliter kan illustreres både ved institutionsanalyser, ved undersøgelser af forandringer i fx uddannelsesfeltet, arbejdsmarkedsfeltet, det politiske felt, af måden vi forsøger at resocialiserer kriminelle samt ved studier af opbygningen af transnationale institutioner. Arbejdsgruppen indkalder papers, der belyser og diskuterer, hvordan man kan undersøge forskellige felter, hvor stat og elite indgår. Perspektivet kan være såvel historisk som aktuelt, nationalt og internationalt, men arbejdsgruppen accepterer også konkrete studier af stat og elite med inspiration i en feltanalytisk sociologi samt teoretiske diskussioner af feltanalytiske tilgange til eliter og stat.

The papers aim is contribute to ‘bringing elites back in’ to the study of the European Union by drawing inspiration form the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. It does so in two steps. First it outlines Bourdieu´s sociology and its relation to classical elite studies, arguing that his approach has a lot to offer. It is argued that the field approach contributes to bridging the gap between ‘positional’ approaches, studying the social properties of people in positions of power, and the ‘decision making’ approach, studying the engagement of elites in the exercise of power. Secondly, the article reviews two strands of empirical research on the European Union that both draw inspiration from Bourdieu´s sociology. The merits and problems of these two approaches are assessed and discussed.

On July 23, 1972, a group of influential citizens from the US, Western Europe and Japan met at the Rockefeller family estate in Pocantico Hills, half an hour's drive north of New York City. Here they agreed to form the Trilateral Commission, a private elite network composed of distinguished citizens – in business, politics, academia and the media – from all three continents. The Commission soon came to be seen, by many, as an extremely powerful ”rich man’s club”, influencing even the outcome of presidential elections in the US. And lately, with the appointment of Mario Monty (European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission) as Prime Minister of Italy, the Commission has shown new evidence of its capacity as kingmaker at the highest level of international politics.

In this paper, I explore the more precise reasons for establishing the TRICOM, including the thinking that lay behind it, how it was formed, how its main aims were defined and how its leadership was decided. Also, I analyze the crucial role of the Commission’s two main architects, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in this process.

As the first researcher I have been granted access to the Trilateral Commission’s central archive at the Rockefeller Archive Center. This paper is based on source material from this archive and is part of my overall PhD research project on the Commission’s history (1973-1983), which takes place at the Saxo Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

Når en direktør bliver inviteret ind i en kommission er det så manden eller firmaet, der sætter sig ved bordet? Hvad er forholdet mellem personen og hans virksomhed? Tidligere undersøgelser af eliter populationer har fokuseret på habituelle dispositioners betydning for reproduktionen og positionen i magtens felt. Dette blik kan suppleres med et blik for organisationernes indbyrdes styrkeforhold og disse organisationers betydning for topledelsens integration i magtens felt. Tesen er at organisationens styrke er en primær faktor i graden af integration og kapital på magtens felt.

En virksomheds direktørs habituelle dispositioner positionerer både virksomheden og ham selv i magtens felt, og han fungerer derfor som en sammensmeltningen af individ og organisation. Det gør at integrationen i magtens felt, hverken er styret alene af organisationens styrke eller individets kapital, men i et dialektisk forhold imellem de to.

Dette paper vil indenfor en Bourdieu-teoretisk ramme undersøge forholdet mellem en direktørs integration på magtens felt og virksomhedens position i det økonomiske felt. Homologierne imellem disse to felter vises ved hjælp af specifik multipel korrespondanceanalyse. Analysen er baseret på prosopografiske data  indsamlet for 100 topdirektører og data på symbolske og økonomiske ressourcer for de 82 mest betydningsfulde virksomheder i Danmark. Korrespondanceanalysen er baseret på indikatorer for økonomisk, social og symbolsk kapital for individerne og indikatorer for prestige, alder, netværk, branche og størrelse for virksomhederne. Ved hjælp af klyngeanalyse identificeres de centrale agenter og positioner i den danske økonomiske elite.

Against the backdrop of an empirical study about how leading American and European lawyers competed in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Communist regimes, this paper discusses how Western lawyers were involved in the reorganisation of the fields of power in Eastern Europe. With the invention of different legal assistance programs involving the rule of law, human rights and commercial laws American and European lawyers and state crafters managed to export different forms of legal expertise and state models. Using their legal expertise, law and apparently neutral discourses related to law these entrepreneurial lawyers took part in a larger battle of the organisation of the post-communist fields of power. Through their investments in state building they expanded the market for legal expertise.