The Behavioral Approach in

Political Science
by

MD ATIF ANSARI (B/117/2023)

Submitted to: Dr. SUBHODEEP CHAKRABORTI

Subject: POLITICAL SCIENCE 1
Roll no. : 117
Date: 01/07/2024

UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA
87/1, COLLEGE ST., COLLEGE SQUARE, KOLKATA, WEST
BENGAL 700073
Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
The Behavioral Approach ............................................................................... 2
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 6
References ......................................................................................................... 7

1|Page
Introduction

Behaviouralism, or the behavioral approach to the analysis and explanation of political

phenomena,is particularly associated with the work of American political scientists after the
second world war (1939-45) but its origin may be traced back to the works of Graham Wallas
(Human Nature in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The process of Government), Both published
as early as 1908. The behaviourlists made significant contribution to political science during
that period. Many Scholars like Gabriel A. Almond, Robert A. Dahl, David Easton, Harold
Laswell and Karl Deutsch are Famous behavioralists.

The Behavioral Approach

Behaviouralism is one of the most significant modern approaches to the study of political
science. A modern approach differs from a traditional one in precisely two ways: First, a
modern approach is concerned mainly about establishing a separate identity of political
science by emphasizing on the factual character of politics. Two, a modern approach makes
an attempt to study politics in entirety, which means it pays little attention to the formal
aspects of the discipline and brings into focus such other aspects that influence and also get
influenced in the political processes. Behaviouralism is an approach in political science
which seeks to provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting
political behaviour. Its emergence in politics coincides with the rise of the behavioral social
sciences that were given shape after the natural sciences. Behavioralism is mainly concerned
to examine the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals rather than the characteristics of
institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries. Behaviouralism underscores the
systematic inquiry of all exclusive expression of political behaviour. Some scholars insist that
behaviouralism implies the application of meticulous scientific and statistical methods in
order to standardise means of investigation. It is also an exercise in ensuring a value-free
study of the discipline of politics. it is usually argued that by the adherents of behavioural
approach that political science should be studied in manner similar to the study of natural
sciences. In this context, the supporters of behavioural approach insist that the main role of a
political scientist is to collect and analyse factual data in an objective manner.

2|Page
The major point of criticism against the traditional approaches has been that they have been
deficient in applying scientific methods to the study of politics that has rendered its very
claim to be a science at all. Therefore, the behaviouralists recommended the application of
exacting methodology and empirical studies to make the discipline of political science a true
social science. The behavioural approach has without doubt given towards an inquiry based
on research-supported verifiable data. The behaviouralists have challenged the realist and
liberal approaches by labeling them traditional as they fail to substantiate their conclusion
with verifiable facts. In order to understand political behaviour of individual the supporters of
behavioural approach prescribe the methods like sampling, interviewing, scoring, scaling and
statistical analysis.

The behavioural approach came to be exceedingly favoured in the study of political science
after the World War II. Nonetheless, it originated with the publication in 1908 of the works of
two political scientists, Graham Wallas (Human Nature in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The
Process of Government). Both these political scientists preferred to underscored the informal
political processes and diminished the significance of the study of political institutions in
isolation. Wallas, moved by the new findings of modern psychology, strived to introduce
similar realism in the study of political science. The major breakthrough provided by modern
psychology was that an individual, after all, was not that much a rational being as the
traditional political scientists and classical economists had tried to make him out.
Consequently, he emphasised that, more often than not, an individual’s political action were
not given direction by rationality and self-interest. Wallas pointed out that human nature was
a complex phenomenon and for an objective understanding of human nature suggested
gathering and analysis of factual data of human behaviour. The other political scientist,
Bentley was credited for inventing ‘group approach’ in the study of politics. He also
prescribed that there should be a shift from description of political activity to the application
of new tools of investigation. Bentley had sought greater inspiration from modern sociology
that made him emphasise the role of the informal groups such as pressure groups, elections
and political opinion in political processes.

Another significant political scientist who made valuable contribution to behavioural

approach was Charles E Merriam, known as the founder of Chicago School. His objection to
the traditional approaches to politics was the usual one i.e. they suffer from the absence of
thorough scientific inquiry. He was also critical of the works of those historians who did not
take into account the role of psychological, sociological and economic aspects of human

3|Page
existence. He vociferously advocated an inter-disciplinary approach to the study of political
science, which would endow the discipline with a true scientific character. He favoured the
use of quantitative techniques in the study of politics and encouraged political scientists to
treat political behaviour as the cardinal issue in the studies. Since he was a resolute admirer
of democracy, he strived to employ science to disseminate the message of democracy. He did
not see any inconsistency to advance the cause of a specific form of government through an
approach to politics. It was William B Munro, another supporter of modern approach who
made it plain that it was improper for political science to encourage the spread of any specific
form of government, democracy or otherwise. One more proponent of behavioural approach,
G E G Catlin spoke of making politics a value-free social science in his notable work,
Science and Method of Politics, published in 1927. For Catlin, the essence of politics is to be
located in ‘power’ and in this respect he cautioned that in the analysis of power, no particular
value-system should be taken into account. Catlin’s idea that politics was essentially the
study of power was later turned into a comprehensive study by Harold D Lasswell in the
renowned work Politics: Who Gets What, When, How that came out in 1936. It is considered
as one of the most meticulous studies of power.

These were the most important attempts to transform politics into a scientific discipline prior
to World War II. In the post-War period quite a few American political scientists such as
David B Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M Kirkpatrich, Heinz Eulau et al made outstanding
contributions to behaviouralism that elaborated and expanded the extent of behavioural
approach beyond the analysis of political behaviour. Therefore, it is pertinent to quote here
the contemporary definition of behavioural approach as provided by Geoffrey K Roberts in A
Dictionary of Political Analysis, published in 1971: “Political behaviour, as an area of study
within political science, is concerned with those aspects of human behaviour that take place
within a state or other political community, for political purposes or with political motivation.

Its focus is the individual person- as voter, leader, revolutionary, party member, opinion
leader etc. rather than the group or the political system, but it necessarily takes account of the
influences of the group on the individual’s behaviour, the constraints of the system on the
individual’s opportunities for action, and the effects of the political culture on his attitude and
political habits.”

In view of this definition the political scientists who subscribe to behavioural approach
investigate the psychological and sociological bearings on the behaviour of the individual in a

4|Page
political situation. Such an approach makes it imperative to make investigation of certain
processes and political aspects such as political socialisation, political ideologies, political
culture, political participation, political communication, leadership, decision making and also
political violence. It goes without saying that the study of most of these processes demands
an inter-disciplinary or multidisciplinary approach. Thus, in the post-War scenario
behavioural approach went beyond the confines of the research of individualcentric political
behaviour. In the contemporary sense it is identified with an array of points of reference,
procedures and methods of analysis. It was David Easton who set forth eight ‘intellectual
foundation-stones’ of behavioural approach. They are:

1. Regularities: It refers to identifiable similarities in political behaviour which help

generalisation and explanation of regularities in political theory.

2. Commitment to Verification: It necessitates that the soundness of theoretical statements

must be subjected to verification tests with reference to relevant political behaviour.

3. Techniques: It calls for experimental attitude in matter of electing techniques. In other

words political behaviour must be observed, recorded and then analysed.

4. Quantification: In order to make a precise expression of conclusions based on collected

data it is necessary to quantify the recording of data wherever possible.

5. Values: The behavioural approach demands a clear distinction between ethical assessment
and empirical explanations. The behaviouralists insist on this separation to make political
inquiry as far as possible value-free or value-neutral.

6. Systemisation: It draws attention to establishing linkages between theory and research

because research data without the support of theory is likely to become inconsequential while
theory in the absence of verifiable data may become an exercise in futility.

7. Pure Science: It recommends postponing the attempts to convert politics into a pure
science for the purpose of making it an applied science. It is necessary because on account of
the study of political behaviour we can use the knowledge of politics to find practical
solutions to the pressing problems of a polity.

8. Integration: It suggests integration of social sciences with their respective values in order
to develop an all-inclusive outlook of human affairs.

5|Page
David Easton made attempts to make behavioural approach “analytic, not substantive,
general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical.” In other words his intent
was to make political theory capable of making evaluation of political behaviour without
involving any ethical issue. It is often described as an exercise to distinguish between facts
and values. Behaviouralism has been criticized by both conservative and radical political
scientists for its so-called attempt to make the discipline value-free. For the conservative the
behavioural approach is a serious threat to the possibility of political philosophy.

According to Christian Bay, behaviouralism was nothing but a pseudo-political science

because it did not represent ‘genuine’ political research. His major point of criticism was that
behavioural approach attached too much importance to empiricism and overlooked normative
and ethical examination of political science. The radical critics point out that it is not possible
to study political science by separating of facts from values. Nonetheless, it must be stated
that behavioural approach did provide a great deal of reliability to political inquiry in
comparison with political generalisation. It has made it possible to make available
dependable answers to political question by using systematic methods. In the opinion of
Vernon Van Dyke: “The student who takes a behavioural approach is not likely to ask broad
and vague questions like what caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire…Nor is he
likely to focus on ideologies and constitutions or law or upon the organizational structure of
institutions.” Behavioural approach accordingly is concerned more about micro-level political
situations and shuns political generalisations.

Conclusion

Behaviouralism is an approach in political science which seeks to provide an objective,

quantified approach to explaining and predicting political behaviour. Its emergence in politics
coincides with the rise of the behavioural social sciences that were given shape after the
natural sciences. Behaviouralism is mainly concerned to examine the behaviour, actions, and
acts of individuals rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures,
executives, and judiciaries. Behaviouralism underscores the systematic inquiry of all
exclusive expression of political behaviour. Some scholars insist that behaviouralism implies
the application of meticulous scientific.
6|Page
References

Gauba, O.P. (2010), An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan Publishers, Delhi

https://www.jaspstudy.com/2023/04/Behavioural%20Approach
Political%20Science%20.html#:~:text=Behaviouralism%2C%20or%20the,are%20Famous%
20b ehavioralists.

7|Page