Block 1

UNIT 1 NATURE, SCOPE AND UTILITY OF
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS

Structure
Objectives
Introduction
Comparative Study of Politics: Nature and Scope
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification o f Relationships
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
Comparative Politics: A Historical Overview
1.3.1 The Origins o f Comparative Study o f Politics
1.3 2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
1.3.3 The Second World War and After
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return o f State
1.3.6 The Late Twentieth Century: Globalisation and Emerging ~rends/~oss'ibilitics
Comparative Study of Politics: Utility
1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
1.4.3 Comparisions Leading to Explanations in Relationships
Summing Up
Key Words
Some Useful Books
Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall focus on the nature, scope and utility of a comparative
study of politics. Through these you will be able to rook for answers to questions
like, (a) what is the nature of comparative politics i.e., what is it that gives
comparative political analysis its specificity: its characteristics, elements,
constituents, perspective, purposelaims, and the ideologicallstructural/contextual
framework within which these are realised, (b) what constitutes its scope i.e.,
the range, field, or area of activity that it encompasses and, (c) its utility i.e., its
usefulness and relevance for enhancing our understanding of political reality, or
how does comparative study help us understand this reality better. It should be
pointed out, however, that these aspects cannot be studied in' isolation of each
other in a compartementalised form. For a proper understanding of the nature,
scope and utility of a comparative study of politics, one has to look at the latter's
development historically and see how its attributes evolved with changing contexts
i
and concerns.
I
The unit is divided into different sectiorls dhich take up in some detail the above
I outlined themes. Each section is followed by questions based on the section.
Towards the end of the unit is provided a list of readings which can be used to
supplement this unit. A set of questions follok the readings which will help you
assess your understanding. All terms which have specific meanings in comparative
political analysis have been explained in the section on keywords.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
As the term itself points out, comparative politics is about comparing political
phenomena. The emphasis is on both the method of inquiry i.e., comparative, and
the substance into which inquiry is directed i.e., political phenomena. As will be
pointed out in Unit 2 Comparative Method and Methods of Conlparison, the
1 comparative method is not the sole prerogative sf comparative politics, and is
I
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
Comparative Methods and used with equal ease in other disciplines as well e.g., Psy.chology and Sociology.
Approaches
It is the substance of comparative politics i.e., its subject matter, vocabulary and
perspectiqe, which gives comparative politics its distinctiveness both as a method
and as a Gpecific field of study.
The i~atureand scope of comparative politics has been determined historically by

changes in the above mentioned features i.e., (a) subject matter (b) vocabulary
and (c) political perspective. To understand where, why and how these changes
took place we have to look at what is the focus of study at a particular historical
period, what are the tools, languages or concepts being used for the study and
what is the vantage point, perspective and purpose of enquiry. Thus in the
sections which follow, we shall look at the manner in which comparative politics
has evolved, the continuities and discontinuities which have informed this evolution,
the w a p in which this evolution has been determined in and by the specific
historical contexts and socio-economic and political forces, and how in the context
of late twentieth century viz, globalisation, radical changes have been brought
about in the manner in which the field of comparative politics has so far been
envisaged.
1.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: NATURE

- :
AND SCOPE
We mentioned in the previous section that the comparative method is commonly
used in other disciplines as well. We also know from the earlier section, that
comparative politics is distinguished from other disciplines which also use the
comparative method, by its specific subject matter, language and perspective. In
that case, we might well ask the question, is there at all a distinct field of
comparqtive political analysis or is it a sub-discipline subsumed within the
larger discipline of Political Science. The three aspects of subject matter,
languagq, vocabulary, and perspective, we must remember, are inadequate in
establishing the disti~~ctiveness
of comparative politics within the broad discipline of
Political Science, largely because comparative politics shares the subject matter
and concerns of Political Science, i.e. democracy, constitutions, political parties,
social movements etc. Within the discipline of Political Science thus the specificity
of comparative political analysis is marked out by its conscious use of the
comparqtive method to answer questions which might be of general interest
to political scientists.
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships
This stress on the con~parativemethod as defining the character and scope of

comparative political analysis has been maintained by some scholars in order to
dispel frequent misconceptions about co~nparativepolitics as involving the study of
'foreign countries' i.e., countries other than your own. Under such an
understanding, if you were studying a country other than your own, (e.g., an
Americgn studying the politics of Brazil or an Indian studying that of Sri Lanka)
you would be called a comparativist. More often than not, this misconception
implies merely the gathering of information about individual countries with little or
at the most implicit comparison involved. The distinctiveness of comparative
politics, most comparativists would argue, lies in a conscious and systematic use
of comparisons to study two or more countries with the purpose of identl>ing,
and eventually explaining dzrerences or similarities between them with respect
to the particular phenomeita being analqsod. For a long time co~nparativepolitics
appeared merely to look for similarities and differences, and directed this towards
classifying, dichotomising or polarising political phenomena. Comparative political
analysiii is however, not simply
. .. about identifying similarities and differences. The
purpose of using comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is going beyond Nmtorc, Rape rod Utility of
Cemprrrtlvr Study of
'identifying similarities and differences' or the 'compare and contrast approach', Politern
to ultin~atelystudy political phenomena in a larger framework of relationships.
This, it is felt, would help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of
answering and explaining political phenomena. (See Manoranjan'Mohanty,
'Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics,
Nos. 1 & 2, 1975).
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
'rhe often encountered notion that comparative politics involves a study of

governments arises, asserts Ronald Chilcote, from 'conceptual confusion'. Unlike
comparative government whose field is limited to comparative study of
governments, comparative politics is concerned with the study of all forms of
political activity, gover~llnentalas well as nongovernmental. he field of
comparative politics has an 'all encompassing' nature and comparative politics
specialists tend to view it as the study of everything political. Any lesser
corlception of comparative politics would obscure the criteria for the selection and
exclusion of what may be studied under this field. (Ronald Chilcote, Introduction,
Theories of Comparative Politics, p.4)
It may, however, be pointed out that for long comparative politics concerned itself
with the study of governments and regime types, and confined itself to studying
western countries. The process of decolonisation especially in the wake of the
second World War, generated interest in the study of 'new nations'. The increase
in llunlbers and diversity of unitdcases that could be brought into thc gamut of
co~nparison,was accompanied also by the urge to formulate abstract universal
models, which could explain political phenomena and processes in all the units.
Simultaneous to the increase and diversification of cases to be studied was also
a0 expansion in the sphere of politics so as to allow the examination of politics as
a total system, including not merely the state and its institutions but also
individuals. social groupings, political parties, interest groups, social movements etc.
I
Certain aspects of institutions and political process were especially in focus for
what was seen as their usefulness in explaining political processes, e.g., political
socialisation, patterns of political culture, techniques of interest articulation and
interest aggregation, styles of political recruitment, extent of political efficacy and
political apathy, ruling elites etc. These systemic studies were often built around
the concern with nation-building i.e., providing a politico-cultural identity to a
population, state-building i.e., providing institutional structure and processes for
politics and modernisation i.e., to initiate a process of change along the western
path of development. The presence of divergent ideological poles in world politics
(Western capitalism and Soviet socialism), the rejection of western imperialism by
most newly liberated countries, the concern with maintaining their distinct identity
in the form of the non-aligned movement and the sympathy among most countries
with a socialist path of development, gradually led to the irrelevance of most
modernisation models for purposes of globalllarge level comparisons. Whereas the
fifties and sixties were the period where attempts to explain political reality were
made through the construction of large scale models, the seventies saw the
assertion of Third World-ism and the rolling back of these models. The Eighties
saw the constriction of the levels of compariso;l with studies based on regions or
smaller numbers of units became prevalent. With globalisation, however, the
I imperatives for large level comparisons increased and the field of comparisons has
I
diversified with the proliferation of nen-state, 'non-governmental actors and the
I
increased interconnections between nations with economic linkages and
I information technology revolution.
5 +.
i Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

Com~arntivrMethods and In the section which follows we shall take up these developments in comparative
Approaches
political analysis, emphasising in each case, the changes in the character and field
of enquiry,
1.3. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A HISTORICAL

OVERVIEW
The nature and scope of comparative politics has varied according to the changes
which have occurred historically in its subject matter. The subject matter of
comparative politics has been determined both by the geographical space (i.e.
countries, regions) which has constituted its field as well as the dominap ideas
concerning social reality and change which shaped the approaches to &nparative
studies (capitalist, socialist, mixed and indigenous). ~ikewisd,at different historical
junctures the thrust or the primary concern of the studies kept changing.
1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics
In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the

form of studies done by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle studied the
constitutions of 150 states and classified them into a lypology of regimes. His
classification was presented in terms of both descriptive and normative categories
i.e., he not only described and classified regimes and political systems in terms
'of their types e.g., democracy, aristocracy, monarchy etc., he also distinguished
them on the basis of certain norms of good governance. On the basis of this
comparisofi he divided regimes into good and bad - ideal and perverted. These
Aristotelian categories were acknowledged and taken up by Romans such as
Polybius (20 1 - 120 B.C.) and Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who considered them in formal
\
and legalistic terms. Concern with comparative study of regime types reappeared
'
in the 15th century with Macqiavelli (1469- 1527).
1.3.2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
The preoccupation with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the

'good order' or the 'ideal state' and the use, in the process, of abstract and
normative vocabulary, persisted in comparative studies of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
signified the period when liberalism was the reigning ideology and European
countries ehjoyed dominance in world politics. The 'rest of the world' of Agi~,
Africa and Latin America were either European colonies or under their sphere of
1-
influence as ex-colonies. Comparative studies during this period (James Bryces's
Modern Democracies (1921), Herman Finer's Theory and Practice of Modern
Governments (1932) and Carl J. Friedrich's Constitutional Government and
Democracy (1937), Roberto Michels, Political Parties (1 9 1 5) and M.Duverger,
Political Parties (1950)) were largely concerned with a comparative study of
institutions, the distribution of power, and the relationship between the different
layers of gwernment. These studies were eurocentric i.e, confined to the study of
institutions, governments and regime types in European countries like Britain,
France and Germany. It may thus be said that these studies were in fact not
genuinely aomparative in the sense that they excluded from their analysis a large
number of countries. Any generalisation derived from a study confined to a few
countries could not legitimately claim having validity for the rest of the world. It
may be emphasised here that exclusion of the rest of the world was symptomatic
of the dominance of Europe in world politics - a dominance - which however,
was on the wane, and shifting gradually to North America. All contemporary
l~istoryhad Europe at its centre, obliterating the rest of the world (colonised or
liberated from colonisation) (a) as 'people without histories' or (b) whose histories
. .

were bound with and destined to follow the trajectories already followed by the Nature. SC# and Utility or
Cohpnrntive Study of
advanced countries of the West. Thus the above mentioned works manifest their Politcs
rootedness in the normative values of western liberal democracies which carried
with it the baggage of racial and civilisational superiority, and assumed a
prescriptive character for the colonies/former colonies.
1.3.3 The Second World W a r a n d After
In the nineteen thirties the political and economic situation of the world changed.
The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, brought into world politics,
Socialism, as an ideology of the oppressed and, as a critical alternative to western
liberalism and capitalism. With the end of the second World War a number of
significant developments had taken place, including the waning of European
(British) hegemony, the emergence and entrenchment of United States of America
as the new hegemon in world politics and economy, and the bifurcation of the
world into two ideological camps viz. (western) capitalism and (eastern) socialism.
The majority of the 'rest of the world' had, by the time the second World War
ended, liberated itself from European imperialism. For a period after decolonisation
the notions of development, modernisation, nation-building, state-building etc.,
evinced a degree of legitimacy and even popularity as 'national slogans' among
the political elite of the 'new nations'. Ideologically, however, these 'new nations',
were no longer compelled to tow the western capitalist path of development.
While socialism had its share of sympathisers among the new ruling elite of the
Asia, America and Latin America, quite a number of newly independent countries
made a conscious decision to distance themselves from both the power blocs,
re~nainingnon-aligned to either. A number of them evolved their own specific
path of development akin to the socialist, as in the case of Ujama in Tanzania,
and the mixed-economy model in India which was a blend of both capitalism and
socialism.
It may be worth remembering that the comparative study of governments till the
1940s was predominantly the strrdy of institutions, the legal-constitutional
principles regulating them, and the manner in which they functioned in western
(European) liberal-democracies. In the context of the above stated developments,
a powerful critique of the institutional approach emerged in the middle of 1950s.
The critique had its roots in behavio';lralism which had emerged as a new
movement in the discipline of politics aiming to provide scientific rigour to the
discipline and develop a science of politics. Known as the behavioural
movement, it was concerned with developing an enquiry which was quantitative,
based on survey techniques involving the examination of empirical facts separated
from values, to provide value-neutral, non-prescriptive, objective observations and
explanations. The behaviouralists attempted to study social reality by seeking
answers to questions like 'why people behave politically as they do, and why as a
result, political processes and systems function as they do'. It is these 'why
questions' regarding d~flerencesin people's behaviours and their implications for
polirical processes and political systems, which changed the focus of
comparative study from the legal-formal aspects of institutions. Thus in 1955 Roy
Macridis criticised the existing comparative studies for privileging formal
#
institutions over non-formal political processes, for being descriptive rather than
analytical, and case-study oriented rather than genuinely comparative. (Roy
Macrid is, The S~udyof Comparative Government, New York, Random House,
1955). Harry Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and scope of
comparative politics in this period show a sensitivity to the changing world politics
urging the need to reconceptualise the notion of politics and develop paradigms for
large-scale comparisons. (Harry Eckstein, 'A Perspective on Comparative Politics,
Past and Present' in Harry Eckstein and David Apter eds., Comparative
Politics: A Reader, New York, Free Press, 1963.) Rejecting the then traditional
8
Colnparative Methods and and almost exclusive emphasis on the western world and the conceptual language
Approaches
which had been developed with such limited comparisons in mind, Gabriel
Almond and his colleagues of the American Social Science Research Council's
Committee on Comparative Politics (founded in 1954) sought to develop a theory
and a methodology which could encompass and compare political systems of all
kinds - primitive or advanced, democratic or non-democratic, western or non
western.
The broadening of concerns in a geographic or territorial sense was also

accompanied by a broadening of the sense of politics itself, and in particular, by a
rejection of what was then perceived as the traditional and narrowly defined
emphasis om the study of formal political institutions. The notion of politics was
broadened by the emphasis on 'realism' or politics 'in practice' as distinguished
from mere 'legalism'. This included in its scope the functioning of less formally
structured agencies, behaviours and processes e.g. political parties, interest groups,
elections, voting behaviour, attitudes etc. (Gabriel Almond, Political Development,
Boston, 1970). With the deflection of attention from studies of formal institutions,
there was simultaneously a decline in the centrality of the notion of the state
itself. We had mentioned earlier that the emergence of a large number of
countries on the world scener necessitated the development of frameworks which
would facilitate comparisons on a large scale. This led to the emergence of
inclusive and abstract notions like the political systenl. This notion of the
'system' replaced the notion of the state and enabled scholars to take into
account the 'extra-legal', 'social' and 'cultural' institutions which were cri~cialto
the understanding of non-western politics and had the added advantage of
including in its scope 'pre-state'l'non-state' societies as well as roles and offices
which were not seen as overtly connected with the state. Also, with tlie cliange
of emphasis to actual practices and functions of institutions, the problems of
research Game to be defined not in terms of what legal powers these institutions
had, but what they actually did, how they were related to one another, and what
roles they played in the making and execution of public policy. This led to tlie
emergence of structural-functionalism, in' which certain functions were described
as being necessary to all societies, and the execution and performance of these
functions were then compared across a variety of different formal and illformal
.
structures (Peter Mair, 'Comparative Politics: An Overview', p.315)
While the universal frameworks of systems and structures-jiunctions enabled

western scholars to study a wide range of political systems, structures, and
behaviours, within a single paradigm, the appearance of 'new nations' provided to
western comparativists an opportunity to study what they perceived as econon~ic
and political change. Wiarda points out that it was in this period of tlie sixties
that most contemporary scholars of comparative politics came of age. The 'new
nations7 became for most of these scholars [ironically] 'living laboratories' for the
study of social and political change. Wiarda describes those 'exciting times' which
offered unique opportunities to study political change, and saw the develop~nentof
liew methodologies and approaches to study them. It was during this period that
some of the most innovative and exciting theoretical and conceptual approaches
were advanced in the field of comparative politics: study of political culture,
politicd socialisation, developmentalism, dependency and interdependency,
corporatism, bureaucratic-authoritarianism and later transitions to democracy etc.
(Howard J.Wiarda, 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the Field in the
Post-Colld War Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, no.5.)
This period saw the mushrooming of universalistic models like Easton's political
system, Deutsch's social mobilisation and Shil's centre and periphery. Tlie
theories of modernisation by Apter, Rokkan, Eisenstadt and Ward and the theory
of political development by Almond, Coleman, Pye and Verba also claimed
universal relevance. These theories were claimed to be applicable across cultural Nature, scope andUtility of
and ideological boundaries and to explain political process everywhere. The Comparative s t u d y or
Politcs
developnient of comparative political analysis in this phase coincided with the
inter~lationalinvolvement of the United States through military alliances and
foreign aid. Most research in this period was not only funded by research
foundations, it was also geared to the goals of US foreign policy. The most
symbolic of these were the Project Camelot in Latin America and the Himalayan
Project in India. This period was heralded by the appearance of works like
Apter's study on Ghana. Published in 1960, Politics of Developing Areas by
Almond and Coleman, sharply defined the character of the new 'Comparative
Politics Movement'. The publication of a new journal in the US entitled
Comparative Politics in 1969 reflected the height of this trend. (Manoranjan
Mohanty, 'Comparative Politics and Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics,
Nos., I & 2, 1975). 'Developmentalism' was perhaps the dominant conceptual
paradigm of this time. To a considerable extent, the interest in developmentalism
enlanated from US foreign policy interests in 'developing' countries, to counter
the appeals of Marxism-Leninism and steer them towards a non-communist way
to development. (Howard J.Wiarda, 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the
Field in the Post-Cold War Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, no.5, p.937)
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
Towards the 1970s, developmentalism came to be criticised for favouring abstract

models, which flattened out differences among specific politicallsociallcultural
systems, in order to study them within a single universalistic framework. These
criticisms emphasised the ethnocentricism of these models and focussed on the
Third World in order to work out a theory of underdevelopment. They stressed
the need to concentrate on solutions to the backwardness of developing countries.
Two main challenges to developmentalism which arose in the early 1970s and
gained widespread attention were (a) dependency and (b) corporatism.
Dependency theory criticised the dominant model of developmentalism for ignoring
(a) domestic class factors and (b) international market and power factors in
development. It was particularly critical of US foreign policy and multinational
corporations and suggested, contrary to what was held true in developmentalism,
that the development of the already-industrialised nations and that of the
developing ones could not go together. Instead, dependency theory argued, that
the development of the West had come on the shoulders and at the cost of the
non-West. The idea that the diffusion of capitalism pro~notesunderdevelopment
and not development in many parts of the world was embodied in Andre Gundre
Frank's Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (1967), Walter
Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped A@ica (1972) and Malcolm Caldwell's
The Wealth of Some Nations (1979). Marxist critics of the dependency theory,
however, pointed out that the nature of exploitation through surplus extraction
should not be seen simply on national lines but, as part of a more complex pattern
of alliances between the metropolitan bourgeoisie of the corelcentre and the
indigenous bourgeoisie of the peripherylsatellite as they operated in a worldwide
capitalist system. The corporatist approach criticised developmetalism for its Euro-
A~llericanethnocentricism and indicated that there were alternative organic,
= corporatist, often authoritarian ways to organise the state and state-society
relations. (Ronald Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics, p. 16)
1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return of the State
During tlie later 1970s and into the 1980s, still reflecting tlie backlash against
tirvelopn~entalism,a number of theories and subject matters emerged into the field
of comparative politics. These included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, indigenous
concepts of change, transitions to democracy, the politics of structural
Comparative Methods adjustment,'neoliberalism and privatisation. While some scholars saw these
Approaches
developments as undermining and breaking the unity of the field which was being
dominated by developmentalism, others saw them as adding healthy diversity,
providing alternative approaches and covering new subject areas. Almond, who
had argued in the late 1950s that the notioo of the state should .be replaced by
the political system, which was adaptable to scientific inquiry, and Easton, who
undertook to construct the parametres and concepts of a political system,
continued to argue well into the 1980s on the importance of political system as
the core of political study. The state, however, received its share of attention in
the 60s and 70s in the works of bureaucratic-authoritarianism in Latin America,
especially in Argentina in the works of Guillermo O'Donnell e.g., Economic
Modernisation and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (1973). Ralph Miliband's
The State 'in Capitalist Sociery (1969) had also kept the interest alive. With
Nicos Pou{antzas's State, Power, Socialism (1978), and political sociologists
Peter Evans, Theda Skocpol, and others Bringing the State Back In (1985),
focus was sought to be restored onto the state.
1.3.6 T h e Lat e G e n t i e t h cen7ury: Globalisation a n d Emerging Trends/

Possibilities
a) Scalihg down of systems: Much of the development of comparative political

analysis in the period 1960s to 1980s can be seen as an ever widening range
of countries being included as cases, with more variables being added to the
mode~ls,such as policy, ideology, governing experience, and so on. With the
1980$, however, there has been a move away from general theory to
empljasis on the relevance of context. In part, this tendency reflects the
renewed influence of l~istoricalinquiry in the social sciences, and especially
the emergence of a 'historical sociology' which tries to understand
phenomena in the very broad or 'holistic' context within which they occur.
(Theda Skocpol and M.Somers, 'The Use of Comparative History in Macro-
social Inquiry', Comparative Studies in Sociery and History, No.22, 1980
and P.Abrams, Historical Sociology, lthaca, 1982). There has been a shying
away from models to a more indepth understanding of particular countries
and cases where more qualitative and contextualised data can be assessed
and where account can be taken of specific institutional circumstances or
particular political cultures. Hence we see a new emphasis on Inore culturally
specific studies (e.g., English speaking countries, Islamic countries), and
n a t i b n a ~specific
~~ countries (e.g., England, India), and even institutionally
specific countries (e.g., India under a specific regime). While emphasis on
'grand systems' and model building diminished, the stress on specific contexts
and cultures has meant that tlie scale of comparisons was brought down.
Comparisons at the level of 'smaller systems' or regions, however, remained
e.g., the Islamic world, Latin American countries, Sub-Saharan Africa, South
Asia etc.
b) Civil Society and Democratisation Approach(es): The disintegration of

Soviet Union brought into currency the notion of the 'end of history'. In his
article 'The End of History?' (1989), which was developed later into the
book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Francis Fukuynma
argued that the history of ideas had ended with the recognition and triumph -
of liberal democracy as the 'final form of human government'. The 'end of
history', invoked to stress the predominance of western liberal democracy, is
in a way reminiscent of the 'end of ideology' debate of the 1950s which
emerged at the height of the cold war and in tlie context of the decline of
conhmunism in the West. Western liberal scholars proposed that the economic
adv,ancement made in the irldustrialised societies of the west had resolved
political problems, e.g., issues b f freedom and state power, workers rights
etc., which are assumed to accompany industrialisation. The U.S. sociologist, Nature, Scope and Utiljty of
Comparative Study of
Daniel Bell in particular, pointed in his work (The End of Ideology?: On the
' Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s, 1960), that in the light of this
Politcs
development there was an ideological consensus, or the suspension of a need

for ideological differences over issues of political practice. In the nineteen
eighties, the idea of the 'end of history' was coupled with another late
nineteen eighties phenomenon - globalisation. Globalisation refers to a set of
conditions, scientific, technological, economic and political, which have linked
together the world in a manner so that occurrences in one part of the world
are bound to affect or be affected by what is happening in another part. It
may be pointed out that in this global world the focal point or the centre
around which events move worldwide is still western capitalism. In the
context of the so called triumph of capitalism, the approaches to the study of
civil sociey and democratisation that have gained currency give importance
to civil society defined in terms of protection of individual rights to enter the
modern capitalist world.
There is, however, another significant trend in the approach which seeks to
place questions of civil society and democratisation as its primary focus. If
there are on one hand studies conforming to the contemporary interest of
western capitalism seeking to develop market democracy, there are also a
number of studies which take into account the resurgence of people's
movements seeking autonomy, right to indigenous culture, movements of
tribals, dalits, lower castes, and the women's movement and the environment
movement. These ~novementsreveal a terrain of contestation where the
interests of capital are in conflict with peoples rights and represent the
language of change and liberation in an era of global capital. Thus concerns
with issues of identity, environment, ethnicity, gender, race, etc. have provided
a new dimension to comparative political analysis. (See Manoranjan Mohanty,
Contemporary Indian Political Theory, 2000).
c) Information collection and diffusion: A significant aspect and determinant

of globalisation has been the unprecedented developments in the field of
information and com~nunicationtechnology viz., the Internet and World Wide
Web. This has made the production, collection and analysis of data easier and
also assured their faster and wider diffusion, worldwide. These developments
have not only enhanced the availability of data, but also made possible the
emergence of new issues and themes which extend beyond the confines of
the nation-state. These new themes in turn form an importantlinfluential
aspect of the political environment of the contemporary globalised world. The
global network of social movements organisations, the global network of
activists is one such significant aspect. The diffusion of ideas of
denlocratisation is an important outcorlle of such networking. The Zapastista
rebellion in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas used the Internet and the
global media to communicate their struggle for rights, social justice and
democracy. The cohcern with issues regarding the promotion and protection
of human rights which is dependent on the collection and dissemination of
infor~nationhas similarly become pertinent in the contemporary porld.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for ybur answers.

ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end
of the unit.
1) Is it possible to say that comparative politics refers only to a method of

studying governments?

Comparative Methods and
Approaches
\
\
1'
2) The nature, field and scope of comparative politics has evolved in response
to the changing socio-political concerns over different historical periods.
Comment.
1.4 'COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: UTILITY
The question of utility of comparative politics is concerned with its usefulness and
relevance for enhancing our understanding of political reality. It seeks to know
how a cotnparative study helps us understand this reality better.
First and foremost, we must bear in mind that political behaviour is common to all
human beings and manifests itself in diverse ways and under diverse social and
institutional set ups all over the world. It may be said that an understanding of
these related and at the same time different political behaviours and patterns is an
integral part of our understanding of politics itself. A sound and comprehensive
understanding would commonly take the form of comparisons.
1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation
While comparisons form an implicit part of all our reasoning and thinking, most
compfirativists would argue that a comparative study of politics seeks to make
comparisdns consciously to arrive at conclusions which can be generalised i.e.'
held true for a number of cases. To be able to make such generalisations with a
degree of confidence, it is not sufficient to just collect information about countries.
The stred in comparative political analysis, is on theory-building and theory-
testing with the countries acting ?s units or cases. A lot of emphasis is therefore
laid, and energies spent, on developing rules and standards about how comparative
research should be carried out. A comparative study ensures that all
generalisations are based on the observation of more than one or
observation of relationship between several phenomena. The broader the observed
universe, the greater is the confidence in statements about relationship and
sounder the theories.
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
A9 will be explained in the next unit, the comparative method gives these theories
scientific basis and rigour. Social scientists who emphasise scientific precision,
validity and reliability, see comparisons as indispensable in the social sciences
because they offer the unique opportunity of 'control' in the study of social
phenomena. (Giovanni Sartori, 'compare, Why and How' in Mattei Dogan and
, Ali Kazancigil eds., Cqmparing Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance,
-1 Blackwell, Oxford, 1994.).

1
1.4.3 Comparisons Leading to Explanations in Relationships Nature, Scope and Utility of

Comoarative Study of,
~oiitcs
For a long time comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and
differences, and directed this towards classifying, dichotomising or polarising
political phenomena. Comparative political analysis is however, not simply about
identifying similarities and differences. The purpose of using comparisons, it is felt
by several scholars, is going beyond 'identifying similarities and differences' or the
'compare and contrast approach' as it is called, to ultimately study political
phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. This, it is felt, would help
'deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of answering and explaining
political phenomena. (See Manoranjan Mohanty, 'Comparative Political Theory and ' s
Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics, Nos.1 & 2, 1975)
I' Check Your Progress 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the
unit.
1) What according to you is the usefulness of a comparative study of politics?

.......................................................................................................................
1.5. SUMMING UP
The nature and scope of comparative study of politics related to its subject
matter, its field of study, the vantage point from which the study is carried out
and the purposes towards which the study is directed. These have, however, not
been static and have changed over time. While the earliest studies concerned
themselves with observing and classifying governments and regimes, comparative
politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was concerned with
studying the formal legal structures of institutions in western countries. Towards
the end of the second World War, a number of 'new nations' emerged on the .
world scene having liberated themselves from colonial domination. The dominance
of liberalism was challenged by the emergence of communism and the powerful
presence of Soviet Union on the world scene. The concern among comparativists
changed at this juncture to studying the diversity of political,behaviours and
processes which were thrown up, however, within a single overarching
framework. The concept of 'systems' and 'structures-functions' came in vogue.
These frameworks were used by western scholars particularly those in the United'
States to study phenomena like developmentalism, modernisation etc. While the
political elite of the newly independent countries found concepts like development,
natidn-building and state building attractive, in many cases they evolved their own
ideological stances and chose to remain non-aligned to either ideological blocs. In
the late 1980s focus on studying politics comparatively within an overarching
framework of 'system' declined and regional systemic studies assumed
significance. The focus on state in these studies marked a resurgence of the
study of power structures within civil society and its political forms,'which had
suffered a setback with; the arrival of systems and structures-functions into
comparative politics. The petering out df Soviet Union in the same period,
provoked western scholars to proclaim the 'end of history' marking the triumph of
liberalism and capitalism. Globalisation of capital, a sigoificant feature of the late
-

Comparative Methods nnd nineteen eighties, which continues and makes itself manifest in technological,
Appronches
economic and information linkages among the countries of the world, has also
tended to ipfluence comparativists into adopting universalistic, homogenising
expressions like 'transitions to democracy', the 'global market' and 'civil society'.
Such expressions would have us believe that there do not in fact remain
difference$, uncertainties and contests which need to be explained in a
comparative perspective. There is, however, another way to look at the
phenomena and a number of scholars see the resurgence of civil society in terms
of challenges to global capitalism which comes from popular movements and trade
union activism throughout the world.
Check Ydur Progress 3

hlnit.
1) What are the features that determine the nature and scope of comparative
politics?
2) ~race'thedevelopment of Comparative Politics in the twentieth century

bringing out (a) the specificities of the period before and after the second
World War; (b) developmentalism and its critique; (c) late twentieth century
developments.
3) A comparative study of politics looks for explanations of political phenomenon

in a framework of relationships. In the light of this statement comment on the
developments in the field of comparative politics after the demise of colonial
empires, through the cold war, upto the age of globalisation.
.......................................................................................................................
- - - - -
1.6 K ~ WORDS
Y
Behaviouralism: The belief that social theories should be constructed only on the
basis of observable behaviour, providing quantifiable data for research.
Civil society: The term has contested meanings. By and large it is understood as
- .--- independent
the realm of autonomous groups and associatians,-a private sphere --
- - - --
from public authority. '

,
I Configurative: kefers to a combination of favourable conditions or aspects of Nature, Scope and Utility of
Comparative Study of
any observed political phenomenon, e.g., the necessary and sufficient conditions Polites
for revolution, democratic paiScipation etc..
Control: A regulation or check - an important part of experiments where a

parallel experiment or group of subjects is set up (control group) - to provide a
standard of comparison for other experiment. In an experiment set up to study
the effect of visual aids in learning, the control group will not be introduced with
the condition (visual aid) whose influence is to be studied.
Democratisation: Refers to processes indicating the promotioa of democracy,

implying in particular, the granting of basic freedoms, increase in popular
participation and electoral choices.
.
Descriptive: Statements giving empirical facts, delineating characteristics and
I attributes.
Dichotomy: Division into two strongly contrasted groups or classes.
Eurocentric: Refers to the bias and distortions which emerge from the
application of European values, beliefs and theories, to other cultures and groups.
Globaljsation: Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific, technological,

economic and political, which have linked together the world in a manner so that
occurrences in one part of the world are bound to affect or be affected by what
: is happening in another part.
Method: Methods are ways of organising theories for application to data, also
called 'conceptual schemes'. Types of method comparative (using more than one
case), configurative (using a single case study) and historical (using time and
sequence). Method is more about 'thinking about thinking'.
Methodology: The study of different methods of research, including the

identification of research questions, the formulation of theories to explain certain
events and political outcomes, and the development of research design.
Model: In simple terms an intellectual construct which simplifies reality in order

, to emphasise the recurrent, the constant and the typical, which it presents in the
I
form of clusters of tracts or attributes. In other words, 'models' and 'types' are
treated as synonyms.
Neoliberalism: An updated version of classical political economy, dedicated to

, market individualism and minimal statism.
Normative: The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with

questions pertaining to 'what should be' rather than 'what is'.
Postbehaviouralism: Refers to a period after 1970 and a methodology that

accepts that observations and analysis of the political world are not free from
certaii~theoretical and value biases, yet strives to make strong inferences through
empirical analysis.
Privatisation: The transfer of state assets from the public to the private sector,
reflecting a contraction of state responsibilities.
Systems theory: The theory that treats the political system as a self-regulating
mechanism, responding to 'inputs' (demands and support) by issuing authoritative
decisions or 'outputs' (policies),
Culnpnrntive Methods and Theory: a definitive and logical statement (or groups of statements) about how
,Approaches
the world (or some key aspect of the world) 'works'. Known collectively as
empirical theory (as opposed to normative theory), these statements make claims
about relati~onshipsbetween variables that can be tested using systematic
comparative analysis.
-
1.7 SOlME USEFUL BOOKS
Chilcote, Ronald H., Part I: Introduction, in Ronald H.Chilcote, Theories of

Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered, Westview
Press, Boulder, 1994 (Second Edition).
Landman, Todd, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
Routledge, London, 2000.
Mair, Peter, 'Comparative Politics: An Overview', in R.E.Goodin and
H.Klingemann eds., The New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford University
Press, Oxford; 1996.
Mohanty, Manoranjan, 'Moving the Centre in the Study of Political Thought and
Political theory', in Manoranjan Mohanty, Contemporary Indian Political Theory.
Samskriti, New ~eThi,2000.
Mohanty, Manoranjan, 'Comparative Political Theory and Third world Sensitivity',
Teaching Politics, Nos.] & 2, 1975.
Sartori, Giovanni, 'Compare, Why and How', in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil
eds., Coyparing Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance, B lackwel I, Oxford,
1994.
Wiarda, Roward J. 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the Field in the
Post-Cold War Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, no.5.
1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
1) No it is not merely a method of studying governments. It is also concerned
with analysing issues concerning governance and formulation of abstract
universal models which could explain political phenomena and processes in all
Units. See sub-section 1.2.2 to elaborate.
2) The subject matter of comparative politics has been evolving and developing
both in terms of geographical space as well as ideas and theories. It has
therkfore passed through significant developments and undergone important
changes. For elaboration see sub-section 1.3.
Check fiour Progress 2
1) ~ o h ~ a r a t i Politics
ve is useful for the building of theories, scientific alialysis of
issues and problems, explanation of phenomena etc.
1) See Section 1.5
2) Seq Section 1.3.6
3) Write your answer OR the basis of overall assessment of Section 1.3.

-UNIT 2 COMPARATIVE METHOD AND
'
STRATEGIES OF COMPARISON
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction: What is Comparison
2.2 Some Thoughts on Method
2.3 The Comparative Method: Why Compare
2.3.1 ~ociaiScientific Research
2.3.2 ~nte~iative
Thinking
2.4 Methods of Comparison
2.4.1 Experimental Method
2.4.2 Case Study
2.4.3 Statistical Method
2.4.4 Focussed Comparisons
2.4.5 Historical Method
2.5 Let Us Sum Up
2.6 Key Words
2.7 Some Useful Books
2.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Excercises
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Comparison is a familiar exercise for all of us. Most decisions in our daily lives,
whether buying fruits and vegetables from the vendor or choosing a book or an
appropriate college and career, involve making comparisons. When comparison is
employed, however, to study social and political phenomena, there should be
something about 'comparison' as a 'method' which makes it more appropriate
than other methods for the purpose. To assess this appropriateness, we first need
to know what is the comparative method and how it can be distinguished from
other methods, some of which also compare e.g., the experimental and statistical
methods. We should also understand as to why, we should use the comparative
method rather than any other method. Again, how one goes about comparing or
planning strategies of comparison, is also important to bear in mind. In this Unit
we will take up all these issues. After going through this unit you will be able to
understand:
What is method? What is the comparative method? How can the.

comparative method be distinguished from other methods?
Why is the comparative method used? Which are the phenomenon which can
be best understood\explained by this method?
How does one use the comparative method in the study of politics?
What are its relative advantages and disadvantages over other methods? and
What is the significance of the comparative method to the field of
Comparative Politics?
Each section ends with a question which will help you check your progress.
There are explanatory notes for some key words at the end of the unit. These
words will be highlighted in the text so that you can look up the meanings as and
when they occur in the text.
2.1 INTRODUCTION : WHAT IS COMPARISON

In the previous paragraph we noted how comparisons form part of our daily lives.
None of us, however, live in a vacuum. Our daily lives are crisscrossed by
Comparative Mcthodq and numerous other lives. In so many ways our own experiences and observations of
Approaches
our environment get shaped and influenced by those of others. In other words,
our observation of our immediate world would show that people and events are
connected in a network of relationships. These relationships may be close or
emotionally bound as in a family, or as the network expands in the course of our
daily lives, professional (as in our place of work) or impersonal (as with our co-
passengers in the bus in which we travel). These relationships or
interconnectedness, however, may show a regularity, a pattern or a daily-ness, and
may also themselves be regulated by norms and rules e.g. the daily route of the
bus, its departure and arrival timings etc. The idea here is to show that whereas
each individual might be seen as having a specific daily routine, tliere is at the
same time a cumulative or aggregate effect, where a number of such individuals
may be seen as following a similar routine. The lives of these individuals, we can
say, has a pattern of regularity, which is comparable in terms of their similarity.
Now, when the similarities can be clubbed together, irregularities or dissimilarities
can also be easily picked out. Explanations for both similarities and dissimilarities
can also be made after exploring the commonalities and variations in the
conditions of their lives. In order to illustrate this let us imagine a residential
colony. The majority of the male residents leave for work by a chartered bus at 8
in the morning and return at 6 in the evening. Some residents, however, leave at
9 in the morning, in their respective cars, and return at 5 in the evening. The
residents of the colony thus form roughly two groups displaying two kinds of
patterns of behaviour. Explanations for both sirnilarities within each group and
dissimilarities between the two groups can be found by comparing individual
situations or conditions in each group. While explanations for sirnilarities can be
i commonalities in the conditions, explanations of irregularity or
seen i ~the
dissimilarities between groups can be explained in terms of absence of conditions
which permit the similarity in one group e.g., it may be found that those who
travel by bus have a lot of things in common besides going to their offices in the
chartered bus such as same office, absence of personal vehicles, more or ,less
similar polsitionststatus in the office, location of offices on the same route qtc.
- Those who travel by their cars, would likewise exhibit similarities of conditions
within their group. The explanation for the different patterns between the groups
can be seen in terms of the absence of conditions which permit similarities in the
two groups e.g., the car group residents may be going to different offices which
do not fall on the same bus route; they may be the only ones owning cars; their
status in their ofices may be higher etc. The explanations could be numerous and
based also on numerous other variables like caste, gender, political beliefs etc. On
the-basis of this observation of similarities and dissimilarities, propositions can thus
be made in terms of a causal-relationship e.g. mentwomen who drive to work do
so because there are no chartered buses to their place of work or mentwomen
who own private vehicles are more likely to drive to work than those who do not
own vehicles or upper class women are more likely to drive to work etc. Let us
move on from this extremely simplistic example to the complex ways in whicli
social scientists use comparisons.
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.

ii) Check your answer with the model answers given at the end of the
unit.
1) Drawing from your observations of your surroundings do a simple exercise of

comparison, looking for explanations of why some persons act in a particular
way.

Comparative Method and
Strategies of Comparison
2.2 SOME THOUGHTS ON METHOD
Before we begin studying the comparative method, let us first see what exactly is
a 'method' and why it is considered so important. Method as we know from our
experiences, is a useful, helpful and instructive way of accomplishing something
with relative ease. A piece of collapsible furniture, for example, comes with a
manual guiding us through the various steps to set it up. While studying a
phenomenon, method would similarly point to ways and means of doing things.
We may not, however, unlike our example of the collapsible furniture, know the
final shape or results of our explorations at the outset. We may not also have a
precise instruction nlanual guiding us to the final outcome. We will simply have
the parts of the furniture and tools to set it up in other words, 'concepts' and
'techniques'. These concepts (ideas, thoughts, notions) and techniques (ways of
collecting data) will have to be used in specific ways to know more about, '.
understand or explain a particular phenomenon. Thus, it may be said, that the
organisation of ways of application of specific concepts to data is 'method'. Of
course the manner of collection of data itself will have to be worked out. The
concepts which are to be applied or studied will have to be thought out. All this
will eventually have to be organised so that the nature of the data and the
manner in which it is collected and the application of the concept is done in a
way that we are able to study with a degree of precision what we want to study.
In a scientific inquiry much emphasis is placed on precision and exactness of the
method. Social sciences, however, owing to the nature of their subject matter,
have had to think of methods which come close to the accuracy of scientific
experilnents in laboratories or other controlled conditions. A number of scholars,
however, do not feel that there should be much preoccupation with the so called
'scientific research'. Whatever the bqliefs of scholars in this regard, there is
nonetheless a 'metl~od'in thinking, exploring and research in all studies. Several
methods, con~parative,historical, experimental, statistical etc. are used by scholars
for their studies. It may be pointed out that all these methods may use
conlparisons to varying degrees. The comparative method also uses tools of the
historical, experimental and statistical methods. It is also important to bear in mind
that comparative method is not the monopoly of comparative politics. It is used in
all domains of knowledge to study physical, human and social phenomenon.
Sociology, history, anthropology, psychology etc., use it with similar confidence.
These disciplines have used the comparative method to produce studies which are
referred variously as 'cross-cultural' (as in anthropology and psychology) and
'cross-national' (as in political science and sociology) seeming thereby to
emphasise different fields.
f
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ,
ii) Check your answer with the model arlswers given at the end'of the
unit
I) What is method? Why do you think method is an important part of'research?

.. - .
ComprrrHve Methods and

Approaches
.......................................................................................................................
2.3 -
THE COMPARATIVE METHOD: WHY COMPARE
2.3.1 Social-Scientific Research
The compiarative method has been seen as studying similarities and differences as
the basis fbr developing a 'grounded theory', testing hypotheses, inferring
causality, and producing reliable generalisations. Many social scientists believe that
research should be scientifically organised. The comparative method, they believe,
offers them the best means to conduct 'scientifid' research i.e, research
characteri$ed by precision, validity, reliability and verifiability and some amount of
predictability. The American political scientist James Coleman, for example, often
reminded his students, 'You can't be scientific if you're not comparing'. Swanson
similarly omphasised that it was 'unthinkable' to think of 'scientific thought and all
scientific research' without comparisons. (Guy E.Swanson, 'Frameworks for
Comparative Research: Structural Anthropology and the Theory of Action' in Ivan
Val lier ed., Comparative Methods in Sociology, Berkeley, 1971, p. 145).
Whereas in physical sciences comparisons can be done in laboratories under

carefully controlled conditions, precise experimentation in social sciences under
conditions which replicate laboratory conditions is not possible. If, for example, a
social scientist wishes to study the relationship between electoral systems and the
number uf political parties, dhe cannot instruct a government to change its
electoral system nor order people to behave in a particular way to test histher
hypothesis. Nor can dhe replicate a social or political phenomenon in a laboratory
where tests can be conducted. Thus, while a social scientist may feel compelled
to work i~na scientific way, societal phenomena may not actually permit what is
accepted a s 'scientific' inquiry. Sthe can, however, study 'cases' i.e., actually
existing political systems and compare them i.L, chalk out a way to nudy their
relationship as worked out in the hypothesis, draw conclusions and offer
generalisations.
Thus thecomparative method, though scientifically weaker than the experimental

method, Is considered closest to a scientific method, offering the best possible
opportunrity to seek explanations of-societal phenomena and offer theoretical
propositdons and generalisations. The question you might ask now is what makes
- comparative method, scientific. Sartori tells us that the 'control function' or the
system df checks, which is integral to scientific research and a necessary part of
laboratory experimentation, can be ach'ieved in social sciences only through
compri~ons.He goes further to propose that because the control function can be
exercised only through the comparative method, comparisons are indispensable in
social saiences. Because of their function of controlling/checking the validity of
theoretioal propositions, comparisons have the scientific value of making
generalised propositions or theoretical statements explaining particular phenomena
making lpredictions, and also what he terms 'learning from others' experiences'.:
In this oontext it is important to point out that the nature of predictions in
1
comparative method have only a probabilistic causality. This means that it can
state its results only in terms of likelihoods or probabilitieh i.e., a given set o f '
conditions are likely to give an anticipated outcome. This is different from
deterministic'causality in scientific research which emphasises certainty i.e., a
given set of conditions will produce the anticipated outco_me/result.- -- -- ..
22
Content
-, Digitized by eGyanKosh,
/ '
IGNOU I
2.3.2 Integrative Thinking Comparative Method and
Strategies o f Comparison
Integrative 'thinking' or looking for relations and connections: We saw in the

previous paragraph that some social scientists use the comparative method to
develop a scientific inquiry. For others, however, 'thinking with comparisons' is an
integral part of analysing specific social and political phenomenon. Swanson for
example, feels that 'thinking without comparisons is unthinkable'. 'No one', he
points out, 'should be surprised that comparisons, implicit and explicit, pervade the
work of social scientists and have done so from the beginning: comparisons
among roles, organisations, communities, institutions, societies, and cultures'.
(Swansoa, 1971, p. 145) Emile Durkheim, the renowned German Sociologist affirms
that the comparative method enables (sociological) research to 'cease to be purely
descriptive'. (Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society, 1949, p,139)
Even descriptions, however, points out Smelser, cannot work without comparisons.
Simple descriptive words like 'densely populated' and 'democratic', he
substantiates, 'presuppose a universe of situations that are more or less populated
or more or less democratic' and one situation can be statedldescribed only in
relationlcomparison to the other. (Neil J. Smelser, Comparative Methods in the
Social Sciences, Englewood, 1976, p.3) It is this 'presupposition of a universe' in
which a descriptive category can be placed, within a set of relationships, helps us
to analyse it better, feel quite a number of scholars. Manoranjan Mohanty
therefore seeks to emphasise relationships rather than looking merely for
similarities and dissimilarities among phenomena. The latter or the 'compare and
contrast approach' as he calls it would ultimately become 'an exercise in
dichotomisation, an act of polarising'. In other words, such an exercise would lead
to classification of likes in groups of isolated compartments so that a comparative
exercise would becolne nothing more than finding similarities within groups and
dissimilarities among them. For the identification of relationships of unity and
opposition, one must modify one's questions. This v~ouldmean that the questions
asked should not be such as to bring out answers locating merely similarities and
dissimilarities but 'the relationsl~ipwhich exists betweer) them'. Only then shall
one be able to understand the comparability of political systems like the United
States of America (U.S.A) and United Kingdom (U.K), for instance which differ
in their forms of government (Presidential and Cabinet forms, respectively).
The need to look for relationships rather than only indicators of similarity and
,dissimilarity is also asserted by Smelser. Smelser feels that often a comparative
exercise ends up looking for reasons only for differences or 'dissimilarities' and
gives explanations which are often 'distortions'. The fascination or preoccupation
with the 'new' and the 'unique', in other words, what is seen as different from
the rest, has always 'been part of human nature. Historically there has been a
tendency to either praise these differences as 'pure' remainders of a previous age
or see them as deviations from what is seen as normal behaviour. Thus the
emphasis on similarities and differences may lead to similarities or uniformities
being seen as norms and dissimilarities and variations as 'deviations' from the
norm. The explanations offered for such deviations might not only be.'distortions'
but often lead to categorisations or classifications of categories in terms of binary
oppositions, hierarchies or even in terms of the ideal (good) and deviant (bad).
Often, in a system of unequal relationships, the attribution of differences and their
reasons, results in the justification of the disempowerment of groups seen as
different. We have seen in the history of colonialism that the colonised were
deprived of freedom and the right to self governance. The colonising nation
sought to justify this deprivation by describing the subject population as being
incapable of self'rule because it had different social structures and religious
beliefs. The location of difference here cameYrom the vantage point of power -
that of the colonising nations. In such situations dinarjl oppositions like the West
and East may indicate countries or people not only described as having different Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
c o m v r y h o d s and attributes but also separate existences even in terms of time. Thus while the
Appror
colonising British were seen as having reached a stage of modernisation, the
colonised Indians were seen to exist in a state of timelessndss, in other words
trapped in a backward past. Historically, however, we have lived in a world which
is marked by what Eric Wolf calls 'interconnections'. Thus the appeal to look for
relationships, is lent weight by Eric Wolf, whose work corrects the notion that the
destiny of nations has historically been shaped by European nations while the
others were merely quiet spectators. Wolf shows that historically interconnections
have been and continue to be a fact in the lives of states and nations. (Eric Wolf,
Europe and the People Without History, California, 1982). This means that
looking for relationship is not only possible, ignoring such 'intervonnections' will in
- fact be historically iovalid.

C
i Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the
unit.
1) How do comparisons help achieve the purposes of social-scientific
7
research?
2) The purpose of the comparative method is to look for relationships rather

than dichotomies.
Elaborate.
......................................................s. .......................................
2.4 METHODS OF COMPARISON

i
A variety of methods of comparison are used in sock1 sciences.
2.4.1 Experimental Method 1

Although the experimental method has limited application in social sciences, it
provides the model on which many comparativists aspire to base their studies.
Simply put, the experimental method aims to establish a causal relationship
between two conditions. In other words the objective of the experiment is to
establish that one condition leads to the other or influences the other in a
particular way. If, for example one wishes to studylexplain why children differ in >
their ability to communicate in English in large-group setting, a number of factors
may be seen as influencing this capability viz., social background, adeptness in the
language, familiarity of surroundings etc. The investigator may want to study the
influence of all these factors or one of them or even a combination of factors.
I
j
Slhe then isolates the conditionlfactors whose influence s h e wants to study and
thereby make precise the role of each condition. The condition whose effect is to
I
1
1
be measured and is manipulated by the. investigator is the independent Varitible I
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU e.g., social background etc. The condition, upon which the influence is-to be - .
studied, is thus the dependent variable. Thus, in an experiment designed to study Comparative ~ e t h o dand
the effect of social background on ability to communicate, social background will
be the independent variable and the ability to communicate, the dependent
variable. The investigator works out a hypothesis stated in terms of a relationship
between the two conditions which is tested in the experiment viz., children coming
from higher socio-economic background display better ability to communicate in
English in large group settings. The results of the experiment would enable the
investigator to offer general propositions regarding the applicability of herthis
findings and compare them with other previous studies.
2.4.2 Case Study
A case study, as the name suggests focusses on indepth study of a single case.
In that sense, while the method itself is not strictly comparative, it provides the
data (on single cases) which can become the basis of general observations. These
observations may be used to make comparisons with other 'cases' and to offer
general explanations. Case studies, however, may, in a disproportionate manner
emphasise 'distinctiveness' or what are called 'deviant' or unusual cases. There
might be a tendency, for example, among comparativists to explore questions like
why United States of America does not have a socialist party rather than to
explore why Sweden along with most western de~nocracieshas one.
We will study briefly Alexis de Tocqueville's classic studies of 18th century

France (The Old Reginte and the French Revolution, 1856) and 19th century
United States (Democracy in America: Vol I, 1835; Vol 11, 1840) to show how
comparative explanations can be madeLby focussing on single cases. Both his
studies seem to ask different questions. The French case attempts to explain why
the 1789 French Revolution broke out and the U.S.A. case seems to concentrate
on seeking reasons for, and consequences of, conditions of social equality in the
U.S.A. While both these works were spaced by more than twenty years, there is
an underlying unity of theme between them. This unity is partly due to
Toqueville's preoccupation in both with similar conceptual issues viz., equality and
inequality, despotism and freedom and political stability and instability and his
views on social structure and social change. Also underlying the two studies is his
conviction regarding the inexorability of the Western historical transition from
aristocracy to democracy, from inequality to equality. Finally, and this is what
makes these individual works comparative, and according to some a single
comparative study, is the fact that in both the studies the other nation persists as
an 'abset~t' case or referent. Thus, his analysis of the American society is
influenced by his perspective on the French society and vice versa. 'The
American case was understood as a 'pure' case of 'democracy by birth', where
the social evolution towards equality had 'nearly reached its natural limits' leading
to conditions of political stability, a diminished sense of relative deprivation among
its large middle class and a conservative attitude towards change. 'The French
case was an aristocracy (a system of hierarchical inequalities) which had entered
a transitionary stage in the 18th century, with conditions of inequality mixing with
expectations and desire for equality, resulting in an unstable mix of the two
principles of aristocracy and equality, leading to despotism, and culminating in the
revolution of 1789. Thus Tocqueville's unique case study of individual cases was
effectively a study of national contrasts and similarities within a complex model of
interaction of historical forces to explain the divergent historical courses taken up
by France and U.S.A.
2.4.3 Statistical Method
The statistical method uses categories arid variables which are quantifiable or can
be represented by numbers, e.g., voting patterns, public expenditure, political
Comparative Methods and parties, voter turnout, urbanisation, population growth. It also offers unique
Approaches
opportunities to study the effects or relationships of a number of variables
simultaneously. It has the advantage of presenting precise data in a compact and
visually effqctive manner, so that similarities and dissimilarities are visible through
numerical representation. The fact that a number of variables can be studied
together also gives the unique opportunity to look for complex explanations in
terms of a relationship. The use of the statistical method also helps explain and
compare long term trends and patterns and offer predictions on future trends. A
study, for example, of the relationship of age and political participation can be
made through an analysis of statistical tables of voter turnout and age-categories.
Comparison of this data over long periods, or with similar data in other countries/
political systems, or with data showing voter turn out in terms of religious groups,
social class and age can help us make complex generalisations, e.g., middle class,
Hindu, mald voters between the age of 25 and 30 are the most prolific voters.
Cross national comparisons may lead to findings like, middle class women of the
age group 25 to 30 are more likely to vote in western democracies than in
developing countries like India. The utility ofthis method lies in the relative ease
with which it can deal with multiple variables. It fails, however, to offer complete
answers or give the complete picture. It can, however, be employed along with
qualitative analysis to give more comprehensive explanations of relationships and
the broad categories which the statistical method uses in order to facilitate their
numerical representation.
2.4.4 Focussed Comparisons
These studies take up a s~nallnumber of countries, often just two (paired or

binary comparisons), and concentrates frequently on particular aspects of the
countries' politics rather 'than on all aspects. Comparative studies of public policies
in different countries has successfully been undertaken by this method. Lipset
distinguishes two kinds of binary or paired comparison: the implicit and explicit. In
the implicit binary comparison, the investigator's own country, as in the case of de
Tocqueville% study of America, may serve as the reference: Explicit paired
comparisons have two clear cases (countries) for comparison. The two countries
may be studied with respect to their specific aspects e.g., policy of population
control in India and China or in their entirety e.g., with respect to the process of
modernisation. The latter may, however, lead to a parallel study of two cases
leaving little scope for a study of relationships.
2.4.5 Historical Method
The historical method can be distinguished from other methods in that it looks for
causal explanations which are historically sensitive. Eric Wolf emphasises that
any study which seeks to understand societies and causes of human action could
not merely seek technical solutions to problems stated in technical terms. 'The
important thing was to resort to an analytic history which searched out the causes
of the present in the past. Such an analytic history could not be developed out of
the study of a single culture or nation, a single culture area, or even a single
continent at one period in time, but from a study of contacts, interactions and
'interconnections' among human populations and cultures. The world of humankind '
constitutes a manifold, a totality of interconnected processes, and inquiries that
disassemble this reality into bits and then fail to reassemble it falsify reality.
Historical studies have concentrated on one or more cases seeking to find causal
explanations of social and political phenomena in a historical perspective. Single
case studies seek, as mentioned in a previous section, to produce general
statements which may be applied to other cases. Theda Scokpol points out that
comparative historical studies using more than one case fall broadly into two
categories, 'comparative history' and 'comparative historical analysis'. Comparative Method and
Comparative history is commonly used rather loosely to refer'to any study in
which two or more historical trajectories are of nation-states, institutional
/
I
complexes, or civilisations are juxtaposed. Some studies which fall in this genre,
like Charles, Louis and Richard Tilly9s The Rebellious Century 1810-1930, aim
at drawing up a specific historical model which can be applied across different
national context. Others, such as Reinhard Benedix's Nation Building and
Citizenship and Perry Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist State, use
comparisons primarily to bring out contrasts among nations or civilisations,
conceived as isolated wholes. Skocpol herself subscribes to the second method
i.e., comparative histotical analysis, which aims primarily to 'develop, test, and
I refine causal, explanatory hypotliesis about events or structures integral to macro-
units such as nation-states'. This it does by taking 'selected slices of national
I historical trajectories as the units of comparison', to develop causal relationship
I about specific phe~iomenon(e.g. revolutions) and draw generalisations. There are
two ways in which valid associations of potential causes with the phenomenon
one is trying to explain can be established. These methods laid out by John
Stuart Mill in his A Systetn of Logic are (a) the method of Agreement and (b)
I
the method of Difference. The method of agreement involves taking up for study
several cases having in common both the phenomenon as well as the set of
causal factors proposed in the hypothesis. The method of difference, which is
used by Skocpol, takes up two sets of cases: (a) the positive cases, in which the
phenomenon as well as the hypothesised causal relationships are present and the
1 (b) the negative cases, in which the phenomenon as well as the causes are
absent but are otherwise similar to the first set. In her comparative analysis of
I
the French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions, in States and Social Revolutions,
A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, (Cambridge, 1979).
Skocpol takes up the three as the positive cases of successful social revolution
and argues that the three reveal similar causal patterns despite many other
dissimilarities. She takes up also a set of negative cases viz., failed Russian
Revolution of 1905, and selected aspects of English, Japanese and German
histories to validate the arguments regarding causal relationship in the first case.
Critics of the historical method feel that because the latter does not study a large
number of cases, it does not offer the opportunity to study a specific phenomenon
in a truly scientific manner. Harry Eckstein for instance argues that
generalisations based on small number of cases 'may certainly be a generalisation
in the dictionary sense'. However, 'a generalisation in the methodological sense'
ought to 'cover a number of cases large enough for certain rigorous testing
procedures like statistical analysis to be used'. (Harry Eckstein, Internal War,
1964)
Note: i) . Use the space given below for your answers

ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the
unit.
1) What is meant by experimental method? How far is this method appropriate
for the study of political phenomenon in a comparative framework? . '

' Comparative Methods and 2) Design a problem of comparative politics using the statistical method.
I Approaches
I
2.5 LET US SUM UP

Studying with comparisons is important for understanding and explaining political
and social phehomehon. A comparative method helps us to go beyond mere
descriptionstowards looking for ways in which political and social processes can
be explained and based on such explanations general theoretical propositions can
be made. It reminds us of the network of interconnections that exist among
social, politiical, economic and cultural phenomena which help us understand better
the changin$ nature of our environment.
Check Youk ~ r o g r e &5
Note: i) ~ i s ethe space given below for your answers.

ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the
. unit.
1) What ade the different methods of comparison? What are the relative
advantakes of each in the study of comparative politics?
.......................................................................................................................
2) Can one compare without having a historical perspective? Give the

advantakes and disadvantages of the historical method in the light of this
statemefit.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
............... ......................................................................................
' 3) s he comparative method helps in integrative thinking. Comment.

........................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2.6 KEY WORDS

-
Control: a regulation or check An important part of experiments where a
parallel experiment or group of subjects is set up (control group) - to provide a
standard of comparison for other experiment. In an experiment set up to study
the effect of visual aids in learning, the control group will not be introduced with

the condition (visual aid) whose influence is to be studied. Comparative Method and
Strategies o f Conpariron
Causal Explanation: A way of understanding something by holding that some
fact(s) lead to the appearance of other facts e.g., overpopulation may be the -.
cause of housing problem.
a) Probabilistic Causality: A probabilisitc causality is said to exist when the

statement of results and predictions are made only in terms of likelihoods or '
probabilities i.e., a given set of conditions are likely to give an anticipated

outcome.
-.
b) Deterministic Causality: Deterministic causality is the preferred way of

I understanding relationships in scientific research as it emphasises certainty
i.e., a given set of conditions will produce the anticipated outcometresult.
Generalisations: A general statement made in a manner so that it can be seen

as holding true in a number of cases.
Grounded theory: A grounded theory is a framework of explanations of specikc

events etc. or explanatory principles and ideas which are derived from systematic
study and observations of facts.
Hypothesis: This is'a statement which holds something to be true under some
conditions e.g. land lioldirigs would decrease continuously as population increases.
Method: Methods are ways of organising theories for applicatio~ito data, also
called 'conceptual schemes'. Types of method comparative (using more than one
case), configurative (using a single case study) and historical (using time and
sequence). Method is moreabout 'thinking about thinking'.
Model: In simple terms an intellectual construct which simplifies reality Sn order

to emphasise the recurrent, the constant and the typical, which it presents in the
form of clusters of tracts or attributes. In other words, 'models' and 'types' are
treated as synonyms.
1
Precision: The attribute of being exact, definite or accurate.
Predictability: Somethirig which can be predicted or expectedtanticipated to

happen.
Reliability: A test of credibility e.g., the reliability of a test is confirmed if it

gives the same result (under the same conditions) every time.
Techniques: Techniques link method to the relevant data. Techniques vary in

appropriateness -sampling, interviews etc.
heo ore tical Propositions: A statement (like a generalisation) confirming or

denying a relationship between two variables. The statement is expected-to have
a general application.
I Validity: This is also a test of credibility, confirming soundness or adequacy, e.g.,

the validity of an experimen't studying pressure differences will be confirmed if
I
the data studied actually represents pressure differences and not something else, I
I viz., temperature differences.
b
Variables: Something which is not fixed; something which is changeable; in an
i1 experinlent a variable is a category which is subject to change ti the

i
experimenter [(a) independent variable] or as a result of the e periment .
29
1
Comparrtive Methods [(b) dependent variable]. (c) Intervening variable: Variables which may occur
Approaches
in between and interrupt or influence the result.
Verifiability: Which can be confirmed or tested to be true.
2.7 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and Shaun Bresl in, Comparative Government and
Politics, Macmillan, London, 1993, third edition, (Chapter two).
Mohanty, Manoranjan, 'Comparative Political 'Theory and Third World Sensitivity',

Teaching Politics, No. l&2, 1975.
Sartori, Gibvanni, 'Compare, Why and How', in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil
(ed .), Corl~arittgNutions, Concepts, Strategies, Substunce, B lackwel I, Oxford,
1994.
Smelser, Neil J., Contparative Methods in the Social Sciences, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, 1976 (Introduction).

-
EXERCISES
-
Cbeck Yaur Progress 1
Write on the basis of your personal observations.
Cbeck Your Progress 2

I) See Section 2.2

I r
1) The comparisons are undertaken on the basis of testing hypothesis, inferring

casuality and producing reliable generalisations. As such they are
characterised by precision, validity, reliability and verifiability the necessary
aspects of scientific research.
2) See Sub-section 2.3.2
1) See Sub-section 2.4.1 ,'

I
2) Design on the basis of what you have learnt in this unit.

UNIT 3 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
Structure
Objectives
Introductio~i
The Institutional Approach
3.2.1 The Institutional Approach: A Historical Overview
3.2.2 The lnstitutional Approach and the Emergence o f Comparative Government
lnstitutional Approach: A Critical Evaluation
The lnstitutional Approach in Contemporary Comparative Study
Let U s Sum Up
Key Words
Some Useful Books
3.0 OBJECTIVES .
In this unit we shall focus on (a) what constitutes the institutibnal approach (b)
the significance o f this approach in making comparisons (c) the units o f
comparisons (d) tlie specific questions tliis approacli seeks to answer or
alternatively, what are the questions which tliis approacli can possibly answer, and
what are its aspirations and capacities (e) liow does this approacli explain
differences and similarities. After going tlirougli these you will be able to
understand:
what are the bases of comparison in this approach.
where from does it derive its tools of comparison and
what purposes are sought to be served by such comparisons

: what, in other words, i s the vantage point o f this approacli
the limitations, and conversely, the importance o f this approach both at
present and at the time when this approacli constitilted the main field o f
comparative political analysis.
Tliis unit i s divided into different sections wliich take up in some detail the above
concerns. Each section i s followed by questions based on the section. Towards
the end o f the unit is provided a list of readings wliicll should be used to '
supplement this unit. Questions towards tlie end of the unit will help you to assess
your overall understanding o f tlie Institutional approach. All terms which have
specific meanings in comparative political analysis have been explained in the
section on keywords.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The institutional approach to comparative political analysis, simply put, is a
comparative study of institutions. The natyre (comparative) and subject ntatter
(institutions) o f study are thus quite evident. If, for example, one were to'study
the relative significance o f the upper houses in parliamentary democracies, one
would study the upper houses in several parliamentary democracies (e.g., the
Raiya Sabha in India and the House o f Lords in United Kingdom) and assess
their relative significance in each case. One could then, on tlie basis of this
comparative study o f such institutions, arrive at generalised conclusions and
explanations pertaining to their relevance or even utility in parliamentary
democracies e.g. the constitutio~io f upper houses o f parliament lacks

-
Comp.r.tivc Mctbodr .ad representative character or the hereditary character of upper houses erodes the
Approrebcr
democratic dharacter of legislatures. One could also, for example, look at the
upper houses of parliaments to study the historical contexts which shape the
evolution of a particular upper house. One could, for example, examine the
contexts (social and economic) of the evolution of the two houses of Parliament
in United K~ingdomto see why the House of Lords retained a hereditary
charactdr. Olne could alsathen understand the contexts in which the current
initiatives td end its hereditary character emerged.
For a tang tjme, comparative political analysis was associated primarily with a
comparativq study of institutions. Comparative political analysis may in fact be
said-to hav$ begun with a study of institutions. Thus if one were to trace the
evolution of comparative politics as a discipline of study, one can see the study of
institutions ras marking the hint where the comparative method first began to be
used. The study of institutions, however, not only marked the beginning of
comparative study, it remained more or less the predominant approach in
comparativq politics up to the nineteen fifties. Thus one can propose that
traditionall' comparative political analysis was confined to the study of
institutions 'and the various ways in which these institutions manifested themselves
in the distribution of power and the relationships between the various layers and
organs of government.
3.2 THE INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

The study +f institutions has a long history beginning perhaps with the
philosophidal explorations of the ideal state in Plato's Republic. In the section
which folldws we shall attempt an overview of the manner in which the
institutional approach has evolved historically. We shall also, because we are
primarily mncerned with studying the approach within the field of comparative
political analysis, concern ourselves especially with the historical moment at which
the institutional approach assumed a comparative character. We may, however, as
a matter of introduction, describe here characteristic features of the institutional
differentiate it from other approaches viz., the political systems
economy approach etc.
It is generblly agreed th;t any approach or enquiry into a problem displays certain
characteristics pertaining. to (a) subject matter (i.e. what is being studied) (b)
vocabulmy (the tools or the language) and (c) the choice of political
perspective (which determines the vantage point and indicates the direction from
and to whbt purposes enquiry is directed at). If the features of the institutional
approach were considered against each of these three counts, it may be seen as
marked out by (a) its concern with studying institutions of government and the
nature of distritributio? of power, viz., constitutions, legal-formal institutions of
government (b) its lafgely legalistic and frequently speculative and prescriptive/
normative vocabulary, in so far as it has historically shown a preoccupation with
abstract t ~ r m sand conditions like 'the ideal state' and 'good order' (c) a
philosophical, historical or legalistic perspective.
A charac&ristic feature of this iPproach has also been its ethnocentrism. TJje' .
majot wolks which are s k n as representing the institutional,approach in
comparative politics, have concerned themselves only with governments and
1 ,
.
institutiods in western countries. Implicit in this approach is thus a belief in the
primacy bf western liberal democratic institutions. This belief not only sees
western liberal democracy as the best form of government, it gives it also a
'universal' and 'normative' character. The 'universal' character of western liberal
/ demwraqy,assrrmes that this form of government is 'not only the best, it is also
1 universally applicabte. The 'normativity' of western liberal democracies follows
I I
from this assumption. If it is the best form of governance which is also Institutional Approach
universally applicable, liberal democracies is the form of government which
should be adopted everywhere. This prescribed norm i.e. liberal democracy,
however, also gave scope to an important exception. This exception unfolded in
the practices of rule in the colonies and in the implications (a) that the institutions
of liberal democracy were specifically western in their origin and contexts arld,
(b) that non-western countries were not fit for democratic self-rule until such time
as they could be trained for the same under western imperialist rule.
In the-sectionswhich follow we shall study in some detail, the origins of the

Institutional approach from antiquity to the first quarter of the present century
when it'became a predominant approach facilitating comparative study.
3.2.1 The Institutional Approach: A Historical Overview
Perhaps the oldest comparative study of governments was made by Aristotle

who studied constitutions and practices in Greek city-states. Contrasting them with
politics in the so called 'barbarian' states, Aristotle made a typology of
governments distinguishing between monarchies, oligarchies and democracy and
between these 'ideal' governments and their 'perverted' forms. The study of
comparative politics at this stage was marked by what may be called an
interrelation between facts and values. At this stage of its origins, a study of
institutions did not attempt to 'analyse' the 'theory and practice' of government as
emphasised by James Bryce in the late nineteenth century, to which we will come
later in the course of this section. There was instead an overwhelming desire to
explore 'ideal' states and forms of governments. In other words there was more
emphasis on speculations i.e on questions about what 'ought' to be, rather than
an analysis seeking explanations of what 'is' or what actually existed.
With Machiavelli (The Prince) in the sixteenth century and Montesquieu (The
Spirit of Laws) in the middle of the eighteenth century, the emphasis on empirical
details and facts about existing state of affairs came to be established.
Montesquieu was, however, followed mainly by constitutional lawyers, whose
vocation determined that they concentrate more on the contents i.e., the
theoretical (legal-constitutional) framework of governments rather than the manner
in which these frameworks unfolded in practice. Tocqueville, in many ways, was
the forbearer of the study of 'theory and practice' of governments, which became
the essence of the institutional approach in comparative political analysis in later
years. (Refer to Tocqueville's studies of American and French democracies in
Unit 2: Comparative Method and Strategies of Comparison). Bagehot (The
English Constitution, 1867) made another significant contribution to the -
developnlent of this element of the institutional approach in his study of the British
Cabinet drawing important points of co~nparisonwith the American Executive. It
was, however, Bryce, Lowell and Ostrogorski, who in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, made important contributions to comparative study of
institutions and by implication to the evolution of comparative governments as a
distinct branch of study.
3.2.2 The Institutional Approach a n d the Emergence of Comparative

Government
The Contributions of Bryce, Lowell and Ostrogorski

Bryce, Lowetl and Ostrogorski's works towards the end of the nineteenth century
and :'.e early twentieth century changed radically the contents of the institutional
approach and thereby the nature and scope of comparative politics. Assessin?
tjieir colltributions Jean Blondel asserts that Bryce and Lowell were in fact the
Comparative Methods true founders of comparative governments as it developed as a distinct branch of
Approreher
study in the last quarter of the nineteenth century (see Jean Blondel, The
Discipline of Politics, Chapter 7 : Middle Level Comparisons). The American
Commonwealth (1888) and Modern Democracies (1921) were two significant
works of Bryce. In Modern Democracies Bryce focusses on the theory of
democracy and examined the working of the legislatures and their decline.
Lowell's works Governments and Parties in Continental Europe (1 896) and
Public Opinion and Popular Government (1913) where he undertakes separate
studies of France, Germany, Switzerland etc. and a comparative study of
referendums and its impacts respectively were equally important. Similarly,
Ostrogorski's study Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties
(1902) which aimed to test the hypothesis, so to speak, of the 'democratic' or
'oligarchical' character of political parties was a pioneering work of the time. It is
important now to see exactly how these works augmented and in fact changed
the manner in which institutions were so far being studied.
i) 'Theory and Practice of governments': We mentioned in the earlier

section that comparative study of governments tended to be pliilosophical-
speculative or largely legal-constitutional i.e., they were either concerned with
abstract notions like the 'ideal state', or with facts regarding the legal-
constitutional frameworks and structures of governments. Based on liberal
constitutional theory they studied the formal institutional structures with
emphasis on their legal powers and functions. The works formed part of
studies on 'Comparative Government' or 'Foreign Constitutions'. These works
were seen to be relevant to the elites' efforts in institutional-building in
various countries. This is why in the newly independent countries
institutionalism acquired some fascination.
Bryce and Lowell, however, emphasised that the existing studies were partial
and incomplete. A more compreliensive study of goveniments should
according to them include also the working of the legal-constitutional
frameworks of governments. Such a study, they stressed, required not only a
study of the theoretical bases or contexts of governments (i.e. the legal-
constitutional framework and governmental institutions) but also an equal
emphasis on the study of 'practices of government'. To focus just on
constitutions, as lawyers do, was insufficient as it would lead to ignoring the
problems of their operation and implementation. On the other hand to focus
exclusively on practice, without grounding it in its tlieoretical (constitutional)
framework, would again be an incomplete study, as one may lose sight of the
contexts within .which the problems of implementation emerge. It was thus,
primarily with Bryce and Lowell that the content of institutional approach in
comparative political analysis came to be defined as a study of the 'theory
and practice of government'.
ii) Focus on 'facts': A significant component of these studies was the concern
to study 'practice' through an analysis of 'facts' about the working of
governments. To study practice one needed to discover, collect and even
'amass' facts. Bryce was emphatic in his advocacy to base one's analysis on
facts, without which, he said, 'data is mere speculation': 'facts, facts, facts,
when facts have been supplied each of us tries to reason from them'. A
major diff~culty,however, which collection of data regarding practices of
governments encountered was the tendency among goverliments to hide facts
than to reveal them. Facts were thus difficult to acquire because
governments and politicians often hid facts or were unwilling to clarify what
the real situation is. Nonetheless, this difficulty did not deter them from
stressing the importance of collecting data about almost every aspect of
political life, parties, executives, referendums, legislatures etc. This effort was
\

sustained by later comparativists like Herman Finer (Theory and Practice Institutional Approact
of Modern Government, 1932) and Carl Friedrich (Constitutional

Government and Democracy, 1932).
iii) Technique: The search for facts also led Bryce and Lowell towards the use
of quantitative indicators, on the basis of the realisation that in the study of
government, qualitative and quantitative types of evidence have to be
balanced. Finally, however, Bryce and Lowell felt that conclusions could be
firm only if they were based on as wide a range of facts as possible.
Therefore, their studies extended geographically to a large number of
countries which, at the time, had institutions of a constitutional or near-
constitutional character. They therefore, attempted to focus their study on
governments of western, central and southern Europe. It was, however, with
Ostrogorski's work that comparative political analysis began to focus on
studying specific institutions on a comparative basis. In 1902, Ostrogorski
published a detailed study of political parties in Britain and America. Later,
significant works on the role of political parties was done by Michels
(Political Parties, 191 5) and M.Duverger (Political Parties, 1950).
Major criticisms of the institutional approach came in the 1950s from 'system
theorists' like Easton and Macridis who emphasised the building of
overarching models having a generallglobal application. They attempted to
I
understand and explain political processes in different countries on the basis
of these models. These criticisms and the defence offered by institutionalists
will be discussed in the next section.

ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What do you understand by the institutional approach?
.......................................................................................................................
.........
............................................................................................................
2) What are its various characteristics?
3) Examine the characteristics of the institutional approach at the turn of the

nineteenth century.

Cornprrrtive Methods and
Approaches 3.3 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH: A CRITICAL
It is interesting that criticisms of the institutional approach in comparative political

analysis have come in successive waves, in the early part of the twentieth
century and then again in the nineteen fifties. There has been after each wave of
criticism a fesurgence of the approach in a replenished form. Before the study of
institutions acquired a comparative character (however limited) at the turn of the
century, the approach was cyiticised, (a) as given to speculation; (b) as largely
prescriptive and normative; (c) concerned only with irregularities and regularities
without looking for re lationships; (d) conJigurative and non-comparative
focussing w it did on individual countries; (e) ethnocentric as it concentrated on
western ~ u i o ~ e a'democracies';
n (f) descriptive as it focussed on formal
(constitutiodal and governmental) structure; (g) historical without being
analyticat (h) contributors within this framework were so absorbed with the
study of institutions that differences in cultural settings and ideological frameworks
were complietely ignored while comparing, say, the upper chambers of the UK,
USA and USSR; (i) methodologically they were accused as being partiall
ineornplete and theoretically, it was said they missed the substance of political
life.
We saw, however, that with Bryce and his contemporaries the nature and content
of the institutional approach underwent a significant change, acquiring in a limited
way a combarative character, and attempting to combine theoretical contexts with
practices o$ governments. In the nineteen fifties the institutional approach as it
developed with Bryce, Lowell and Ostrogorski, came again under increasing
criticism by political scientists like David Easton and Roy Macridis. In his work
The Politiaal System (1953), David Easton made a strong attack against
Bryce's approach calling it 'mere factualism'. This approach, alleged Easton, had
influenced American Political Science, in the direction of what he called
'hyperfactwlism'. While admitting that. Bryce did not neglect 'theories', the
latter's (Bryce's) aversion to making explanatory or theoretical models, had led,
asserted Esston, to a 'surfeit of facts' and consequently to 'a theoretical
malnutrition'. (You will study in another unit about 'system building' as the basis
of Easton's 'systems approach' to studying political phenomena. It will not,
therefore, be difficult to understand why Easton felt that Bryce's approach had
misdirected American Political Science onto a wrong path.) Jean Blondel,
however, defends the institutional approach from criticisms like those of Easton,
directed tobards its so called 'factualism'. Blondel would grgue first that the
charge of 'surfeit of facts' was misplaced because there were in fact very few
facts available to political scientists for a comprehensive political analysis. In
reality very little was known about the structures and activities of major
institutions of most countries, particularly about the communist countries and
countries of the so called Third World. The need for collecting more facts thus
could not be neglected. This became all the more important given the fact that
more often than not governments tended to hide facts rather than transmit them.
Secondly, mhe devaluation of the utility of facts regarding institutions and legal
arrangements, by the supporters of a more global or systemic approach was, to
Blondel, entirely misconstrued. Institutions and the legal framework within which
they functioned formed a significant part of the entire framework in which a
political phenomenon could be studied. Facts about the former thus had to be
compared to facts about other aspects of the political life to avoid a partial study.
Facts werd, in any case needed for any effective analysis. No reasoning could be
done without having 'facts' or 'data'. This coupled with the point that facts were
difficultto acquire made them integral to the study of political analysis.

In 1955 Roy Macridis pointed out the need for a 'reorientation' in the . Institutional Approach
comparative study of government. He emphasised that in its existing form ,
comparative study has been 'comparative in name only'. Macridis described the
orientation of institutional approach as 'non-comparative', 'parochial', 'static! and
'monographic'. A good proportion of work was moreover, he asserted, 'essentially
descriptive'. This was because tlie analysis was historical or legalistic and
therefore 'rather narrow'. (See Roy Macridis, The Study of ~otn~arative'
Government, pp.7- 12).
It was however, realised in the 1950s, and continued to be the concern, that there
remained actually a paucity of fact from which valid generalisations could be
made. There was thus, asserts Blondel, a 'surfeit of models' rather than a 'surfeit
of facts'. Blondel emphasised that building models without grounding them in facts
would result in misinformations. This misinformation, given that facts about some
countries were harder to come by, was likely to affect and at times reinforce
preconceptions about thbe countries. Tlius while writing about Latin American
Legislatures in 1971, W. H. Agor remarked that there was a tendency to assert
that legislatures in that part of the world were very weak. Statements such as
these, he said, were based on 'extremely impressionistic evidence' that is, in the
absence of 'facts' consciously collected for the purposes of the study. Thus the
need for collecting and devising ways of collecting facts was stressed
emphatically by followers of the institutional approach. The criticisms were,
however, followed by works which had a more comparative focus and included
non-western countries. Further, there was also an attempt to undertake studies
comparing structures not determined by legal-constitutional frameworks e.g.
G.Sartori's work on Parties and Parry Systems (1976) which included in its
scope in a limited way ~ o m h u n i s countries
t and those of thk Third World, and
F.Castles7 study of Pressure Groups and Political Culture (1967).
Note: i) Use the space giv6n below for your answer.

ii) Check your answer with the answer given at tlie end of the unit.
I) What are the limitations of the institutional approach as out by

Easton and Macridis?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) How does Blondel build up a case in defence of the i~stitutionalapproach?
3.4 THE INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH IN

. CONTEMPORARY COMPARATIVE STUDY ,
Institutionalism remained more or less the exclusive approach in comparative

politics, up to the nineteen fifties. As discussed in a previous section (3.2), the
' approach became distinctive with the works of Bryce, Lowell and Ostrogorski.

Comparative Methods and Pioneering Ikork was done in comparative politics by Herman Finer (Theory
Approaches
and ~racticdof Modern Governments, 1932) and Carl Friedrich (Constitutional
Government 'and Democracy, 1932). Grounded in liberal Comtitutional theory,
1
they studied the formal institutional structures with emphasis on their legal
powers and nctions. These works formed part of studies on 'Comparative
Government or 'Foreign Constitutions' and were considered relevant to the qlites'
efforts in inskitutional building in various countries. In newly independent countries,
the institutiohal approach, appearing as it did, to emphasise institution-building,
acquired prominence.
The main facus of the institutional approach (i.e. its subject matter) was (a) law
and the conrjtitution, (b) historical study of government and the state 'n order to
understand the manner in which sovereignty, jurisdiotions, legal and legislative
instruments evolved in their different forms, (c) the manner in which the
structures of government functioned (theory and practice) which incl~dedthe
study of distributions of power and how these manifested themselves in relation
between nation and state, centre and local government, administration and
bureaucracy1 legal and constitutional practices and 'principles.
An underlying assumption of the approach was a belief in the uniquely western

character of democracy. This meant, as stated in the Introduction (section 3.1),
that derhocrklcy was seen as not only western in its origins but its apdication
elsewhere was imagined and prescribed only in that form. This led, qs mentioned
earlier, to a largely westcentric study i.e. a concentration on coun
Europe andNorth America. Blondel feels that the decline in the i
approaah in the 1950s was in part due to its inability to accomm
of inquiry '@onwestern (liberal) governments' particularly the p
Commqnist~countries of Eastern Europe and the newly indepe
Asia aqd Lgtin America. Thus an approach which prided itsel
theory with practice found itself unable to modify its framew
study facts lwhich did not mnform to liberal constitutional de
decline of the institutional approach in the 1950s was due in
earlier,,to the concerns by system theorists to building'theori
generalisatibns, rather than conclusions derived from facts.
< I
I
I
Since the late nineteen sixties and seventies, however, the institution I approach
resurfaced in a form which is called 'new institutionalism' and can be seen as
having thege characteristics: (a) As the term suggests, new institutio alism,
1
retained its focus on the study of theory and practice of institutions. The approach
stressed the importance of state and its institutional structures. (P. E ans,
D.Rue$chemeyer and T.Skocpol eds., Bringing the State Back In, 1985), Without
providing an overarching framework within which theLinstitutions m y be said to
function (ap in structural-functional approach). It focussed instead o the manner
in which the institutions interrelate. (b) While refraining from makin overarching
frameworks, the approach did not, however, avoid making generalise conclusions.
The preocaupation with the collection of facts, also did not diminish. In striving
for this combination, i.e., an adherence to fact based study aimed t wards making
generalised conclusions, however, the institutional approach, was carOi3ful (i) to
'draw conqlusions only after careful fact-finding efforts have taken place' and, (ii)
to make a~prudentuse of induction so that one 'kept close to
when gendralising' (see Jead Bhndel, 'Then and Now:
p.160); (iiil) the thrust of the approach, has
'middle-rabge analysis' where facts about specific
cover a brbader area offering greater scope for
however, dnalysed without offering inductive
the paliticbl parties (e.g. G.Sartori9sParties
and H.Kqman. Pqrties and Democracy, 1
Institutional Approach
Pressure Groups and Political bulture, 1967), judiciary (G.Schubert, Judicial
Behaviour, 1964), legislatures (M.L.Mezey, Comparative Legislatures, 1979;
A.Korneberg, Legislatures in Comparative Perspedive, 1973; J.Blonde1,
Comparative Legislatures, 1973; W.H.Agor, Latin American Legislatures, 1971)
and the military (S.E.Finer, Man on Horseback, 1962).
Note: i) Use the space given below foi: your answer.

ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What is the state of institutional approach in cqmpiritive political analysis
now?
3.5 LET US SUM UP

The institutional approach in its various forms has been an important constituent
of comparative political analysis. The study of institutions of governance was at
the core of political analysis be it tlie explorations of the ideal state of Plato's
Republic or the typology of States proposed. by Aristotle in his Politics. In its
classical and edrly. modern forms the approach $as more philosophical and
, speculative, concerned with ideal typical states and prescribing the norms of ideal
governance. With Montesquieu and his successors the preoccupation of the
approach with legal-constitutional frameworks or structures of democracies
became entrenched. The belief in institutions of liberal constitutional democracies,
however did not translate into a study of the manner in which the structures of
governance functioned. More often than not, at least till the end of the nineteenth
century, the intricacies of the legal-constitutional structures or the theoretical
framework of governance, continued to seize the attention of political scientists
and legal experts. So far, thus the approach could be said to have been
characterised by a preoccupation with ionstitutions and legal-formal institutions of
government and normative values of liberal democracy. This approach was
propagated also by colonial regimes to popularise European liberal values in the
colonies. The works of the institutionalists were also extremely relevant to the
elite's efforts in institution building in various countries. This is why in the newly
independent countries institutionalism acquired some fascination.
It was, however, only by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that
scholars like Bryce, Lowell and Osttogorski, broke new grounds in the study of
institutions (a) by combining the study of theoretical-legal-constitutional framework
with facts about their functioning and, (b) giving the study a comparative flavour
by including into their works the study of institutions in other countries. Thus, the
approach, by the first quarter of the twentieth century, could be said to have
acquired a limited comparative character and rigour by-combining in its analysis
theory and practice of institutions. In the nineteen fifties, however, the approach
came under attack from 'system builders' like Easton and Macridis. The latter
criticised the approach (a) for overemphasising facts (b) for lacking theoretical
formulations which could be applied generally to institutions in other countries and
(c) for lacking a comparative character. These theorists preferred on their own
part to build 'holisitic' or 'global' 'models' or 'systems' which could explain the
functioning of institutions in countries all over the world. An important criticism
Comparative Methods and leveled against the practitioners of the institutional approach was their westcentric
Approaches '
approach i.e. their failure to take up for study institutions in the countries of the
Third World, and communist countries of Eastern Europe. The failure to study
these countries emanated in effect from the normative framework of this
approach which could accommodate only the theoretical paradigms of western
liberal-constitutional democracies. The lack of tools to understand the institutions in
other countries of the developing and the communist worlds resulted in a
temporary waning of the influence of this approach. It resurfaced, however, in the
late sixties and early seventies, in a form which while retaining its emphasis on
facts, did not shy away fro-m making generalised theoretical statements, without,
however, atteinpting to build inclusive models.

Note: i) Space given below is provided for your answer
ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of the
unit.
1) Give an overview of the hist,orical development of the institutional approach
distinguishing between its significant characteristics at each stage.
2) How far do you think is the institutional approach effective in studying

political processes in a comparative perspective?
3.6 KEY WORDS

Configuradive description: Study of political institutions oriented towards a
detailed description of some countries without the use of any explicit conceptual
framework.
Empiricism: A strand in philosophy that attempts to tie knowledge to experience.

Pure empiricists would argue that the basis of true knowledge are facts which
are derived through sense perceptions.
Ethnocentrism: The application of values and theories drawn from one's own
culture to other groups and people's ethnocentrism implies bias or distortion.
Fact: A fact is what is said to be the case and it is associated Gith observation
and experiment.
Formal-legalism: the constitutional orientation comprising detailed descriptions of

the rules, supposedly governing the operations of cabinets, legislators, courts and .
bureaucracies.
Liberal democracy: a form of democratic rule that balances the principle of

limited government against the ideal of popular consent. Its 'liberal' features are
Institutional Approach
reflected in a network of internal and external checks on government that are
designed to guarantee liberty and afford citizens protection against the state. Its
'democratic' character is based on a system of regular and competitive elections,
conducted on the basis of universal suffrage and political equality.
Model: A theoretical representation of empirical data that aims to advance ,

understanding by highlighting significant relationships and interaction.
Non-comparison: Most of the texts in the field of comparative government either

studied one single country or engaged in parallel descriptions of a few countries.
Normative: The prescription of values and standards of conduct; what 'should

be' rather than what 'is'.
Parochialism: Restricted or confined within narrow limits e.g., in comparative

politics there was a typical bias in the selection of relevant countries to be studied
- the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States of America - and
in the relevant variables to be employed for description.
Perspective: The term widely used i,n social sciences to talk about different
ways of seeing, interpreting and experiencing social ieaiity.
Value: Values are statelnents which are supposed to be much more tied up with
judgement and subjectivity. Values are suppositions, they are not objective and
they do not apply to all people.

Apter,'David E., 'Comparative PoIitics, Old and New' in Robert E.Goodin and
Hans H.D.Klingeman eds., A New Handbook of Political Science, oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1996.
Blondel, Jean, The Discipline of Politics, Buttermorths, London, 1981. (Chapter

7: Middle Level Comparisons)
Blondel, Jean, 'Then and Now: Comparative Politics', Political Studies, XLVII,
1999, pp. 152- 160.
Wiarda, Howard, J., New Directions in Con~parutivePolitics, Westview Press,

Boulder, 1985.

EXERCISES

I)" The approach is based on the study of various institutions in comparision with
each other. This compares similarities and differences in the composition and
functions of similar institutio~ise.g. executive, legislature etc. and tries to
draw conclusions.
2) Co~nparisonof similar institutions; context of their origin, development and

working;drawing conclusions;making suggestions for changes or improvements
on the basis of conclusions.
3) See Sub-section 3.2.2

Comparative Methods and Check Your Progress 2
Approaches
1) See section 3.3
2) Blonde1 pointed out the limitations of structural Functional approach and as

yet lack of sufficient information about the institutions. Ae also ernphasised
the importance of institutions and legal frameworks. For elaboration see 3.3.
1) See section 3.4
1) Write your answer on the overall understanding of the Unit.
2) See section 3.5 and also use overall assessment of the Unit.

UNIT 4 SYSTEMS APPROACH
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
Systems Approach
4.2.1 What is the Systems Approach?
4.2.2 Geneses o f the Systems Approach
4.2.3 Historical Context
General Syste~nsTheory and Systems 'Theory
4.3.1 General Systems and Systems Approachcs : Distinctions
4.3.2 Systems Analysis : Characteristic Featurcs
4.3.3 Systems Approaches : Concerns and 0b.icctivcs
Derivatives of the Systems Analysis
4.4.1 Political System Derivative
4.4.2 -
Structural Functional Derivative
4.4.3 Cybernetics Derivative
Systems Theory : An Evaluation
4.5.1 Limitations o f the Systems Approach
4.5.2 Strength o f the Systems Approach
Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Some Useful Books
4.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with one of the modern approaches regarding Comparative
Government and Politics. It is the Systems Approach. After studying this unit, you
should be able to:
explain the meaning, genesis and historical background of this approach;
distinguish between general systems theory, system theory and political
system theory;
state the characteristic features and objectives of the systems theory;
amplify some of the derivatives (such as input-output, structural-functional,
cybernetics' models) of the systems theory; and
evaluate the systems theory in its proper perspective.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The traditional approaclles and characteristics of their own limitations, by and
large, proved irrelevant in ~nakingthe study of comparative governments and
politics fruitful. These approaches, in their analysis of comparative governments
and politics, have been largely, historical, for~nalistic,legalistic, descriptive,
"explanatory and thus, have become proverbial, static and hore or less
monographic. These are narrow in the sense that their description is confined to
the study of western political system; they are formal legal in the sense that their
analysis is inclined excessively to the study of only and merely legal institutions;
and they are subjective in the sense that they do not put the political systems in
any objective, empirical and scientific test.
The modern approaches to the study of comparative governments and politics,

while attempting to remove the defects inherent iu the traditional approaches, seek
to understand in a clearer perspective, and objectively review the major

Comparative Methods alld paradigms, co~iceptualfra~neworksand contending models so to understand and '
Approaches
assess their relevance. Obviously, the modern approaches are, rather scientific,
realistic, analytical and those that have brought revolution in comparative politics,
Sidney Verba sums up the principles behind this revolution, saying, "Look beyond
description to more theoretically relevant problems; look beyond the formal
institutions of government to political processes and political functions; and look
beyond the countries of Western Europe to the new nations of Asia, Africa and
Latin America." The revolution was directed, as Almond and Powell rightly point
out, toward (a) the search for more comprehensive scope, (b) the search for
realism, (c) the search for precision, (d) the search for the theoretical order.
The modern approaches to the study of comparative governments and politics are
numerous. One such approach is the systems approach, also called the systems
theory or the systems analysis. 'This approach is, and in fact, has been the most
popular way of looking at any political activity. According to Prof. Kaplan it is,
tlie study of a set of inter-related variables, as distinguished from the environment
of tlie set and of tile ways in which this set is maintained under the impact of
e~ivironmentdisturbances. It focuses on sets of patterned relations involving
frequent inter-actions and a substantial degree of interdependence among the
members of a system as well as established procedure for the protection and
maintenance of the system (William A. Welsh : Studying Politics, 1973, p.65).
You have already studied institutional approach to comparative politics in the last
unit. In this unit, an attempt shall be made to study, review and examine the
systems approach, another modern approach to the study of comparative politics.
While discussing the systems approach, its various aspects such as the geneses of
the approach, its historical context, its distinction from the general systems theory,
its cliaracteristics and its strength and weaknesses shall be taken into view.
Political system as say the input-output analysis and structural-functional analysis
as the two salient derivatives of the systems approach shall be elaborately
discussed.
4.2 SYSTEMS APPROACH

4.2.1 W h a t is the Systems Approach?
The Systenirs approach is the study of inter-related variables forming one system,
a unit, a whole which is composed of many facts, a set of elements standing in
interaction. This approach assumes that the system consists of discernible, regular
and internally consistent patterns, each interacting with another, and giving, on the
whole, the picture of a self-regulating order. It is, thus, the study of a set of
interactions occurring within, and yet analytically distinct from, the larger system.
What the systems theory presumes include :
i) the existence of a whole on its own merit;
ii) the whole consisting of parts;

iii) the whole existing apart from the other wholes;
iv) each whole influencing tlie other and in turn, being influenced itself;
v) the parts of the whole are not only inter-related, but they interact with one
another and in the process creating a self-evolving work;
vi) the parts relate themselves into a patterned relationship, while the whole
exists, and keeps existing.

-
Tl~eemphasis of the systems theory is on the articulation of the system and of its Systems Approncll
I
colnponents and the behaviours by means of whicli it is able to maintain itself
I over time.
4.2.2 Genesis of the Systems Approach

The systems approaNkas its origins traced to natural resources, though
numerous lnovelnents aimed at the unification of science and scientific analysis
may be said to have worked for this approach. The original idea of systems
analysis edme from biology and the11 adopted by tlie social scientists. The German
biologist Ludwig Van Bertalanfly was the first to state the formulations of the
general systems theory way back in 1930s, and it was from the general systems
theory that the social scientists evolved and formulated the concept of the
systems theory. Bertalanfly defined system in a set of 'elements studying in
interaction'. Elaborating the concept of system, Anatol Rapport says, that it is
i) something consisting of a set (finite or infinite) of entities,
ii) among which a set of relations is specified, so that

iii) deductions are possible froin some relations to others or from the relations
among tlie entities to the beliaviour or tlie history of tlie system.
The application of tlie 'systems' approach to politics, Professor S.N. Ray points
out, L'allo~s one to see the subject in such a way that 'each part of tlie political
canvas does not stand alone but is related to each other part' or that 'the
'operatiori of one part cannot be fully understood witliout reference to the way in
which the whole itself operates. David Easton (A systenz Analysis of Political
Life, 1965), Gabriel Almond (Conzparative Politics: A Developmental
Approach, 1978), David Apter (Introduction to Political Analysis, 1978), Karl
Deutsch (Nation and World : Contemporary Political Science, 1967),
Morton Kaplan (System and Process in International Politics, 1957 or with'
Harold Lasswell, Power and Society, 1950) and other leading American social
scientists pioneered the systems analysis in Political Science. More specifically,
Easton was one of the few Political Scie~itiststo suggest the utility and
importance of tlie systems alialysis for politics while definirig a political system as
that "behaviour or set of i~lteractiorlsthrough which autlioritative allocations are
made and implemented for society".
4.2.3 Historical Context
The systems approach, like any other rnoderri approach, has evolved in a
historical perspective. As t l ~ etraditional approaches to tlie study of comparative
I politics proved futile, the need to understand it in a scientific manner became
I
more important. The influence of other disciplines, both natural and social sciences
1 and their mutual inter dependence gave a new impetus for looking out these
disciplines, comparative politics including, afresh and brought to the fore the idea
i
that scientific analysis is the only way to uriderstarid politics. The study of political
systems became, as times passed on, more ilnportaiit than the study of
Constitutions and governments, the study of political processes came to be
regarded more instructive,than the study of political institutions. The post-second I
World Wal. period witnessed, in the USA particularly, a fundamental shift in the
writings of numerous American scholars when they began to borrow a lot from I
other social and natural sciences so as to give new empirical orientatioii to

political studies whick helped ultimately to examine nulnerous concepts, out in tlie
process enriched their findings. Tlie Social Science Research Coi~~icil (USA) ,I
I
contributed a lot to provide an e~iviro~i~nent in wl~icl~

scientific analysis in
comparative politics could be carried on. Some otlier American foundations such
45 \
- Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
C o ~ p a r a t i v eMethods and as the Ford Foundation, the Rockfellar Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation
Approaches
provided liberal funds for studies in comparative politics. Thus, it was possible to
introduce new approaches, new definitions, new research tools, in comparative
politics. All this led to what may be conveniently termed as revolution in the
discipline : a revolution of sorts in the definition of its mission, problems and
methods' (See Michael Rush and Philip Althoff, An Introduction to Political
Sociology).
The introduction of the systems analysis, like other rnoderll approaches, in

comparative politics by writers like Easton, Almond, Kaplan was, in fact, a
reaction against the traditional tendency of uni-ditnensionalisatiot~,impeding, in the
process, the patterns of scientific analysis which make possible the unificatioii of
all knowledge. The systems approach is one of the nod ern approacl~esthat helps
to understand political activity and political behaviour niore clearly than before. It
looks out the social pl~enome~~on as a set of interactive relationships so
considered, the systems ai~alysiscovers not only the science of politics but also
virtually all social sciences.

ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this
unit.
1) The idea of the systems approach comes froin

a) Astronomy
b) Biology
c) Astrology
d) Economics
2) The emphasis of the systems approach is on :

a) ................................................................................................................
3) One of the following is not the proponent of the systems theory:

a) David Easton
b) Morton Kaplan
c) Harold Laski
d) Gabriel Almond
4) State briefly the inherent defects of the traditional approaches. (State .only
three)

Syste~nsApproach
4.3 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMS
THEORY i
4.3.1 General Systems a n d Systems Approaches : Distinctions
It is usually the practice to confuse the systems approach with the general
systems theory. The systems analysis may have sprung from the general systems
theory, but the two are different in many respects. To identify the systems theory
wit11 the general systems theory amounts to committing the philosophical error of
the first order. While the general systems theory gives the impression of a system
as one which is as integrated as the parts of the human body together, the
systems theory does recognise the separate existence of parts. What it means is
that the general systems theory advocates organised unity of the system whereas
the systems theory speaks of bnity in diversity. That is one reason that tlie
general systems theory has been rarely applied to the analysis of potential and
social phenomena. The systems theory has been s~~ccessfully applied to the
political phenomenon. David Easton, for example, has applied the systems theory
to politics. Professor Kaplan has brought out the distinction between the general
systems theory and the systems theory. He says, "... systems theory is not a
general theory of all systems. Altl~ougl~ general systems theory does attempt to
distinguish different types of systems and to establish a framework within which
similarities between systems call be recognised despite differences of subject
matter, difdrent kinds of systems require different theories for explanatory
purposes. Systems theory not only represents a step away from the general
theory approach but also offers an explanation for why such efforts are likely to
fail. Thus the correct application of systems theory to politics would involve a
move away from general theory toward comparative theory." Furthermore, it has
not been possible to make use of the concepts of general systems theory in social
sciences such as political science while the systems theory llas been able to
provide concepts (such as input-output, stability, equilibrium, feed-back) which
have been well accepted by the empirical political scientists.
4.3.2 Systems Analysis : Characteristic Features
Systems analysis implies system as a set of interactions. It is,as O.R. Young

says, "a set of objects, together with relationships between the objects and
between their attributes." To say that a system exists is to say that it exits
through its elements, say objects; and its elements (objects) are interacted and
they interact within a patterned frame. A systems analyst perceives inter-related
and a web-like objects and looks for ever-existing relationships among them. He
is an advocate of the interactive relationship, among the objectives his major
concerns are
i) to e~nphasisethe patterned behaviour among the objects of the system,
E
I ii) to explain the interactive beliaviour among them,
'
iii) to make a search for factors that help maintain the system.
Systems analysis elaborates, for understanding the system itself, a set of concepts.
These include system, sub-system, environment, input, output, conversio~~ process
feedback, etc., System implies persisting relationsl~ips,demonstrating behavioural
patterns, among its numerous parts, say objects or entities. A system that
constitutes an element of a larger system is called a sub-system. The setting
within which a system occurs or works is called environment. The line that
separates the system from its environment is known as boundary. The system.
obtains inputs from the environment in the form of denlands upon the system
Comparative Methods and , and supports for its functioning. As the system operates, inputs are subjected to
Approaches
what may be called conversion process and it leads to system outputs
embodying rules to be forced or policies to be implemented. When system
outputs affect the environment so to change or modify inputs, feedback occurs.
Systems approach has, therefore, characteristic features of its own. These

features may be summed up briefly as under:
i) A social phenomenon is not what exists in isolation; it is not just numerous

parts joined together to make a whole. It is a unit, a living unit with an
existence and goal of its own.
ii) Its parts may not be and in fact, are not organically related together, but they
do make a whole in the sense that they interact and are inter-related.
Specific behavioural relationships pattern them into a living system.
iii) It operates through a mechanism of inputs and outputs and underlwithin an

environment which influences it and which, in turn, provides feedback to the
enviro~lment.
iv) Its main concern is as to how best it can maintain itself and face the
challenges of decay and decline.
v) It implli=;patterned relationships among its nunlerous parts, explaining their

relative behaviour and role they are expected to perform.
4.3.3 Systems Approaches : Concerns and Objectives
The system analysis is concerned with certain objectives. It addresses itself to the
nations order, change and goal realisation as Welsh points out. The first concern
of the systems approach, Welsh says, is 'maintenance of the system's integrity'
which, he asserts, depends on system's ability to maintain order. Obviously, the
system would evolve 'regularised procedures,' 'by which society's scarce
resources' would be so distributed that its members are sufficiently satisfied and
would, in no case, permit a situation of chaos and collapse.
The second concern of the systems approach, as indicated by Welsh, is how the
system meets the cllallenge of change in its environment. Changes in the
environment are natural, so is natural environment's effects on the system. It
is the system that has to adapt itself realities the e'nvironmental changes
especially to the technological and changes. The systems approach
identifies the conflict between of responding to the changes
and the already engineered the environment, and also the
capacities to remove the conflict.
The third objective of the systems approach is the importance it gives to the goal.
-realisation as the central aspect of the system. Why do people organise
themselves? Why do people indulge in persistent patterns of interaction and
interdependence? Why do people accept particular modes of attitude so as to
demonstrate specific behaviour? Obviously, they do so because they want to
pursue certain goals that they feel are important. No system call exist over a
substantial period of time without articulating, determining and pursuing some
specific identifiable goals. Welsh concludes, "The process by which these goals
come to be defined for the system as a whole, and by which members of the ,
system pursue these goals, are important foci in the systems approhch."

Check Your Progress 2 Systems Approach
Note: i) Use the space given below .for your answer.

ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this
unit.
1) Bring out two main differences between the General Systems Theory and
the Systems Theory.
2) Explain the following terms briefly:
i) Inputs
ii) Outputs
iii) Sub-system
.......................................................................................................................
iv) Feedback
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) State any two characteristics of the Systems Approach.
.......................................................................................................................
4) With which concerns is the ~ ~ s t e m ~ ~ p p r mainly

o a c h asso;iated?,~ention
any three objectives.

Compsrative Methods and
Approaches 4.4 DERIVATIVES OF THE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
4.4.1 Political System Derivative
Political system or the input-output approach is one derivative of the systems

analysis. David Easton has been one of the early political scientists to have
introduced the systems approach to politics. He has been able to provide "an
original set of concepts for arranging at the level of theory and interpreting
political phenomena in a new and helpful way" (Davies and Lewis : Models of
Political Systems). He selects the political system as the basic unit of analysis
and concentrates on the intra-system behaviour of various systems. He defines
political system as "those interactions through which values are authoritatively
allocated and implemented for a society". It would be useful to highlight some of
the characteristic features of Easton's concept of political system and these,
briefly, are:
a) Political systeln implies a set of interaction through which values are

authoritatively allocated. This means the decision of those, who are in
power, are binding.
b) Political systeln is a system of regularised persistent patterns of '
relationships among the people and institutions within it.
c) Political system, like any natural system, has in it a self-regulating system

by which it is able to change, correct and adjust its processes and structures.
d) Political system is dynamic in the sense that it can maintain itself through the
feedback mechanism. The feedback mechanism helps the system to persist
though everything else associated it may change, even radically.
e) Political system is different from other systems or environments physical,

biological, social, economic, ecological, but in coverable to their influence.
Boundary lines separate them.
f) Inputs tllrougll demands and supports put the political system at work while
outputs through policies and decisions throw back what is not accepted as
feed-back.
O.R. Young sums up the essentials of Easton's political system, saying: "Above
all, the political system is seen as a conveksion process performing work,
producing output and altering its environment, with a continuous exchange
between a political system and its environment based on the steady operation of
the dynamic processes. At the same time, this approach provides numerous
c~nceptsfor dealing both with political dynamics in the form of systematic
adaptation processes and even with purposive redirection in the form of goal-
changing feedback."
5 .
Easton's political system approach has been severely attacked. Professor S.P. . .'
Verma regards it as an abstract-ion wllose relation to empirical politics (which is " .
classic) is impossible to establish. Eugene Meehan says that Easton does less to
explain the theory and more to create the conceptual framework. His analysis, it
may be pointed out, is confined to the question of locating and distributing power
in the political system. He seems to be concerned more with questions such as
persistence and adaptation of the political system as also with regulation of stress,
stability and equilibrium and thus advocates only the status quo situation. There is
much less, in Easton's formulation, about the politics of decline, disruption and
Systems Approach
breakdown in political system as Young points out. Despite all claims that the
political system approach i s designed for macro-level studies, Easton has not been
able to go beyond North America and the Western World. Easton's political
system or input-output would deal only with the present and has, therefore, no
perspective of future and has less study o f the past.
The merits of the input-output or political system approach can not be ignored.
Tlie approach has provided an excellent technique for comparative analysis. It has
also provided a set o f concepts and categories wliich have made comparative
analysis inore interesting and instructive. Young lias admitted that Easton's
analysis is "undoubtedly the most inclusive systematic approach so far constructed
specifically for political analysis by a political scientist." According to Eugene
Meehan, "Easton has produced one of the few comprehensive attempts to a l ; the
foundation for systems analysis in political science and to provide a general
functional theory of politics."
-
4.4.2 Structural Functional Derivative
The structural functional analysis i s another derivative o f the systems approach.

Coming in through sociology and originating mainly in the writings o f
anthropologists like Malinowski and Radeliffe-Brown, and adopted in political
science, especially in comparative politics by Gabriel Almond, structural-
functional analysis i s basically concerned with the phenomenon o f system
~naintenanceand regulation. Tlie basic theoretical proposition o f this approach is
that all systems exist to perform functions through tlieir structures. The central
question o f this approach, as Young says, is : 'What structures fulfil what basic
functions and under what conditions in any given sociely"?
The basic assumptions o f the structural-functional derivative o f the systems

approach are :
1) Society is a single inter-connected system in which each o f its elements

performs a specific function and whose basic goal i s the maintenance o f the
equilibrium;
2) Society, being a system as a whole, consists o f its numerous parts which are
inter-related;
3) The dominant tendency o f tlie social system is towards sisbility which is

maintained by its own in-built mechanism;
4) System's ability to resolve internal conflicts i s usually an admitted fact;
5) Changes in the system are natural, but they are neither sudden nor
revolutionary, but are always gradual and adaptive as well as adjustive;
6 ) System has its own structure, with its own aims, principles and functioris.
The structural-functional derivative speaks of the political system as composed o f

several structures as patterns o f action and resultant institutions with their
assigned functions. A function, in this context, means, as Plato (Dictionary of
Political Analysis) says, 'some purpose served with respect to the maintenance
or perpetuation o f the system', and a structure could be related to "any set o f
related roles, including such concrete organisational structures as political parties
and legislatures." So the structural-functional analysis, Piano continues, "involves
tlie identification o f a set o f requisite or at least recurring functions in the kind o f
system under investigation. Tliis is coupled with an attempt to determine the kinds

Conl~arativeMethods ulld of structures gnd their interrelations through which those functions are
Approaches
performed."
Gabriel Almond's classic statement of structural-functional analysis is found in

the introduction to The Politics of the Developing Arem, 1960. Briefly summed
up: All political systems have a structure, i.e. legitimate patterns of human
interactions by which order is maintained; all political structures perform their
respective functions, with different degrees in different political systems;
Input funations include

a) political socialisation and Recruitment;
b) interest articulation;
c) - interest aggregation;
d) political communication;
Output functions include

i) rule-making,
ii) rule-application,
iii) rule-adjudication.
Almond, while considering politics as the integrative and adaptive functions of a

society based on more or less legitimate physical coercion, regards political system
as "the system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which
perform the functions of integration and adaptation by means of the employment
or threat of employment of more or less legitimate order-maintaining or
transforming systeni in the society." He is of the opinion that there is
interdependence between political and other societal systems; that political
structures perform the same functions in all systems; that all political structures
are multi-functional; and that all systems adapt to their environment when political
structures do have behave dysfunctionally.
There is a basic difference between Easton's input-output model and Almond's

structural-functional approach. While Easton lays emphasis on interaction and
interrelationship aspects of the parts of the political system, Almond is more
concerned with the political structures and the functions performed by them. And
this is perhaps the first weakness of the structural-functional analysis which talks
about the functions of the structures and ignores the interactions which are
characteristics of the numerous structures as parts ofthe political system.
Almond's model suffers from being an analysis at the micro-level, for it explains
the western political system, or to be more specific, the American political
system. There is undue importance on the input aspect, and much less on the
output aspect in his explanation of the political system, giving, in the process, the
feedback mechanism only a passing reference. Like Easton, almond too has
emerged as status-quoist, for he too emphasised on the maintenance of the
system. While commenting on Almond's insistence on separating the two terms -
structures add functions, Sartori says, "The structural-functional analysis is a lame
-
scholar. He claims to walk on two feet, but actually on one foot and a bad foot
at that. He cannot really visualise the inter-play between 'structure' and 'function'
because the two terms are seldom, if even, neatly disjointed, the structure remains
throughout a kin brother of its inputted functional purposes."
And yet, merit of the structural-functional model cannot be ignored. The model
has successfully introduced new conceptual tools in political science, especially in
I
comparative politics. So considered, the structural-functionalanalysis has really Systems Approach
enriched our discipline. It has also offered new insights into political realities. And
that is one reason that this model has been widely adopted, and is being used as
a descriptive and ordering framework.
4.4.3 Cybernetics Derivative
Cybernetics or communication approach is another derivative of the system

1 analysis. Karl Deutsch (The Nerves of Government, 1966) may rightly be called
the chief exponent of the Cybernetics model. Cybernetics is defined as the
'science of communication and control'. Its focus is "the systematic study of
I communication and control in organisations of all kinds. The viewpoint of
Cybernetics suggests that all organisations are alike in certain fundamental
characteristics and that every organisation is held together by communication."
Because 'governments' are organisations, it is they where information-processes
are mainly represented. So are developed Deutsch's concepts in his Cybernetics
approach, especially information, communication and channels. Information is a
patterned relationship, between events, Communication is the transfer of such
patterned relations; and channels are the paths or associative trails through which
information is transferred. Deutscli rightly says that his book, the Nerves of
Government, deals less with tlie bones or tnuscles of the body politic and more
with its nerves ..... its channels of communication. For him, the 'core-area of
politics is the area of enforceable decisions, and tlie ensure of politics' is the
'dependable coordination of human efforts for the attainment of the goals of
society'. Hence, he looks at the political system, whicli according to him is
nothing but a system of decision-making and enforcement, as a network of
communication channels.
Drawing largely from the science of neuro-physiology, psychology and electrical

engineering, Deutsch is able to perceive similarities in processes and functionhl
requirements, between living things, electronic machines and social organisations.
"the brain, the computer, the society, .... all have characteristics which make them
organisations: they have the capacity to transmit and react to information" (Davies
and Lewis : Models of Political Systems, 1971 ).
Tlie characteristic features of the cybernetics model of the systems analysis

can be, briefly, stated as under:
I) Feedback constitutes a key coiicept in the cybernetics model. It is also

called a servo-mechanism. By feedback, Deutsch means a communications
network that produces action in response to an input information.
2) All organisations, including a political system, are characterised by feedback

mechanisms. It is feedback that introduces dynamism into what may be
otherwise a static analysis.
3) Cybernetics introduces certain sub-concepts of the feedback concept and

there are negative feedback, load, lag, gain and lead.
Davies and Lewis explain these terms

"A negative feedback is one which transmits back to itself information which is
the result of decisions and actions taken by the system and which leads the
system to change its beliaviour in pursuit of tlie goals which it has set itself. Load
indicates the total amount of iiifor~nationwhicli a system may possess at a
particular time. Lag indicates the amount of delay wliich the system experiences
between reporting the consequences of decisions and acting on the information
Comparative Methods and received. Gain is an indication of the manner in which the system responds to
Approaches
the information that it has received. Load illustrates the extent to which a system
has the capacity to react to predictions about the future consequences of
decisions and actions."
4) What types of systems emerge in the light of meaning given to the sub-
concepts of feedback concepts may be stated as : Deutsch says that all
political systems are goal-seeking entities; the chances of success in goal-
seeking are related to the amount of load and lag; up to a point they may
be positively related to the amount of gain, although at high rates of gain,
this relationsllip [nay be reversed, and they are always positively related to
the amount of load (Young, Systenls of Political Science, 1997); A system
may over-respond to infor~nationreceived and it is likely that any increase
would be dysfunctio~~al to the realisation of the system's goals.
Deutsch's cybernetics model deals with communication, control and channels

against Easton's input-output model of interactions and interrelationships and
Almond's structural-functional analysis of stating structures and their hnctions,
All these seek to explain the functioning of the system - its ability to adapt itself
amidst changes and its capacity to maintain itself over time.
Deutsch's model has numerous drawbacks : it is essentially an engineering

approach which explains the performance of human beings and living institutions
as if they sic machines, the cybernetics are concerned more with what decisions
are the11 how'and why they are concluded and towards which ends; the
approach is quantity-oriented, and hence is ncit quality-oriented; it seeks to store
informatio~~ and overlooks its significance; the approach is sophisticated in so far
as it is complex, it is conlplex in so far as it does not help understand the
phenomenqn.
As a derivative of the systems approach, cybernetics analysis has helped in the

search of analogies which has, in turn, contributed to developn~entof hypotheses
conceriling human behaviour. To that extent, the approacll has added to our
understandling of the system scientifically. Furthermore, the cybernetic devices,
such as computing and data processing, proved to be extremely useful to
political soientists in their research efforts.

ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this unit.
1) Give any three characteristic features of Easton's input-output model.
2) State the strength and weakness of Easton's political system model.

.........L............ ..................................................................................................

,
Systems Approrcll
3) Which of the following is the chief characteristic of the Structural-Functional
Analysis
a) values to be authoritatively allocated.
b) rule-making, rule-application, rule-adjudication.
c) nerves, rather than bones and muscles, are important features of the
body politic.
4) State briefly the chief demerits of Deutsch's cybernetics theory.

i
i ........................................................................................................................
5) Compare the Easton's, Almond's and Deutsch's derivatives of the Systems

Approach.
4.5 SYSTEMS THEORY : AN EVALUATION
4.5.1 Limitations of the Systems Approach
The systems approach in Political Science, and especially in Comparative Politics

provides a broader and a clearer view of things that surround not only political
activity but also politics as well. This is so because the systems approach takes
political phenomena as one unit, a system in itself, not merely the sum-total of its
various parts, but all parts standing in interaction - with one another. To view
any number of pans as a whole is to make the whole something artificial. To
insist on the interactions among the parts as always continuing and in the process,
building the system is to presume something already granted or given.
The systems theorists have drawn much from biology and other natural
sciences and have equated the organic system with social system. Indeed, there
are similarities between the two systems, but analogies are only and always
analogies. Any attempt to extend the argument amounts to falsification.'^^ relate
a hand to human body is not when we relate an individual to the society or a
legislature to the executive organ of the government. 'The systems theorists have
only built an extended form of organic theory wh,ich the individualists had once
argued.
All the qystems theorists have committed themselves to building and maintaining
the .?$stem. Their concern has been only to explain the system as it exists. What
they have, additionally, done is to state the causes which endanger its existence
and factors which can strengthen it. They are, at best, the status-quoits who have
little knowledge about past and perhaps no concern for the future. All the
concepts that systems theorists have developed do not go beyond the explanation
and understanding of the present. The entire approach is rooted in conservation
and reaction. (Verma, Modern Political Theory, 1966).
The systems theorists, in Political Science or in the field of Comparative

Government and Politics, have substituted political system in place of the state by
I- Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
Compvrvtive Methods and arguing that the term political system explains much more than the term state.
Approaches
Indeed, the point is wide and clear. But when these theorists come to highlight
the characteristics of political system, they do not say more than the political
power or force with wllicll the conventional word 'State' has been usually
associated. ,
What the systems analysists have done is that they have condemned the
traditionalists for llavillg made the political analysis descriptive, static and non-
comparative. What they have, instead, done is that they have introduced the
numerous concepts in both natural and other social sciences in Political Science or
Comparative Politics so as to make the discipline more intei-disciplinary. The
claim that the systems theorists have evolved a scientific and empirical discipline
is too tall.
4.5.2 Strength of the Systems Approach
If the idea behind the systems approach is to explain the concept of system as a
key to understand the social web, the efforts of the systems theorists have not
gone waste. It is important to state that the influence of the systems analysis has
been so pervasive that most comparative politics research makers use of the
systems concepts. It is also important to state that the systems approach has well
addressed and well-directed itself to numerous meaningful questions - questions
sucll as the relatiollsllips of systems to their environment, tlie persistence of the
system itse!f n!?d overtime, stability of the system, function assigned to tlie
structures as parts of tlie system, dynamics and machines of the system.
Professor S.N. Ray has summed up the merits of the systems theory very aptly,
saying, "It (the system theory) gives us an excellent opportunity for fusing micro-
analytical studies with macro-analytical ones. The concepts developed by this
theory open up new questions and create new dimensions for i~lvestigationinto
the political processes. It often facilitates the communication of insights and ways
of looking at things from other disciplines. It may be regarded as one of tlie most
ambitious attempts to construct a theoretical framework from within political
Sciences."
- - -- - -
4.6 LET US SUM UP

Systems approach is one of the modern approaches which has been introduced in
Political Science, especially in Comparative Gover~lmentsand Politics by scholars
like Kaplan, Easton, Almond, Apter, and Deutsch. Accordingly, they have seen
system as a set of interactions, interrelations, patterned behaviour among the
individuals and institutions, a set of structures performing their respective functions
and one that seeks to achieve certain goal and attempts to maintain itself amidst
vicissitudes.
The systems approach, though claims to provide a dynamic analysis of the

system, remains confined to its maintenance. It claims to have undertaken an '
empirical research, but has failed to provide enough conceptual tools for
investigation. It has not been able to project system, particularly political system
more than the state. The approach is, more or less, co~lservativein so far as it is
status-quoist.
Yet the systems approach is unique in many respects. It has provided a wider
scope in ullderstandi~lgand arlalysing social bellaviour and social interactions. It
has drawn a lot from natural sciences and has very successf~lllyused their
concepts in social sciences. It has been able to provide a degree of
---
methodological sopllistication to our discipline.
Systems Approach
4.7 KEY WORDS
Analysis: An object of inquiry to study the various constituent parts so to know
their nature and relationship of the parts to each other and to the whole.
Approach: A mode of analysis which provides a set of tools and develops
colicepts for the study and comprehension of any political phenomena.
Concept: It is an abstraction to which a descriptive label is attached so to carry
out an investigation and analysis.
Cybernetics: It is the science of communication and control.
Equilibrium: It is a state of balance ascribed usually to a political or any other
system.
Feedback: It is tlie process by which information about the functioning of a
system is communicated back to the system so that corrections and adjustment
may be made.
Homeostasis: Homeostasis is the tendency toward maintenance of stability in a
system tllrough self-adjustments which provide responses to disruptive andlor de-
stability influences.
Input: It is something that influences and affects tlle functioning in a system.
Inputs originate in the environment of tlie system and within the system itself.
Output: Outputs are the results which come in tlie form of governmental policies,
decisions, and programs as well as implementing actions.
Paradigm: It is a model, pattern or say example that helps organise thought and
give direction to research.
Political System: The persisting pattern of human relationgliips tlirougl~which
autlioritative decisions are made and carried out for a society.
Process: It i's a sequence of related actions/operations. It denotes activity,

'movement' and relatively rapid change as distinguished from tlie more stable arid
slower elements in a situation.
Social System: It is an aggregation of two or more persons that interact with
one another in some patterned way.
Stability: It is a condition of a system wliere components tend to remain in, or

return to, some constant relationsliip with one another.
System: It is 'any set of elements that exist in some patterns relationship with
one another.

~ l m o n d ,G.A. and Powell, GB; (1978) "Cotnparative Politics :A Developnlent
Approuch ", Oxford
Apter, David E., (1977) "Introduction to Political Analysis", Cambridge
Cliarlesworth, J. (ed.), (1967) "Contenzporary Political Analysis ", New York
Dahl, Robert A., ( 1979) "Modern Political Analysis ", Englewood Cliffs
Davies M.R. and Lewis, V.A., (1971) "Models of Political Systems", London
Deutscli, Karl, (1963), "The Nerves of Governntent", Glencoe

C ( ~ m ~ l ~ r r tMethods
ive alld Easton, David, ( 1 965) "A System Analysis of Political Life", Chicago
Approncl~es
Macridis, R.C. and Ward, R.E., (1964) "Modern Political Systems" Englewood
Cliffs
Ray, S.N., (1 999) "Modern Comparative Politics " New Delhi
Verma, S.P. (1 975) "Modern Political Theory", New Delhi
World Encyclopaedia of Political Systems, London, 1983
Young, Oran, R., (1966) "Systems of Political Science" Englewood Cliffs

EXERCISES

I) Biology
2) a) on the articulation of the system,
b) on the articulation of the colnponents of the system;
c) on the bellaviour by means of which the system is able to maintain

itself;
3) c)
4) a) The traditional approacll is historical and mostly descriptive;

b) It is parochial;
c) It is more or less monographic.
1) a) Tlle General Systems Theory has been rarely applied to the social
sciences while the systems theory has been successfully applied;
b) The General Systenls Theory, developed as it is from natural sciences

(bidlogy particularly) treats the systems as more or less organically
integrated from within while the systems theory lays emphasis on the
interactions aspect of the elements of the system.
2) i) Inputs are demands made upon the system and those which usually
originate from the environment.
ii) Outputs are the results which come about when tlle inputs are subjected
process. They are in the form of policies, decisions and
to a co~lversio~l
actions which are to be implemented.
iii) Sub-system is a part of the system, a part of the whole.
iv) Feedback occurs when outputs affect the environ~nentso as to modify
inputs.
3) 'The two cllaracteristics of tlle systems theory are:
i) The systelns tlleory regards tlle social pheno~nenonas a unit, a living

unit at that;
ii) It denotes the system as a set of interactions of various elements.

Systems A p p r o a c l ~
4) Tlie systems approach is concerned with the following notions
i) Order
ii) Change
iii) Goal-realisation.

1) a) systeln is regarded as a part of interactions;
b) through tlie system, values are authoritatively allocated; and
C) system is self-regulating one and is able, in itself, to change and correct

and adjust in accordance with the erivironlnental changes.
2) Easton's political systeln has provided an excellent technique for comparative

politics. Its another merit is that it has provided a set of concepts and
categories wliicli has helped in comprehending tlie systeln more clearly. Tlie
weakness of Easton's model is that it does little to explain the political systeln
and more to establish it. Easton is coliceriied with the maintenance and
regulation of the system, atid hence lie is a status-quoist.
3) b)
4) Deutsch's model is an engineering approach and has been unduly imposed
another social system. He is coiicerned~with decisions and not with liow and
why have these decisions been concluded. His inodel seeks to store
infol-mation and ignores its importance.
5) The derivates of tlie systems approach, as have been developed by Easton,

Almond and Deutscli, lay emphasis iii different aspects of a system. Easton
regards the interactions and inter relationships as characteristics of any
system; Almond is conceriied with the structi~resof the system and the
functions they perform; Deutscli's derivative is, Inore or less, a device of
communication, control and channels.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An~atya,Pan~iaKaji (1997), "Nonalignment and its relevance in today's world",
NCWA Annual Journal, Kothnl~mdu,August, 1 15-28.
Appadorai, A. and Rajan, M.S. (1985) India's Foreign Policy ond Relalions,
New Delhi : Soi~thAsian Publishers.
Benerji, Malabika (198 1 ), "lnstitiitionalizatio~~
of the Nonaligned Movement",
Inlernational Studies, New Delhi, Vo1.20, Nos. 3-4, July-December 1981.
Baral, J.K. (1989)' "Nonaligned Summit Diplomacy", ~ n d i aQuarterly, New Delhi,
Vol. 45, No. 1, January-March, 1-20.
Baral, J.K. and Mohanty, Sujata (1991), "The Growth and Pattern of NAM" Ibid.,
Vo.47, No.3, July-September, 2 1-38.
Chhabra, Hari Sliaran (1991), "Relevance of NAM in a Unipolar World", The
Tinles of' India, New Dell~i,June 13.
Dubey, Muchkund (1 9971, "Nonaligntnent : India's Matter", The Hindu India I,
Chennai, August 1 5, 121-23. -
t
Faranjalla, Salnaan Boutros (1 984), "Nonalign~nent: Ideological Pluralis~n",India
Quarterly, Vo1.40, No.2, April-Jiine, 198-206.
Comparative Methods and Guha, Seerma (1997), "What is there in the NAM?', The Tintes of India, April
Approaches
16, 15.
Hune, Shirley and Singham, A.W. (1993), "Nonaligned Movement", in Krieger,
Joel, ed., The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, New York : Oxford
University Press, 645-46.
Jayaramu, P.S. (1992), "New World Order, Nonaligned Movement and India"
India Quarterly, New Delhi, Vol. 47, No.1 & 2, January-June, 23-30.
Khilani, N.M. (1987), "Nonalignment: New Trends in The Eighties", Ibid. Nos.43,
No.2, April-June, 162-67
Mehta, Jagat S. (1991), "Nonalignment : Mission Accomplished", Indian Express,
New Delhi, September 3, 6.
Nanda, Prakash (1 997), "Does NAM Matter", The Tirnes of India, March 6, 1 I .
Pillai, K. Raman, ed. (1997) India's Foreign Policy in the 1990s, New Delhi :
Radiant Publ,ishers.
Prasad, Bimal (1983), "The Evolution of Nonalignment", India Quarterly, Vo1.39,
No.3, July-September 299-309.
Quraishi, Zaheer M. (1994), "Relevance of Nonalignment", Ibid., Vo1.50, Nos. 1-2,
January-June, 1-22.
Rai Chouwdhary, Satyabrata (1995), "Future of NAM : Has Movement Lost
Relevance?', The Statesman, Delhi, November 29, 8.
Raja Mohan, C. (1997), "Foreign Policy on hold", The Hindu, New Delhi,
November 28, 10.
Raja11 M.S. (1980), "Nonalignment : The Dichotomy Between Theory and
Practice in Perspective", India Quarterly, Vo1.36, No.1, January- March, 43-67.
Rajan, M.S. (1997), Recent Essays on India's Foreign Policy, Delhi : Kalinga.
Rana, A.P. (1980), "Nonalignment as a Developmental Foreign Policy Strategy",
Indian Journal of Political Science, Chandigarh, Vo1.41, No.4, December 587-
637.
Sen S.R. (1984), "Econornic Issues Before the Nonaligned", India Quarterly,
Vo1.40, No.2, April-June 207-1 1.
Yadav, R.S. (1993), "NAM In The New World Order", Ibid., Vo1.49, No.3, July-
September, 47-68.

UNIT 5 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACH
Structure
Objectives
Introduction: Evolution o f the Concept
Development as Modernisation
Development as Underdevelopment and Dependency
World System Analysis
Articulation o f Modes o f Production Approach
Class Analysis and Political Regimes
State Centred Approach
Globalisation and Neo-Liberal Approacli
Let U s Sum U p
Key Words
Some Useful Books
5.0 OBJECTIVES
Comparative politics seeks to study relationsliips among countries. I t seeks also to
find explanations for specific social and political phenomenon in these
relationships. The political economy approach to the study o f comparative politics
is one way o f looking at this relationship. I t proposes that there exists a
relationship between politics and economics and that this relationship works and
makes itself manifest in several ways. I t is tlie understanding o f this relationsliip .
and the manner i n whicli i t unfolds, which subscribes to this approach maintain,
provides the clue to the study o f relationships between and explanations o f social
and political phenomena. After reading tliis unit, you w i l l be able to:
understand various attributes o f political econorny as a concept;

learn how the concept lias become relevant for the study o f comparative
politics; and
know historically, putting into context the various ways in wllicll the political
economy approacll has fornled the basis o f studying relatio~lsllipsbetween
countries and social and political phenomena over tlie past years.
5.1 INTRODUCTION: EVOLUTION OF THE

CONCEPT
Political economy refers to a specific way o f understallding social and political
phenomena whereby, econo~nicsand politics are not seen as separate domains. I t
.
is premised (a) on a relationsliip between the two and (b) the assumption that tliis
relationsliip unfolds in multifarious ways. These assu~nptionsconstitute important
explanatory and analytical frameworks witllin which social and political phenomena
can be studied. Having said this, it is important to point out that whereas the
concept o f political economy points at a relationsliip, there is no single meaning
which can be attributed-to tlie concept. Tlie specific meaning the concept
assumes depends on the theoreticallideological tradition. e.g., liberal or Marxist,
within wllicll it is placed, and depending on this positioning, the specific manner in
which economics and politics tllenlselves are understood.
I~iterestingly,the appearance o f econo~nicsand politics as separate domains is

itself a modern phenomenon. From the time o f Aristotle till the middle ages, the
concept o f economics as a self regulatinglseparate sphere was unknown. The

C o ~ a r a t i v eMethods and word 'econo~ny' dates back to Aristotle and signified in Greek 'the art of
Approaches
household management'. It is derived from the Greek oikos meaning a house, and
nomos ~neaninglaw. As the political evolution in Greece followed the sequence:
household- village- city state, the study of the management of the household came
under tlie study of 'politics', and Aristotle considered econo~nicquestions in the
very first book of Iiis Politics. Among the classical political economist, Adam
Smith considered political economy as 'a branch of the science of a statesman or
legislator'. As far as the Marxist position is concerned, Marx (1818-1883) himself,
generally spoke not of 'political economy' as such but of the 'critique of political
economy,' where the expression was used mainly with reference to the classical
writers. Marx never defined political economy, but Engels did. Political economy,
according to the latter, studies 'the laws governing the production and excliange
of the material means of subsistence' (Marx - Engels, Anti-Duhring). The Soviet
econoinic theorist and liistorian 1.I.Rubin suggested tlie followi~igdefinition of
political economy: 'Political ecolioniy deals with I~umanworking activity, not fro111
the standpoint of its technical methods and instruments of labour, but fro111the
standpoint of its social form. It deals with production relations wliicli are
established anlong people in the process of production'. (I.I.Rubin, Essuys on
Marx's Theory of Vtrlue, Black & Red, Detroit, 1928, 1972 reprint, P.X). In
terms of this definition, political economy is not the study of prices or of scarce
resources, it is rather, a stitdy of culture seeking answers to tlie questions, wliy
the productive forces of society develop within a particular social form, why tlie
~iiacliineprocess uiifolds within the context of business enterprise, and wliy
industrialisation takes the form of capitalist development. Political economy, in
short, asks how the working activity of people is regulated in a specific, historical
form of economy.
In the years after decolonisation set in, the understanding of relationships between
nations, and specific political and social phenomena, was infor~nedby varioi~s
approaches, viz., institution, political sociology and political econon~y.These
were geared primarily towards exa~niningthe manner in whicl~social values were
transmitted and also the structures through which resources were distributed. All
these would eventually form the bases or standards along which different ,
countries and cultures could be classified on a hierarchical scale of development,
and could actually be seen as moving along a trajectory of development and
change. Several theories were advanced as frameworks within which this change
could be understood. A~nongthese was the modernisation theory, which emerged
in the historical context of tlie end of Japanese and European ellipires and tlie
beginning of the cold war.

i
ii) Check your progress wit11 the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What do you understand by the political~economyapproach to the study of
comparative politics?

The Political Economy
5.2 MODERNISATION THEORY: DEVELOPMENT AS A,pproach
MODERNISATION
The theory o f modernisation was an attempt by mainly First world scholars to
explain the social reality o f the 'new states' o f the third world. Modernisation
theory i s based upon separation or dualism between 'traditional' and 'modern'
societies. The distinction between 'traditional' and 'modern' societies was derived
from Max Weber via Talcott Parsons. A society in which most relationships
were 'particularistic' rather than 'universalistic' (e.g. based on ties to particular
people, such as kin, rather than on general criteria designating whole classes o f
persons) in which birth ('ascription') rather than 'achievement' was the general
ground for holding a job or an office; in which feelings rather than objectivity
governed relationships o f all sorts (the distinctions between 'affectivity' and
'neutrality'); and in which roles were not clearly separated - for instance, the
royal household was also the .state apparatus ('role diffuseness' vs. 'role
specificity'), was called 'traditional'. A 'modern' society, on the other hand, was
characterised by the opposite o f all these. Other features generally seen as
characteristic of traditional societies included things like a low level o f division o f
labour, dependence on agriculture, low rates o f growth of productior., largely local
I
networks o f exchange and restricted administrative competcncc. Again modern
I societies were seen as displaying the opposite features. Following from this
I
'opposition' o f the two categories, 'modernisation' referred to the process o f
transition from traditional to modern principles o f social organisation. This
process o f transition was not only seen as actually occurring in the newly
independent countries o f Asia, Africa and Latin A~nerica,the attainment of a
modern society as it existed in the West, was seen as their strategic goal. A
modern society was defined as a social system based on achievement,
universalism and individualism, as a world o f social mobility, equal opportunity, the
rule o f law and individual freedom. This was contrasted with traditional societies,
based on ascribed status, hierarchy and personalised social relations. The purpose
of modernisation theory was to explain, and pronzote, the transition from
traditional to modern society.
Modernisation theory argued that this transition should be regarded as a process

o f traditional societies 'catching up' with the modern world. 'The theory o f
modernisation was most clearly elaborated in the writings o f W.W.Rostow (The
Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifest4 Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1960), who argued tliat there were five stages o f
development through which all societies passed. These were: (i)the traditional
stage; (ii)the preconditions for take off; (iii) take off; (iv) the drive toward
maturity and (v) high mass consumption. Third World societies were regarded as
traditional, and so needed to develop to the second stage, and thus establish the
preconditions for take-off. Rostow described these preconditions as the
development o f trade, the beginnings o f rational, scientific ideas, and the
emergence o f an elite that invests rather than squanders its wealth. The theory
argued that this process could be speeded up by the encouragement and diffusion
of Western investment and ideas. Scholars in this tradition also argued tliat
industrialisation would promote westkrn ideas o f individualism, equality o f
opportunity and shared values, which in turn would reduce social unrest and class
conflict.
As we have mentioned earlier modernisation theory developed in the context o f

cold war and at times it is unclear whether (a) modernisation theory was an
analytical or prescriptiv'e device, (b) whether modernisation was actually occurring
or whether it should occur and (c) whether the motives o f those promoting
I
modernisation was to relieve poverty or to provide a bulwark against communism?
- - - Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

The two factors are obviously connected, but the subtitle o f Rostow's book - 'a
non-coniniunist nianifesto' - suggests that the latter may have been considered
more important than the former.
To conclude, we can say that modernisation theory was based on an evolutionary

model of development, whereby all nation-states passed through broadly similar
stages of development. In the context of the post-war world, it was considered
imperative that the modern West should help to promote the transition to
modernity in the traditional Third World.

unit.
1) What kind of develop~nentpath did modernisation theory suggest for the 'new
states' of the third world?
5.3 DEVELOPMENT AS UNDERDEVELOPMENT AND

DEPENDENCY
Dependency theory arose in the late fifties and the sixties as an extended critique
of the modernisation perspective. This school of thought is mainly associated with
the work of Andre Gunder Frank, but the influence of Paul Baran's (The
Political ECOIIQIII~of Growth, Monthly Review Press, 1957) work is also very
important. Baran argued that the economic relationships that existed between
western Europe (and later Japan and United States) and the rest of the world
were based on conflict and exploitation. 'The former took part in 'outright plunder
or in plunder thinly veiled as trade, seizing and removing tremendous .wealth from
the place of their penetration' (Baran 1957: Pp.141-2). The result was transfer of
wealth from the latter to the former.
Frank examined Third World countries at close hand, and criticised the dualist
thesis (see in the above section), whicK isolated 'modern' and 'traditional' states,
and argued that the two were closely linked (Capitalism a n d Underdevelopment
in Latin America, Monthly Review Press, 1969; Latin America:
Underdevelopment o r Revolution?, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1969).
He applied his critique to both modernisation theory and orthodox Marxism,
replacing their dualism by a theory that argued that the world has been capitalist
since the sixteenth century, with all sectors drawn into the world system based on
production for market. The ties of dominance and dependence, Frank argues, run
in a chain-like fashion throughout the global capitalist system, with rnetropoles
appropriating surplus from satellites, their towns removing surplus from the
hinterland and likewise.
Frank's central argument is that creation of 'First' world (advanced capitalist

societies) and the 'Third' world (satellites) is a result of the same process
(worldwide capitalist expansion). According to the dependency perspective the
contemporary developed capitalist'countries (metropoles) were never
underdeveloped as the Third world (satellites), but were rather undeveloped.
i
Underdevelopment, instead o f being caused by the peculiar socio-economic T h e Puliticnl Econoniy

Appronch
structures o f the Third World countries, is tlie historical product o f the relations
(relations o f imperialism and colo~iialism)wliicli liave obtained between
underdeveloped satellites and developed metropoles. In short, develop~nentand
underdevelopment are two sides o f the same coin, two poles o f the same process
- ~netropolita~i capitalist development on a world scale creates the 'development o f
underdevelopment' in the Tliird world. According to Frank, Latin America's most
backward areas (e.g., Nortlieaster~iBrazil) were precisely those areas which had
once been most strongly linked to the metropole. Institutions such as plantatio~is
and haciendas, regardless o f tlieir internal appearance, liave since tlie conquest
been capitalist forms o f production linked to tlie metropolitan market. Economic
development, according to Frank, was experienced in Latin America only in those
times when the nietropolita~ilinkages were weakened - tlie Napoleonic Wars, the
depression o f the 1930s and tlie two World Wars o f the twentieth century - and it
canie to an end precisely as the rnetropoles recovered fro111 these disruptions and
recovered tlieir links to tlie Tliird world.
Dependency theory was indeed a powerful advance over modernisation tlieory,

but it suffered from peculiar weaknesses o f i t s own. First o f all, it suffered fro111
a certain liistorical character, viewing change within tlie Tliird world countries as
an outco~neo f its u~idifferentiateddependent status. As Colin Leys put it,
dependency tlieory "...co~icentrates on what happens to tlie underdeveloped
countries at tlie hand o f iniperialisni and colonialism, rather than on the total
liistorical process involved, including tlie various for~iiso f struggle against
imperialism and colonialism wliicli grow out o f the conditions o f
underdevelopment." (Colin Leys, Underdevelopmei~tin Ke~iya,Berkeley,
University o f California Press, 1975, p.20). Secondly, dependency tlieory tends to
be economistic. Social classes, states and politics appear as derivatives o f
economic forces and meclianisms and often receive very little attention. Classes,
class projects and class struggles appear neither as tlie prime movers o f liistorical
change nor tlie prime foci o f analytic attention. Thirdly, critics liave alleged tliat
the concept o f development i s obscure in dependency tlieory. Given tliat it i s
frequently argued that 'development' occurs in the Tliird world when tlie
~netropolitanlsatellitelinkages are weakened, does 'development' imply autarchy?
Since 'development' i s an attribute o f capitalist development in the metropoles, i s
the debate in tlie ultiniate analysis again about the Tliird world's ability to
replicate this path? Finally, tlie assumptions o f tlie dependency tlieory, fail to
provide explanations for tlie various so-called 'economic miracles' o f the Third
world? Thus, while marking an advance beyond tlie myths c f modernisation,
dependency tlieory did not fully escape its imprint. While modernisation tlieory
argued that 'diffusion' brought growth, dependency tlieory would seem to argue in
a similar vein that dependence brouglit stagnation.
5.4 WORLD SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Immanuel Wallerstein further developed tlie idea o f world capitalist economy in
his 'world system analysis' (Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System,
2 Vols. Academic Press, New York, 1974, 1980, covers up to 1750). Wallerstei~i
argued tliat the expansio~io f Europe stariing in the sixteenth century signalled the
end o f pre-capitalist modes o f PI-oduction in those areas o f tlie Third World
incorporated witliin tlie world capitalist market. According to this tlieory, dualism
or feudalism does not exist in tlie Third World. The moder~iworld system i s
i~nitaryin that it i s synonymous with tlie capitalist mode o f production, yet
disparate in that it is divided into tiers - core, serni-periphery, and periphery -
wliicli play functionally specific roles within the system as a wliole. World system
tlieory places a new emphasis on the niultilateral relations o f the system as a
wliole (core-core and periphery-periphery re latio~isbecome important to tlie
Comparative Methods and analysis as do core-periphery ones), rather than on the unilateral relations o f the
Approaches
system o f metropole and satellite characteristic o f dependency theory.
Wallerstein's basic argument was that the creation o f the world capitalist
economy in tlie sixteenth century led to a new period o f history, based on
expanded accuniulation rather than stagnant consumption. This was attributable to
tlie emergence o f three key factors: (i)an expansion o f the geographical size o f
the world in question (through incorporation), (ii)the development o f variegated
methods o f labour cotltrol for different products and different zones o f the world
economy (specialisation) and (iii)the creation o f relatively strong state machineries
in what would be tlie core states o f this capitalist world econonly (to assure the
transfer o f surplus to the core).
I n tlle formatio~io f the world economy, core areas emerge as countries where
tlie bourgeoisie got stronger and landlords weaker. The important relationship that
determines whether a country is to be a core or part o f peripliery is dependent
on tlle strength o f its state. According to Wallerstein those countries that could
achieve the process o f 'statism', i.e., the co~lcentrationo f power in tlie central
authority, became the core countries o f the world economy. On the other hand,
tlie strength o f the state machineries is explained 'in terms o f tlle structural role a
country plays in the world economy at that moment o f time'. A strong state
enables the country as an entity to get a disproportio~lateshare o f tlie surplus o f
the entire world economy. The stability o f the world capitalist system is
maintained due to three factors: (i)the concentration o f military strengtll in the
liands o f the dominant forces, (ii) pervasiveness o f an ideological commitme~itto
tlle systeln as a wllole and (iii)tlie division o f tlle majority into a large lower
stratum and a smaller middle stratum. 'l'he existence o f tlle semi-periphery means
tliat the upper strata (core) is not faced with the unified oppositio~lo f all others
1\
because the middle stratLltii (semi-peripllery) is both tlie exploited and the
exploiter. Tlle semi-periphery, however, also constitutes a site for change. New
core states can emerge from tlle semi-periphery, and it is a destination for tlle
declining ones.
The world system theory has been widely criticised for its primary focus on the
'system imperative'. Thus in this theory, all events, processes, group-identities,
class and state projects are explained by reference to tlle system as a whole.
The implication o f such a reference point is that all tlie abave nierltioned actors
are seen as embedded within the system so much so tliat they do not act in their
immediate concrete interests but always in accordance with the prescripti&is or
dictates of the system. Critics have also pointed out that the theory explains the
contemporary capitalist world inadequately, since it focusses attention on the
market, failing to take into account tlle processes o f productioo.
Note: i) Use tlle space given below for your answzrs.
ii) Check your progress with tlle model answer given at the end o f tlle
unit.
1) What is meant by underdevelopment? What kind o f relationship exists

between First world and tlie Third world cou~itriesaccording to dependency
theory?

T h e Political Economy
I 2)- What do you understand by the concept of world systehn? How are different Approacli
parts of world interconnected according to tlie world system perspective?
j
5.5 ARTICULATION OF MODES OF' PRODUCTION
APPROACH
From the late 1960s an attempt was made to resurrect a certain variant of
Marxian approach to the transition process in the Tliird world in which mode of
production was tlie determining concept. Theorists belonging to this scliool of
development argued tliat Tliird world social formations encompass several modes
of productio~iand capitalism both dominates and articulates with pre-capitalist
modes of production. These theorists made a distinction between social
formation and mode ofproduction. Social formation refers to a combination of
economic, political and ideological practices or 'levels'. Mode of productio~irefers
to tlie economic level that determines whicli of the different levels is dominant in
tlie 'structured totality' that constitutes the social formation. The economic level
sets lirnjt on the other levels, that carry out functions wliich necessarily reproduce
the (economic) mode of production. These non-economic levels therefore enjoy
only a relative autonomy from tlie mode of production. The mode of production or
'economic' level is in turn, defined by its 'relations of production', i.e., tlie direct
relation between the immediate producer of the surplus and its immediate
appropriator. Each couplet, slave-master, serf-lord, free labourer-capitalist define a
separate mode.
Tlie mode of production perspective, takes as its point of departure tlie production
of tlie surplus product and is able, therefore to move to an explanation of tlie
division of the world between core arid periphery based 011 the modes of
production rather than trade relations. Tlie core therefore coincides with tlie
capitalist regions of the world, which are largely based on free wage labour. The
periphery on the other hand, was incorporated into the world economy on tlie
basis of rofree relatiolis of production (tliat is, non-capitalist modes of productjon),
which prevented an unprecedented accumulation of capital. Unequal trade
relations were therefore a reflection of unequal relations of production. It is for
these reasons that the 'advanced' capitalist countries were able to dominate other
areas of the world where non-capitalist modes of production existed.
On tlie face of it, mode of production perspective appears to constitute at least a

partial return to the sectoral (modern and traditional) analysis of modernisation
theory. The crucial difference, however, is that unlike dualist interpretations, tlie
I e~iiphasishere is on the interrelatedness of modes of production. It is argued that
the capitalist expansion of the West in the sixteenth century, encountered pre-
capitalist modes of production in the Third World wliich it did not or could not
totally transforni or obliterate, but rather which it si~iiultaneouslycoilserved or
destroyed. Tlie relationship between capitalist mode of production and the pre
capitalist modes of production, however, has not remained static and capitalist
relations of production have emerged in tlie periphery. Capitalism in tlie periphery
is of a-specific kind, one that is qualitatively different from its for111 in core
countries. The marked feature of capitalism in the periphery is its combination
with non-capitalist modes of production - in other words, capitalism coexists, or
'articulates', with non-capitalist modes. Non-capitalist production may be
Colnparative Methods and restructured by imperialist (that is, 'core-capitalist') penetration but it is also
Approaches
subordinated by its very 'conservation'.
The modes of production theory is, however, weakened by a functionalist

methodological approach. This is because the theory explains social change as a
product of the necessary logic of capitalism. This results in circular reasoning. If
pre-capitalist modes of production survives then that is evidence of its functionality
for capitalism and if pre-capitalist modes broke down then, that too is evidence of
capitalism's functional requirement.
This approacli has also been criticised on the grounds that it subordinates human
agency to structure, and assumes that social phenomena are explained by their
functionality for capitalism, rather than by actions and struggles of human beings
themselves.
5.6 CLASS ANALYSaS AND POLITICAL REGIMES

In tlie early 1970s yet another approach to explain tlie socio-political changes
taking place in the Third world countries emerged from Marxist scholars.
Prominent contributions came from Colin Leys (Underdevelopment in Kenya,
University of California Press, Berkeley, 1975) and James Petras (Critical
Perspectives on I~~perirrlisr~~ urtd Social Classes in the Third World, Mo~ithly
Review Press, New York, 1978) who explained tlie transition process in the
developi~igworld not in t e r m of world imperatives or articulation of modes of
production, but in terlns of classes as tlie prime movers of history. The focus
here is not on development, i.e., growth, versus stagnation. Tlie key question
which surfaces in ~ e t r a sand Leys work is: development for whom?
Petras differs from the 'external' relations of world system analysis and the
'internal' relations of modes of production analysis. Tlie salient feature of Third
World societies, according to him, is precisely the manner in which external and
internal class structure cross one another and the various conibinations of class
symbiosis, and interlock. Capitalist expansion on the world scale has engendered
tlie existence of collaborative strata in Third World which not only orient
production outwardly but also exploit internally. Decolo~iisationgave these strata
access to the instrumentality of the indigenous state and tlie choice of several
developmental strategies based on different internal and external class alliances. In
order to explain different patterns of development strategies, Petras examines (a)
tlie condifions under which accu~~tuluiion lakes place, which includes: (i) the
nature of state (and state policy), (ii) class relatiolis (process of surplus extraction,
intensity of exploitation, level of class struggle, concentration of work force), and
(b) the inlpacf of capiial accunzulation on class structure, which includes
u~iderstanding:(i) class formation/conversion (small proprietors to proletarians or
kulaks, landlords to merchants, merchant to industrialist etc., (ii) income distribution
(concentration, redistribution, reconcentration of income), and (iii) social relations:
labour market relations ('free' wage, trade union bargaining), semi-coercive
(market and political/social controls), coercive (slave, debt peonage).
Broadly speaking Petras suggests that post independence national regimes in the
developing world can choose among three strategies or types of class alliances
for capital accumulation. First, there is the neocolonirrl strategy wherein the
national reglime participates wit11 tlie core bourgeoisie in exploiting tlie indigenous
labour force. Wealtli and power under the neo-colonial regime is concentrated in
tlie hands of foreign capital. Secondly, the national regime may undertake a
nufional de~elopmenfulstrategy based on exploitatio~iof tlie indigenous labour
force and the limitation or elimination of the share going to iniperial firms. I n
terlns of tlie pattern of income distribution the major sliare goes to the
intermediate strata (in the form of the governing elite of the periphery). Thirdly, The Political E c o ~ ~ o n i y
Approacll
the regime may ally with the indigenous labour force, nationalise foreign or even
indigenous enterprise, redistribute income, and generally undertake a national
1 populist strategy as against core capital. Income distribution is more diversified,
spreading downward. Although we cannot go into the details over here, Petras
has mucll to say about the interrelations among these strategies and tlle role of
the imperial state in slloring up neo-colonial regimes and undermining the others.
5.7 STATE CENTRED APPROACH

In the field of comparative political econonly a backlasll took place against
d e ~ e l o ~ ~ ~ ~ e in
~ ~tlle
t a late
l i s ~1960s
n and tlle early 1970s wlle~lconcept of state
and power were revived. 'The contributio~lsto tlle theory of state canle pri~narily
fro111 Marxist scl~olarsl~ip. I n Marx, Engels and Lenin tlle concept of state is
premised on its relationsllip with tlle existing class divisions in society. It is tlle
nature of this relationship, however, which llas remained a matter of debate
among Marxists. One tradition, prevalent in tlle United States of America (USA),
emanated from comlnunity studies that identified power along the lines of position
and reputation, is associated with works of G.W.Domhoff (Who Rules Anierica?,
Prentice Hal I, New Jersey, 1967; The Higher Circles, Rand0111House, New
York, 1970; Who Really Rules?, Goodyear Publishing, Santa Monica, California,
1978; The Powers That Be, Random House, New York, 1979). Domlloff s maill
thesis is that there not only exists an upper class (corporate bourgeoisie) in USA,
but also that this class, is a governing class. Donllloff s contributio~lshave been
seen as a part of i~lstru~nentalist tradition within Marxism in wllicll state is seen
as an instrument of the ruling or do~ninantclass. This perspective is guided from
Marx and Engels's concern expressed in The Corrir~iur~is~ Manifeslo that tlie
executive of the state "is but a committee for managing the common affairs of
the wllole bourgeoisie". A careful reading of Domhoff s works, however, suggests
that he does not subscribe to tlle i~lstru~llentalist viewpoint and the state in USA
is seen as representing tlie interests of the corporate class while at the same time
opposing the interests of individual capitals or fractions of tlle business elite.
A second tradition revolved around what llas been described as tlle structuralist '
view of the state and is found in the writings of French Marxists, notably Nicos
Poulantzas. Poulantzas in llis early work (Political Power a11d Social Classes,
New Left Books, London) argued that functions of the state in capitalisnt are
broadly determined by the structures of the society rather than by the people
who occupy positions of tlle state. The state operates in a 'relatively autonomous'
manner to counteract tlle combined threats of working class unity and capitalist
disunity in order to reproduce capitalist structure. Poulantzas in his later work
(State, Power and Socialism, New Left Books, Verso edition, London, 1980)
argues that the capitalikr slate irself is an arena of class conflict, and that
whereas tlle state is shaped by social-class relations, it is also contested and is
therefore the product of class struggle within state. Politics is not simply the
orga~lisatio~lof class power tllrougll tlle state by dominant capitalist class, and tlie
use of that power to manipulate and repress s~~bordinate groups, it is also tlle site ,
of organ ised conflict by mass social nlove~nentsto influence state policies, and
gain control of state apparatuses.
An interesting debate on the state theory in the West figured in tlle pages of New
Left Review in 1969-70, in the form of an exclla~lgebetween Ralpll Miliba~lda:ld
Poulantzas. As Poulantza's view has already been discussed above, we sllall
briefly exmine now the contribution of Ralpll Miliband. Tlle debate in New Left
Review centered around Miliband's book The State in Capitalist Sociey: An
Analysis of the Western Systern of Power (Basic Books, New York, 1969) in
, which he argued that while the state may act in Marxist terms, on behalf of the

Culnpwrrtivc klcthods and ruling class, it does not act at its behest. The state is a class state, but it rnust
..\pprorchcs
have a high degree o f uutortoi~yand independence if it is to act as a class
state. 'The key argilrnent in Miliband's work is that state may act in the interests
o f capitalist, but not always at their command.
While the above mentioned debates focussed primarily on the nature o f state in
Western capitalist societies, a lively contribution to the debate on the nature o f
state in the developing world followed. Hamza Alavi ('The State in Post-Colonial
Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh', New Lefr Review, No.72, 1972) characterises
the post-colonial state in Pakistan and Bangladesh as 'overdeveloped' (as it was
creation a f metropolitan powers lacking indigenous support) which remained
relatively autonomous from the dominant classes. The state co~~trolled by
'bureaucratic military oligarchy' mediates between the competi~lginterests o f three
propertied classes, na~nelythe lnetropolitan bourgeoisie, the indigenous bourgeoisie
and the landed classes, while at the same time acting on behalf o f them all to
preserve the social order in which their interests are embedded, namely the
irlstitutio~lo f private property and the capitalist node as the d o ~ n i ~ l mode
a ~ ~ to f
production. This theme o f relative autonomy was later taken by PI-anab Bardhan
(The Political E C O I ~ Oof Basil Blackwel I, Oxford 1986) in his
I I Developn~e~tt,
!~
analysis o f the Indian state, where state is relatively autonomous o f the d o ~ n i ~ ~ a n t
coalition co~lstitutedby capitalist, landlords and professionals. State, however, in
Bardhan's forlnulatior~re~nainsa prominent actor which exercises 'choice in goal
formulation, agenda setting and policy execution'. The idea o f overdeveloped post-
colonial stgte and the concept o f relative autonomy in the context o f relatio~lsllip
between state and class in the context o f African societies was carried in the
work o f John Saul ('The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania', The Socialist
Register, London, 1974). Another perspective came in the work o f Issa G.Shivji
(Class Struggle in Tanzania, New York, 1976), who argued that the person~lel
o f the state apparatus tllemselves emerge as the domi~lantclass as they develop
a specific class interest o f their own and transfornl themselves into 'bureaucratic
bourgeoisie'.
The debate on the nature and role o f the state have continued in journals like
.Review of Africun Polificul ECOIZONI~, .Jotmral of Co11fe11lpomry Asiu, Latilt
A~nericanPerspective and the annual volunles o f Socidist Register in light o f
changes taking place in the forms o f economy, social classes and political forces.
I
Check Ybur Progress 4

ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end o f the
unit.
1) What is meant by mode o f production? What is the nature o f socio-economic ,
reality in the Third world according to the articulation o f mode o f production
theory?
.......................................................................................................................
2) The state centred approach revived the concept o f state and power in the
study o f comparative politics. Discuss.

T h e Political Economy
5.8 GLOBALISATION AND NEO-LIBERAL Approach
APPROACH
I n the context o f globalisation, the 'neoliberal' nod ern is at ion approach has
emerged as a dominant paradigm giving explanations for and prescribing remedies
for underdevelopment in peripheral states. Tlie neoliberal paradigm proposes that
the underdevelopment o f peripheral states o f the 'Third World is primarily because
o f the failure o f state-led development strategies particularly import-substitution
industrialisation. I t believes that these countries can, however, develop and obtain
competitive advantage in an open world econolny by rolling back state-control. A t
the heart o f the neoliberal perspective lies thus the notion o f 'separation' or
dichotomy between tlie state and the market. The paradigm limits the role o f the
state to providing 'enabling' conditions o f 'good governance' in which market
forces can flourish unhindered. This enabling role involves the preservation o f law
and order, the guarantee o f private property and contract, and the provision o f
'public goods'. Criticising this assumption o f a natural dichotomy between the
state and market, Ray Kiely (Sociology and Developntent: The lmpasse and
Beyond, UCL Press, London, 1995, p. 128) points out that tlie separation between
the two cannot be taken as natural but historically and socially constituted. The
appearance o f separate political and economic spaces, he pcil::s out, is unique to
the capitalist social relations which emerged in England and cannot therefore be
generalised to the rest o f 'advanced' capitalist world nor to the developing world.
international institutions like the World Bank a ~ i dI M F have, however, proceeded

to implement this ahistorical neoliberal model onto tlie developing world, with its
accompanying prescriptio~isregarding structural adjustment and 'good governance'.
The World Bank, for example, asserts that the economic problems o f tlie
developing word can be attributed to 'too much government' and a subsequent
failure o f market forces to operate freely. The proposed remedy is therefore, the
encouragement o f the private sector and tlie liberalisation o f 'national economies'.
I n order to achieve these objectives, three key policy proposals are recommended:
(i)currency devaluation, (ii) limited government and incentives to tlie private
sector and, (iii) the liberalisation o f international trade. These structural adjustment
programmes, however, overlook the socio-economic realities o f specific countries
and the role played by the state in providing social justice. The withdrawal o f the
state from this role, so as to unfetter market forces, means that the state is no
longer expected to play a role in balancing unequal resources. This then leads to
an increase in the vul~ierabilityo f the weaker sections, particularly women andlof
the working class, deepening already existing hierarchies within countries.
Similarly, the notion o f 'good governance' within tlie neoliberal agenda o f

international aid giving institutions, as providing tlie enabling conditio~iswithin
which market forces can flourish, has been viewed within scepticism. Kiley, for
example, points out that the World Bank's explanations o f the failure o f structural
adjustment programmes in Sub Saharan Africa, as lack o f good governance, fails
to specify how 'public accountability', 'pluralism' and the 'rule o f law', all o f
which are cited by the World Bank (Governance and Development, World
Development, Washington, DC, 1992) as important constituents o f good
governance, can be achieved without the participation o f the lower classes o f
society. The concept o f good governance within the neoliberal agenda, envisages
a condition where democracy and freedom are seen as antagonistic. Freedom
involves preservation o f private property, free market, and provision o f negative
freedoms like the right to speech, associate and move freely, conditions, in other
words, which preserve market economy. Democracy, on the other hand, is seen
with suspi~ion,as belonging to the political realm where demands for participation
and distribution o f resources are made. Tlie latter, it is feared niay endanger,tlie

C o n l ~ a r a t i v ehiethuds and freedoms essential for the strength o f the eco~lomicrealm. l'lle prioritisation o f
.4pproacLes
freedom over democracy, as prescribed by the neoliberal paradigm, fails thus to
meet the developmental needs o f the people.

I
Note:i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answer with the model answers given at the end o f the unit.
I
1
i
1) What are the key elements o f the neo-liberal approach?
I
5.9 LET US SUM UP

I
The political economy approacll emerged in the wake o f decolonisatioll to
understand and explain the relationship among nations and socio-political
phenomena. At the basis o f this approach was the assumption o f a relationship
between the domains o f politics and economics. The moder~lisation,
underdeve!n;;nent and dependency, world systems, articulation o f the modes o f
production, class analysis, state-centred analysis and the neoliberal analysis are
domina~ltamong the various explanatory frameworks which have emerged in the
last few decades. While, the a~lalyticaltools o f all these frameworks have varied,
almost all have 'development' as their key problem. 111 the process o f exploring
this problem witllin a comparative perspective, they have, inevitably seen the
world in terms o f a llierarcl~isedwhole. They do, however, provide important
insights into the intricacies o f eco~lo~llic
forces and the lllanner in a sy~nbiosiso f
econolny and polity works witllin and in connection with extenla1 forces.
5.10 KEY WORDS

Globalisation: A process o f bringing world together in terms o f economic and
social interactions o f countries and people. I n other words the world is supposed
to be a global society with global issues and problems which are to be tackled
with global efforts and cooperation.
Class State: A state that works to protect the interests o f a particular class. I n
Marxian terminology it is used to describe the present liberal states as protecting
the interests o f capitalist class.
Structural Adjustments: Reforms in Economics like currency devaluation,

incentives to private sector, liberalisation o f international trade etc.
T h i r d World: States wllicll emerged independent after Second World as a

process o f decolo~lisatio~land economically and industrially non-developed.

Chattopadhyay, Paresh, 'Political Economy: What's in a Name?', Monthly
Review, April, 1974.
Chilcote, Ronald H., Theories of Conparafive Politics, Westview Press, Boulder,
72 1994.
Cliilcote, Ronald H., 'Alternative Approaclies to Comparative Politics' in Howard T h c Political Economy
Approach
J.Wiarda (ed.), New Directiorls in Cor~iparativePolifics, Westview Press,
Boulder and London, 1989.
Kiely, Ray, Sociology and Developtrierif, UCL Press, London, 1995.
Limqueco, Peter and Bruce McFarlane, Neo-Marxisf Theories of Developtrient,
Croom Helm and St.Martin Press, London, 1983.

EXERCISES
1) Political Ecoliomy Approach is promised on tlie assumption tliat politics and
1 economy are interrelated. To uliderstatid political processes it is liecessary to
, look that in eco~ioniicco~itextslike means of production and pmduction
,
relations.
1) Purpose of moder~iisatioliis process of traditional societies catcliirig u p witli

world. The steps suggested for tliat are : i). Traditional stage
tlie ~iioder~i
ii) the precoliditions for take off; iii)take off; iv) tlie drive towards maturity
and v) high mass consumption. For elaboration see section 5.2.
1) See Section 5.3

2) See Section 5.4

1) Mode of Production means how in a society goods are produced and
distributed. It also refers to the economic level which determines which of
tlie different levels is do~ninantin tlie structured totality that colistitutes the
social formation. In tlie third world countries gelierally pre-capitalist mode
coexists witli the capitalist niode of production.
2) See Section 5.7
1) Neo-liberal approach is based on the study and evaluation of concepts like

good governance, structural adjustments, withdrawl of the State, globalisation
etc.

Block 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 1 NATURE, SCOPE AND UTILITY OF

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS

The i~atureand scope of comparative politics has been determined historically by

1.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: NATURE

1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships

This stress on the con~parativemethod as defining the character and scope of

1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government

'rhe often encountered notion that comparative politics involves a study of

i Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

1.3. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A HISTORICAL

1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics

In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the

1.3.2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

The preoccupation with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

1.3.3 The Second World W a r a n d After

The broadening of concerns in a geographic or territorial sense was also

While the universal frameworks of systems and structures-jiunctions enabled

1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism

Towards the 1970s, developmentalism came to be criticised for favouring abstract

1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return of the State

1.3.6 T h e Lat e G e n t i e t h cen7ury: Globalisation a n d Emerging Trends/

a) Scalihg down of systems: Much of the development of comparative political

b) Civil Society and Democratisation Approach(es): The disintegration of

development there was an ideological consensus, or the suspension of a need

c) Information collection and diffusion: A significant aspect and determinant

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for ybur answers.

1) Is it possible to say that comparative politics refers only to a method of

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

1.4 'COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: UTILITY

1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation

1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

1.4.3 Comparisons Leading to Explanations in Relationships Nature, Scope and Utility of

Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics, Nos.1 & 2, 1975)

I' Check Your Progress 2

1) What according to you is the usefulness of a comparative study of politics?

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

Check Ydur Progress 3

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.

2) ~race'thedevelopment of Comparative Politics in the twentieth century

3) A comparative study of politics looks for explanations of political phenomenon

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

Control: A regulation or check - an important part of experiments where a

Democratisation: Refers to processes indicating the promotioa of democracy,

Dichotomy: Division into two strongly contrasted groups or classes.

Globaljsation: Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific, technological,

Methodology: The study of different methods of research, including the

Model: In simple terms an intellectual construct which simplifies reality in order

Neoliberalism: An updated version of classical political economy, dedicated to

Normative: The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with

Postbehaviouralism: Refers to a period after 1970 and a methodology that

1.7 SOlME USEFUL BOOKS

Chilcote, Ronald H., Part I: Introduction, in Ronald H.Chilcote, Theories of

1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

What is method? What is the comparative method? How can the.