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
Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

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

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 -

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.

Check Your Progress 1

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) 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)

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
 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."

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

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.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
 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

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
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
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
 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.

Check Your Progress 3

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) Give any three characteristic features of Easton's input-output model.

2) State the strength and weakness of Easton's political system model.

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

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 ,

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.
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
 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.

4.8 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

~ 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

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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

4.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES

Check Your Progress 1

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.

Check Your Progress 2

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.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

 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.

Check Your Progress 3

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.
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU
 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.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU