Unit-1

Understanding Comparative Politics

Abhishek Choudhary

1. Introduction
The chapter has three-fold objective. First, it provides an overview of the sub-discipline of
comparative politics and seeks to examine its nature and scope. Second, it provides an
understanding about the rationale for comparing and unpacks the methods of comparison.
Finally, it addresses the problem of Eurocentrism and provides a way out of the trap.
Before examining these, it would be pertinent to understand what comparative politics
means. Scholars have understood comparative politics as one of the three main subfields of
political science, the other two being political theory and international relations. Comparative
politics has been defined in several ways. Some prominent definitions worth attention are as
follows:
Jean Blondel (1999) defines comparative politics as being concerned with “simultaneous
or successive examination of two or more political systems”. For Hague, Harrop and
McComrick (2016: 12), comparative politics is the “systematic study of government and
politics in different countries, designed to better understand them by drawing out their
contrasts and similarities.” However, comparative politics is more than just identifying
similarities and differences. Comparison allows one to go beyond “identifying similarities
and differences” to “ultimately study political phenomena in a larger framework of
relationships” (Mohanty 1975). This approach helps in deepening ones understanding of
given political phenomenon and therefore allows one to be in a position to have a better
explanation, it is felt, would help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of
answering and explaining political phenomena.
2. Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
A major definitional aspect relates to the question: what is to be compared? On one hand, if
two things are entirely different, there is no point of comparison. On the other hand, if two
things are entirely same, comparison would not be useful either. One important aspect is to
specify “functional equivalence” between concepts or indicators (Dogan and Pelassy 1990).
This aspect is based on two major ideas. First is the idea that “different structures may
perform the same function”. The second is that the same structure “may perform several
different functions” (Dogan and Pelassy 1990). By arguing in favour of functional
equivalence, it is asserted that instead of looking at institutional similarity, one can assess the
roles and functions performed by various institutions within and outside the politics. This
idea has been championed by scholars who fall under the category of ‘functionalists’. In
simple terms, it is the performance of ‘functions’ and the role played by different organs of
the society that matters. This may include non-political institutions as well. No institution can

1
be attributed to a single function exclusively. Similarly, no institution can be limited to a
single function too. For instance, the military may perform roles much more than that of
securing the borders in some states. Or, the function of the president may vary drastically in
two different countries.
2.2 Nature of Comparative Politics
Daniel Caramani (2011) seeks to provide answer to “what” is being compared in comparative
politics. He argues that “national political systems” are the main cases that are compared as
they happen to be the most important political units in world politics. However, they are “not
the only cases” that are analysed by comparative politics (Caramani 2011: 5). For instance,
comparative politics can analyse “sub-national regional political systems” like the states or
regions of India. Or, they can analyse “supranational units” like (a) regions (comprising more
than one country, like West Asia), (b) political systems of empires (like Roman, Ottoman,
Mughal, etc.), (c) international or regional organizations (like SAARC, EU, NATO, etc) and
(d) types of political systems (democratic versus authoritarian, etc.) (Caramani 2011: 5).
Comparative political analysis can also compare “single elements or components”. This may
include a comparison of party systems, electoral systems, structures of various instiututions,
policies, etc.
In general terms, comparative politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems
operating in various societies. It also compares units within and beyond states. With its focus
on comparison and analysis, it takes into account political activity, political processes as well
as political power in various political systems.
The discipline of comparative politics has three traditions (Caramani 2011):
1. Oriented towards the study of single countries
2. Methodological
3. Analytical
The first tradition is oriented towards the study of single countries. It follows the initial
inclination of American comparativists who focussed on the study of political systems
outside of the US. This tradition reflects the Anglo-Saxon dominance over the subject and
studied foreign countries as ‘others’. This tradition often focusses on countries in isolation
without actually engaging in comparison. It is limited to providing detailed description of a
single case. Despite the criticism of this tradition, major contributions in the field of
comparative politics stem from detailed descriptive study of single countries.
The second tradition seeks to establish rules and standards for comparison. It focusses on
ways in which a better reservoir of comparative information, explanation and prediction can
be created. Understood in this sense, comparative method is a “method of discovering
empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Thus, ‘comparative method’ is one
of the traditions within comparative politics that is different from descriptive and analytical

2
traditions. By focussing on rules and standards, this tradition provides starting point for
analysis of countries or groups of countries.
The third tradition is analytical and provides a combination of empirical description with
method. Most of the work that nowadays are categorised as ‘works of comparative politics’
falls under this tradition. Comparative studies of political parties, regime types, social
movements, etc. in two or more countries are a few examples of this body of literature. The
works are mainly concerned with identifying and explaining “differences and similarities
between countries” and their “institutions, actors, and processes” by using the method of
“systematic comparison” of common phenomenon (Caramani 2011: 4).
2.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
The discipline of comparative politics has been criticised on different levels. It has been
considered as Eurocentric implying that the ‘western model’ is seen as better than the rest of
the world. This sort of parochialism leads to the perpetuation of the hegemonic nature of a
particular system. This further leads to the ‘self’ versus ‘other’ bias. Due to this, the ‘self’
gets defined in relation to the ‘other’. The first tradition mentioned above is subjected to this
criticism. Even the third tradition succumbs to this Eurocentric bias and the ‘non-west’ is
compared in a manner that presents the west as better and superior.
Roy C. Macridis (1955) in his seminal essay identified certain limitations of the
traditional approach. First, it has been called as ‘essentially noncomparative’ implying that
the reference point is the institutional structure of a given country. It has been alleged that
single case study is being passed as a comparative study. He further alleged that the
traditional approach is more descriptive and less analytical. This criticism stems from the fact
that the historical and legalistic approaches have their limitations. The historical approach
focusses on studying the “origins and growth” of certain institutions (Macridis 1955: 17). In
doing so, it does not make any effort towards evolving any analytical scheme. Thus, the focus
stays limited on the chronology of events within a country and the chosen institution of that
country. The legalistic approach focusses primarily on the study of powers of different
branches of the government. It does not try to analyse the factors that shape particular forms
of power in specific ways. Thus, they fail to provide any “general frame of reference” that
can be used in a truly comparative sense (Macridis 1955: 18).
Second, Macridis considers the traditional approach as ‘essentially parochial’. This
critique is related to the undue focus on institutions of Western European countries. Such a
focus significantly limited the scope of comparative politics and rendered other regime types
as less important. Third, Macridis called the approach as ‘essentially static’. This implied that
comparative politics ignored the ever changing factors that leads to change and growth.
Finally, he called the approach as ‘essentially monographic’ implying that the study remained
focussed on political institutions of a given system. It meant that focus of comparativists
remained on individual case studies. This critique is close to the critique that considers
comparative politics as descriptive and as lacking systematic formulation.

3
 Neera Chandoke (1996) builds up on Macridis’ critique and traces the crisis of
comparative politics. First, the disciple faced a general attack on grand theorization. It was
questioned for removing issues from contextual specificities. It further was accused of over
generalised regularities. The discipline was considered as reductionist. It was searching for
simple variables for the sake of comparison. It ‘reduced’ complex phenomenon of politics to
simple variables that could be compared with ease. The second indication of crisis stems
from the ethnocentric nature of the discipline and focus on studying the ‘other’ - other
societies, other regime types, other institutions. The third reason for the crisis of comparative
politics is the crisis of nation-state itself. The usual category of comparison, the state, faced
challenges due to external forces as well as internal autonomy movements.
A set of problems faced by comparative analysis relates to the methodological
dimension. There is often a criticism against any case study for having a “selection bias”
(Landman 2008). The choice of countries to do a comparative study might be based on the
bias of the comparativist. Another problem relates to the emphasis on a “behavioural
approach”. The behavioural approach in social science in general and comparative politics in
particular related to tendency to explain social phenomenon using scientific methods. It was
asserted by the behaviouralists that social reality can be observed, quantified and generalised.
Behaviouralists use methods of sampling, survey, interview, and statistical analysis to explain
social realities.
Example of these problems is the criticism levelled against the seminal work by Gabriel
Almond and Sydney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations (1963). The study was called ethnocentric as it favoured consensual democracy as
the most stable form. It is further pointed out that political culture of Mexico was deliberately
pitted against the political culture of the United States to prove that liberal democracies (like
the US) are better than one-party systems (like Mexico during those years). The study was
also called an attempt of behaviouralists to quantify political orientations to categorize
countries, ignoring the dynamic nature and contextual specificities of socio-political relations.
3. Why Compare?
Comparing two or more things is a natural attribute of human behaviour. Whether one has to
choose the subject to study after schools, whether one has to buy clothes, phones or any other
thing, there are constantly involved in comparison. Politics is an even more important and an
ever evolving domain that requires comparison to equate, differentiate and assess various
phenomena.
Todd Landman (2008) has identified four reasons for comparison: contextual
description, classification, hypothesis-testing and prediction.
(i) Contextual description:
It allows political scientists to know what other countries are like (Landman 2008). This
has been the primary objective of comparative politics wherein the focus is on ‘describing the

4
political phenomena and events of a particular country, or group of countries’ (Landman
2008: 5). It is important as it provides an outside observer to make sense of a system not
entirely known to him/her. This aspect is closer to the first tradition and provides the
comparativists with detailed information about a political system. While some critics assert
that single-country studies cannot be truly considered comparative, there are benefits of
studying a particular country or a group of countries. For instance, a detailed analysis of
political system of United Kingdom provides us with the information about benefits and
limitations of parliamentary system. This can help us assess other cases where similar - or
opposite - systems exist.
(ii) Classification:
It implies simplifying and organizing information so that it can be easily observed and
categorized (Landman 2008: 5-6). Classification allows grouping of categories that are not
same but have some level of similarity. For example, let us assume two countries where one
has a Parliamentary system while the other has a Presidential system. Both have very
different set of rules. But both can be ‘classified’ as democracies. Thus, the world of politics
is made less complex through classification (Landman 2008: 4).
One of the earliest known comparativists, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), used the same logic
while classifying 158 city-states into six categories: monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy. Based on the ‘number of those who rule’ and the forms as good or
corrupt, Aristotle’s classification can be summarised through the following table:
Those who rule
One Few Many
Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity
(kingship)
Form of Rule
Corrupt Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy (mob rule)

Source: Todd Landman (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An

Introduction, New York: Routledge.

In similar way, one of the most prominent work on comparative social revolution, Theda
Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and
China (1979) provides a classificatory analysis of role of state structures, international forces,
and class relations. She uses this to explain and analyse the French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution and the Chinese Revolution.
(iii) Hypothesis-testing:
After describing and classifying information, the next logical step is to understand the
factors that explains what has been described and classified. This aspect has been called as
‘hypothesis testing’ and implies the search for factors so that better theories could be built.

5
This aspect is closer to the second tradition of comparative politics which is focussed on
analysis and seeks to establish relation among variables.
Comparative research is a focus on analytical relationships among variables validated by
social science, a focus that is modified by differences in the context in which we observe and
measure those variables. Arend Lijphart claims that comparison helps in testing
“hypothesized empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Comparative
analysis also leads to accumulation of more information that helps in having a better and
more complete explanatory theory. So, when comparing countries and testing hypothesis
allows the accumulation of a larger pool of information and improves ones knowledge about
the world.
(iv) Prediction
Comparison of countries and the generalizations based on such comparison allows one to
‘predict’ likely outcomes. The likely outcomes in other countries that are not included in the
original comparison can be made based on a robust theory. Also, prediction can be made
about outcomes in the future on the basis of certain factors and conditions. Predictability is an
excellent attribute of a good theory and it is asserted that a ‘good theory’ is able to predict
outcomes with better accuracy.
Other than these four reasons, comparison provides us perspective to understand the less
known political systems. It also helps to understand differences in outcome in different socio-
political settings. It also helps in understanding as to why countries develop the way they do
and why they are ruled the way they are.
Hague, Harrop and McComrick (2016) identify two major purposes of comparative
politics:
a) it broadens one’s understanding of the political world
b) it helps in predicting political outcomes.
Arguing on similar lines, Newton and Van Deth (2010) provide three important reasons for
studying comparative politics:
a) one cannot understand one’s own country without knowledge of others.
b) one cannot understand other countries without knowing the background,
institutions and history of other countries.
c) one cannot arrive at valid generalisations about government and politics without
the comparative method.
Thus, it can be argued that describing, analysing, predicting and generalizing are four major
attributes of comparative politics that makes it an important aspect of broader political
analysis.

6
4. Methods of Comparison
Kopstein and Lichbach (2005) have argued that focussing on ‘interests, identities, and
institutions’ are three ways that provide different paths of doing comparison. These variables
have an impact on how political systems operate.
(a) Focus on Interest
Some comparativists focus on interests. For them, the material interest of people is what
matter the most. People decide on the basis of rational calculations and organize politically in
order to maximize their interest. They support a regime type that ‘maximizes their life
chances’ (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). For instance, a group of people may organize
against a regime type or support it purely based on rational calculations. The calculations are
interest based and therefore, it may be possible that a particular regime type is supported in a
particular society but the same may be opposed in another social setting. However, an undue
focus on interest may be misleading. The next two paths downplay the relevance of interests
and consider interest being shaped by identities or institutions.
(b) Focus on Identities
Some comparativists consider identity as the most important factor. They argue that there
are no objective interests and one’s interest is defined by one’s identity. Two most common
forms of identities are religion and ethnicity (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). People or groups
of people define their interests in terms of their identity. A simple example could be religious
support to a theocratic regime. Another example could be the rise of caste based or religion
based parties in India where the support to a particular political party is based primarily on
identity. While some identities are based on birth and place, modern societies also generate
newer identities. For example, the organising for issues like gender and environment leads to
creation on newer identities. Recent US elections (2020) showed that how historical identities
and newer identities interact and shape people’s choices.
(c) Focus on Institutions
Yet another group of comparativists argue that neither material interests, nor identities
determine how the politics of a country works. For them, the rules and procedures embedded
in institutions dictate the way power operates and countries work (Kopstein and Lichbach
2005). Institutions shape the working of a country either directly or indirectly. In particular,
Democracies have a diverse and complex set of institutions that define how a country would
shape up. For example, the institutionalised electoral system of the United States is based on
a ‘first-past-the-post’ system. On the other hand, Germany has a ‘proportional representation’
electoral system. Both the countries are democratic but the political life and political culture
of both democracies vary - and one major factor for this variation in the difference in
institutions. Comparativists who tend to focus on institutions, try to explain variation in
outcomes on the basis of variation in institutions. The aspect of ‘functional equivalence’ is

7
relevant here as same institutions may perform different functions and different institutions
may perform same functions.
Comparativists have proceeded in their task by focussing on one or a mix of the three
ways mentioned above. While one of the ‘ways’ may have its limitation, a mix of more than
one provides a broader understanding of the issues.
A different way to approach the question “how to compare” has been answered by
political philosopher James Stuart Mill. He provides five strategies for undertaking
comparison (Finn 2011):
a) Method of agreement: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they have in common. That commonality is identified as the cause.
b) Method of difference: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they all do not have in common. If they have all but one thing in common,
that one thing is identified as the cause.
c) Joint method of agreement and difference: A combination of the methods of
agreement and difference, the joint method looks for a single commonality among
two or more instances of an event, and the joint method looks for a common absence
of that possible cause.
d) Method of residues: all known causes of a complex set of events are subtracted.
What is leftover is said to be the cause.
e) Method of concomitant variations: correlations between varying events are sought,
that is, correspondence in variations between two sets of objects, events, or data.
Of these, the ‘joint method of agreement and difference’ is relevant to comparative politics as
it combines the method of agreement and difference. It seeks to look for a single
commonality among two or more instances of an event and common absence of a possible
cause (Finn 2011). J.S. Mill’s ‘method of difference’ is also known as the “most similar
system design”. It is used in comparing similar cases having dependent variables. His
‘method of similarity’ is also known as the “most different systems design” (Black 1966). It
is employed to compare dissimilar cases having independent variables. However while
comparing, one should be careful about what to compare and how to compare. There is much
greater value in comparing events and institutions that are in situated in similar time frame
than those that are widely separated in time. The comparison of societies or smaller groups
that are concerned with reasonably similar problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory
conclusions than comparisons between societies existing many centuries apart (Black 1966).
Thus, comparative research designs can either focus on similarities or on differences
(Caramani 2011). Daniel Caramani (2011) argues that it would not be correct to say that
comparative politics relies on a specific method. This is because different methods could be
employed based on the differences in number of cases chosen, type of data analysis used and

8
time period under study. Thus, the research method would depend on question that the
researcher is asking.
Another reason is that there can be different dimension under comparison. Therefore, a
single method will not be useful. The comparison can be (a) spatial or cross-sectional,
meaning that two political systems are compared as a cross section. For example, comparison
of federal systems of India and Canada. It can be (b) longitudinal, meaning that institutions
and systems could be compared across time. For example, comparison of the phase of
congress system in India with the phase of coalitional politics. It can be (c) functional or
cross-organizational, meaning that the object of study is not territorially different but can be
within a given political system. For example, comparison of government policies relating to
expenditure on military and education.
5. Going beyond Eurocentrism
As discussed in the section 2.2 on ‘scope comparative politics’, the discipline faces the
charge of being parochial and Eurocentric. There are methodological problems and it has
been alleged that comparative politics focusses on the “how” but ignores the “what” of the
problem (Lijphart 1971). The Eurocentric nature of the discipline limited its focus on Great
Britain, France, Germany and the Soviet Union.
Macridis’s critique of the discipline as parochial and Eurocentric did challenge the
contours but the efforts to redefine the discipline was still based on a deeply entrenched bias.
Thus, by addressing the “first crisis of the discipline”, a “second crisis” was invited
(Chandhoke 1996). The efforts to expand the scope of the discipline led to limiting of the
focus on the American and Western political systems and institutions. It was based on the
same worldview that ignored the worldviews of the ‘others’. This was the Eurocentrism of
the discipline which either (a) focussed entirely on the West and ignored the rest of the world,
or (b) even when any part of the rest of the world was studied/compared, it was considered
‘less civilized’, ‘exotic’, ‘different’ and ‘inferior’ than the European and American models.
Eurocentrism implies this superiority and bias in favour of the civilization, culture and race of
the West.
A “third world perspective” began to emerge during 1940s and 1950s but it remained
limited mostly to the Latin American experience. One of the earliest proponents of this
approach was Paul Baran who spearheaded the critique of modernization theory from a Neo-
Marxist perspective. Broadly called the ‘dependency perspective’, the ideas represented
‘voices from the periphery’ that ‘challenged the intellectual hegemony of the American
modernization school’ (So 1990). Before going into the critique, it would be useful to look at
some major theories of growth and modernization.

9
 Major Theories of Growth and Modernization
Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) gave the theory of ‘big push’. He argued in favour of
industrial sector and advocated moving away from agricultural sector. He favoured the
industrial sector as it would generate greater levels of capital setting a self-perpetuating
motion of growth.

Ragnar Nurkse (1953) came up with the notion that is better known as the ‘trickle-down
effect’. He argued that poor do not save and therefore investment in industries was needed
to generate capital. Rich needed to grow, save and invest further and the fruits of capital
will eventually trickle-down to the poor sections as well.

Simon Kuznets (1955) argued that capitalist development would in fact lead to economic
inequality in short run. But it would eventually lead to a more equitable and prosperous
society. In Indian context, V.M. Dandekar and N. Rath (1971) argued that a higher rate of
growth was better than a lower rate of growth for all social groups, except for the poorest
10 percent. Thus, they challenged the effectiveness of the trickle-down effect and argued
for a ‘basic needs strategy’. They argued that from the viewpoint of the poor, fair
distribution of growth is more important than general growth.

W. Arthur Lewis (1954) began his argument by looking at a two-sector model - the
capitalist sector and the subsistence sector. While the capitalist sector has reproducible
capital and is more productive, the subsistence sector has low level of productivity. With
low rate of savings, the subsistence sector lacks accumulation of capital that can be
reproduced. Therefore, Lewis argued for emphasizing the capitalist sector for growth.

W.W. Rostow (1960) provided an ideological challenge to socialist models of development

by presenting his “Stages of Economic Growth”. Rostow divided the process of
development into five stages: (i) the traditional society; (ii) the establishment of the
preconditions for take-off; (iii) the take-off stage; (iv) the drive to maturity; and (v) the
epoque of high mass consumption. For the second stage, he emphasized the need to focus
on specific growth sectors that would function as engines for economic growth and lead to
establishment of such political, social and institutional frameworks that would utilize the
potential in modern sector.

For more details on theories of growth and modernization, See John Martinussen (1997),
Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories of development, London: Zed
Books Ltd, chapter 5 and Alvin Y. So (1990), Social Change and Development:
Modernization, Dependency and World System Theories, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Paul Baran (1966) used Marxist theory of surplus and sought to focus on internal
conditions of backward economies. Baran identified four classes that had narrow self-interest
10
and had no interest in promoting industrialization. These four classes - the feudal aristocracy,
the moneylenders, the merchants and the foreign capitalists appropriated the surplus.
Therefore, it was necessary to have extensive state intervention to promote nationally-
controlled industrialization (Martinussen 1997: 87). It was Baran’s ideas that influenced later
dependency theorists like A.G. Frank, Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel to provide a third
world perspective.
Andre Gunder Frank (1967) provided the idea of “Development of Underdevelopment”.
According to Frank, the Third World could never follow the path taken by the West because
of the differences in experience (So 1990: 96). The West did not experience colonialism
while most of the Third World countries are former colonies of the West. Thus, Frank
dismissed the ‘internal explanation’ of the modernization school and emphasizes the ‘external
explanation’. In simple words, the backwardness of the Third World was not due to feudalism
or aristocracy but was an outcome of the colonial experience and foreign domination.
A.G. Frank formulated a “metropolis-satellite model” to explain the underdevelopment
of the Third World. Colonialism created a link between the metropole (or the colonisers) and
the satellites (or the colony) in a way that to an unequal relation of trade. All the surplus was
appropriated by the metropole leaving the satellite poor. The local bourgeoise also
contributed to this underdevelopment by draining the surplus outside the satellite, not using it
for investment and development internally and keeping the international inequality in place.
Thus, what occurred was the development of underdevelopment due to the link with world
market. Only way out of this vicious cycle was to delink from the world market (So 1990).
Samir Amin (1976) provided the concept of ‘Centre and Periphery’. Unlike Frank, who
focussed on trade and exchange relations, Amin was more concerned with “conditions and
relations of production” (Martinussen 1997). Amin provided two ideal-type societal models -
the autocentric economy and the peripheral economy. The autocentric economy is self-reliant
but lack self-sufficiency. It relies on extensive international trade. The peripheral economy,
on the other hand, has an “overdeveloped export sector” producing goods for luxury
consumption (Martinussen 1997). One can see capitalism in circulation of capital but modes
of production remain pre-capitalist. The Centre is therefore able to extract resources and
cheap labour from the Periphery earning high profit. This relation of dependency is based on
unequal exchange and this asymmetric relationship leads to the continuation of dependency.
Dos Santos (1971) discussed three historical forms of dependency: (i) colonial
dependence, (ii) financial-industrial dependence, and (iii) technological-industrial
dependence (So 1990: 99). Santos identifies some limitations on the industrial development
of underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries have to rely on foreign capital
leading to political dependence. They are in a monopolized market where raw materials are
cheap and industrial products are high. Therefore, the amount of capital leaving the
dependent country is much more than the amount entering. Also, the monopoly of imperial
centres over the technology makes the relation even more asymmetrical. The context of cheap
labour in combination with the presence of capital-intensive technology leads to differences
11
in the level of domestic wages. Thus, there is a “high rate of exploitation or
‘superexploitation’ of labour power” (So 1990). Thus the monopolistic control over foreign
capital, foreign finance and foreign technology leads to the economic backwardness and
internal social marginalization in the underdeveloped countries.
Other scholars like Arghiri Emmanuel (1972) and Geoffrey Kay (1975) also provided
somewhat similar theoretical understanding by looking at the unequal exchange and
exploitation of the peripheral economies. F.H. Cardoso (1974) posited the idea of
‘development in dependency’ and rejected the tendency of treating the peripheral countries as
single group of dependent economies. He focussed more on the internal conditions and
argued that external factors would have different results based “dissimilar internal
conditions” (Martinussen 1997). Due to such diagnosis, Cardoso was also against
recommending general set of strategies for all peripheral countries.
In general, the Third World perspective attempts at dismantling the Eurocentric bias of
comparative politics. It highlights the limitations of the ‘grand narratives’ and focuses on two
important aspects: the impact of colonialism and the cultural specificity of the non-West. It is
through such challenge that the discipline has been able to move beyond its Eurocentric
bubble.
Conclusion
Comparative politics is a broad sub-discipline that involves various traditions, methods and
approaches. It includes description, analysis, prediction and generalization of political
activity. Comparative politics has been accused of being Eurocentric, parochial, formalistic,
and excessively descriptive. Despite these limitations and problems, scholars have sought to
find solution and enhance the ambit of comparative politics. It is important to break the
ethnocentric nature and situate the political processes in context. In this regards, it is asserted
that one needs to situate analysis in historical, cultural and geographic contexts. It is
important to note that over-generalization is a problematic aspect of any theory. If one seeks
to explain a political activity in complete abstraction, it would be away from reality. If the
study is only looking at specific situations, it loses its relevance for broader context.
Therefore, a shift towards middle-level of grounded theory was advocated by scholars
(Blondel 1981). The narrowing of the scope of comparative political analysis also led to a
focus on case-oriented studies. Against the criticism that comparativists tend to universalize
concepts, there was a renewed focus on development of methods based on few cases.
However, this approach was also considered problematic as the hypothesis is not testable
when there are several factors at play. Despite these problems and narrowing of focus,
comparative political analysis remains a very important sub-discipline of political science. It
provides insight into contemporary national, regional and international politics by providing
descriptive, analytical and methodological frames of reference.

12
References
Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History, New
York: Harper and Row.
Blondel, Jean (1981), The Discipline of Politics, Butterworths: London.
Blondel, Jean (1999), “Then and Now: Comparative Politics”, Political Studies, XLVII, pp.
152-160.
Caramani, Daniele (2011), “Introduction to comparative politics”, in Daniele Caramani (ed.)
Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chandhoke, Neera (1996), “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis”, Economic and
Political Weekly, 31 (4): 2-8.
Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy (1990) How to Compare Nations: Strategies in
Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Finn, V.K. (2011), “J.S. Mill’s inductive methods in artificial intelligence systems. Part I”,
Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38: 385-402.
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and John McComrick (2016), Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction, 10th edition, London: Palgrave.
Kopstein, J. and M. Lichbach, (eds.) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and
Institutions in a Changing Global Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-5;
16-36; 253-290.
Landman, Todd (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, New
York: Routledge.
Lijphart, Arend (1971), “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”, The American
Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.
Macridis, Roy C. (1955), “Major Characteristics of the Traditional Approach”, in The Study
of Comparative Politics, New York: Random House, pp. 7-14.
Martinussen, John (1997), Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories of
development, London: Zed Books Ltd.
Mohanty, Manoranjan (1975), “Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sensitivity”,
Teaching Politics, 1&2.
Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010), Foundations of Comparative Politics,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
So, Alvin Y. (1990), Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and
World System Theories, London: Sage Publications.

13
 Unit-2 : Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

(a) Institutional Approach, System Approach, Structural-

Functional Approach
Bhagyanagar Vineeth Srivatsava

In the earlier unit, the scope and nature of comparative politics have been familiarised to the
readers. This chapter focuses on the various approaches that are dominant in comparative
political theory. In particular, we limit ourselves to three crucial approaches- Institutional
approach, Systems approach and structural-functional approach. This chapter aims not only
to engage in debates on approaches used in comparative politics but also to understand and
reflect the merits and demerits of each approach, its role in the development of the discipline
and its relevance for the researcher in their study. Before we move forward with the
discussion, it is essential to step back and ask what approaches are? In a narrow sense, if we
say that comparative politics is essentially comparing various forms of political life,
approaches are various ways to compare. For example, suppose we want to compare two
objects–A and B. In that case, we should have prior rules established on how should they be
compared, what characteristics of A and B are to be taken into consideration in comparison.
In comparing political systems, political culture and institutions approaches serve as ways of
comparison. Each approach evolved out of complex intellectual history and shaped by the
events of that particular time. It is therefore essential to keep in mind that every approach has
its particular relevance in the discipline.
The approaches used in the theory of comparative politics can broadly be categorised
into two–the traditional approaches and modern approaches. Without emphasising too much
on contrasting traditional and the modern approach, it suffices to hold that the traditional
approaches are concerned with a normative perspective of politics supplemented by the study
of formal structures, institutions etc. Some of the key proponents of this approach include
Aristotle, James Bryce, Harold Laski, Walter Bagehot, etc. The behavioural revolution in
social sciences attacked the traditional methods in political science and emphasised the need
for scientific criteria in comparative research. The modern approaches utilise these scientific
methods to study various political systems by understanding measurable aspects of the
system.
2.1 Institutional Approach
Before we begin with the discussion on the institutional approach, it is important to
emphasise what institutions mean. A consistent and organised pattern of behaviour or
activities established by custom or law can broadly be called an institution. Therefore, an
institution means not only bodies like Parliament and Judiciary but also customs and or any
other patterned behaviour of the society. You might be aware of the fact that marriage is an
institution in a sociological study. The disciplinary variations in the definition of the term
‘institution’ should not be surprising. It can, therefore, be argued that political science as a

14
discipline is the study of institutions. This tradition is not new at all and goes as back as to
Aristotle. The primary concern of the approach can broadly be understood as to how do the
institutions nurture the society, subjects or citizens for a better life. Aristotle compared as
many as 158 constitutions to understand the normative question-which institutions work
better. Machiavelli, for example, postulated advice to the institution of the Prince so that
there shall be proper control of the subjects. Even when Hobbes was writing Leviathan
(2009), he was concerned by the English civil war and therefore propagated for strong
institutions. This list of thinkers who were concerned with institutions is non-exhaustive and
need not be elaborated here, but it is essential to keep in mind that many thinkers since the
beginning were concerned with the institutions in one way or the other. However, the
institutional approach as a method became the mainstream much later with its leading
proponents Carl Friedrich, James Bryce, A. L. Lowell, Herman Finer and Samuel Finer.
Jean Blondel argued in this regard that James Bryce and Lowell are true founders of
comparative politics as a distinct branch of study within the political discipline due to their
prominent contribution to the field in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Bryce is known
for his contributions in his the American Commonwealth (1888) and Modern Democracies
(1921). In his work Modern Democracies, he tried to understand the workings of legislature
and its decline. Lowell studied France, Switzerland, Germany, etc., separately and sought to
conduct a comparative study of the referendum and its impact. His well-known works include
Government and Parties in Continental Europe (1896) and Public Opinion and Popular
Government (1913). Although scholars before them undertook the study of institutions, Bryce
and Lowell argued that such studies were incomplete and did not offer a nuanced argument.
They stressed that it is not only essential to study the theoretical bases of the government, but
it is equally important to highlight the ’practices of the government‘, which was missing in the
earlier accounts of the institutional approach. They argued that a researcher must focus both
on facts and theoretical arguments for a better understanding of the political system and better
comparison. They suggested using both qualitative and quantitative methods in the collection
of data.
The institutional approach was one of the main pillars of political science discipline till
the first half of the twentieth century. Many scholars tried to understand various institutions.
For example, Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United States of America, compared
governments of the USA and Europe and pointed to what the American government could
learn from European governments (Doig, 1983). The institutional approach has certain
specific characteristics that help us to understand the approach in details. Guy Peters (1999)
lists the characteristics of the institutional approach as follows
2.1.1 Characteristics of Institutional Approach
2.1.1.1 Legalism
The institutional approach gave law central place in a comparison of various institutions.
Even in the example of Wilson mentioned above, we can notice the prominence of law
through his emphasis on types of government. The prominence of law can broadly be

15
attributed to the fact that the law constitutes the basis of political life and affect the behaviour
of citizens in a significant way. Despite its centrality in the approach, scholars differ in their
explanation of the relationship between law and society. Guy Peters (1999) holds that the
study of law as the basis of political knowledge achieved its height in the Prussian State and
thereafter in Germany.
2.1.1.2 Structuralism
For the scholars of the institutional approach, the structure determined the behaviour.
Therefore, major institutional features, the ideal types of government- Parliamentary or
Presidential, various models of parliamentary government, and presidential governments
were extensively researched. The structures studied in this approach tended to be formal and
constitutional. The assumption made by the researcher by the study of structures is that one
could predict the behaviour of the system by identifying the salient aspects of the structure.
2.1.1.3 Holism
The researcher using the institutional approach tended to compare whole systems. Although it
is tougher to make generalisations as the researcher has to study large systems, it equipped
them with the complex nature of political life and the interplay of various aspects in affecting
political behaviour.
2.1.1.4 Historicism
The contemporary political institutions are undoubtedly embedded in their historical
conditions. The institutional approach consisted of a historical analysis of the institutions that
the researcher is set to understand and analyse. The understanding of historical conditions
helps the researcher to understand the pattern of development for appropriate prediction. The
historical conditions also consider the role of the complex relationship between society and
politics that offers a rich perspective of the political system.
2.1.1.5 Normativity
The institutional approach was normative in nature. It was concerned with the questions like
what life ought to be and the role of good government in achieving it. The normative analysis
of the institutionalists came under attack by the behaviourist scholars, which we will be dealt
in the later sections.
2.1.2 Criticisms
The institutional approach, although was dominant in the discipline, has drawbacks that were
pointed out mainly by behavioural scholars. The scientific revolution in the Political Science
discipline meant that the speculative nature of approaches was dismissed for fact-based
theories. We shall try to point few drawbacks that the institutional approach faces. As
mentioned earlier, the institutional approach gave the structure a prominent role in the
explanation of the political system. However, this structural nature of the approach did not
consider the role of the individuals or groups in nurturing the system except for few ‘great
men’. It is very evident from today’s globalised world that non-structural aspects of the state
16
like corporates and other non-state actors hold a strong influence on the system as well.
Further, Roy Macridis (1955) argued that the tendency of institutionalism to study formal
institutions led the approach to be very euro-centric and parochial in nature. Almond and
Coleman (1960) also pointed out that the institutional approach faced a crisis as it could not
comprehend the political systems of the third world countries where the institutions were less
or not developed like that of European counterparts.
The historicism and normative analysis of the institutional approach came under attack
with the behavioural revolution in the discipline. Behavioural scholars emphasised more on
the facts to understand the political system and predict future behaviour, rallied for separation
of fact from the norm, and engaged in understanding what is instead of the normative
question of what ought to be. Further, holistic research of the approach, which has many
advantages, makes it difficult not only to generalise but also compare. Macridis (1960) was
right in this regard when he pointed out that comparative politics is more descriptive than
comparative. To elaborate a little more on this, if we suppose research on the political system
of India and England, we try to understand the political system through a holistic approach
and study the formal institutions. This method describes the respective political systems
rather than comparing them.
2.1.4 Concluding remarks
Despite its shortcomings, it can be argued that the institutional approach forms one of the
pillars of political science research. The vast amount of research done even today on formal
institutions and their relationship with society is a testament to the prominence of this
approach. The behavioural revolution sure did point out the lacunae that approach has, but
some of the shortcomings are addressed by the rise of the new institutional approach, which
you will learn more about in the next chapter.
2.2 Systems Approach
The systems approach in political science has its origins in the critique of traditional
approaches of comparative politics. Proponents of modern approaches, including the systems
approach, rejected strict compartmentalisation of discipline, which was the result of
traditional approaches. They championed the cause of the unification of various disciplinary
methods. In particular, they argued the need to draw from natural sciences to understand
social phenomena objectively and make predictions more consistent through such objective
analysis. The origins of the systems approach, in general, can be traced to German Biologist
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy who pioneered the movement of unification of all the natural
sciences. It came to political science through its application in disciplines like anthropology
and sociology through the works of Emile Durkheim, Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons,
respectively. Although the definition of the word ‘system’ varies in different disciplines,
Bertalanffy (1956) described it as “a set of elements standing in interaction”. Mortan Kaplan
(1967), on the other hand, defines the object of system analysis as “a study of a set of

17
interrelated variables, as distinguished from the environment of the set, and of the ways in
which this set is maintained under the impact of environmental disturbances.”
2.2.1 Characteristics of the systems
David Apter (1978) characterised systems in the following way:
1. Systems are composed of functional inter-relationships among the elements based on
some sort of communication within its specified boundaries or environment. The
elements in such a system are not random aggregation, but their inter-dependence
allows the existence of the system.
2. There are sub-systems within a system.
3. Systems take inputs in the form of demands and supports. The system translates those
inputs into outputs in the form of laws and policies.
As explained above, the systems approach draws heavily from the other disciplines and
rejects the strict compartmentalisation of the disciplines. The concept of the system allowed
the approach to replace the excessive focus on the State, formal institutions and historicism
and allow us to understand extra-legal matters, including social and cultural institutions. It
thus forms a multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary approach to understand political systems.
This approach is extremely helpful in sorting out large data and understanding patterns of the
systems. It also enables the researcher to understand the direction of development of the
political system without emphasising too much on history or normative questions by
objectively studying said variables. However, the use of systems theory in social sciences has
to be done with utmost diligence keeping social realities in mind. Unlike natural objects,
which are stable in nature, social objects are much volatile, and this needs to be taken into
consideration while applying systems theory in understanding social phenomena. Kaplan
rightly pointed out in this regard that the social researcher should act as a ‘balancer’ between
natural science methods and the complexities of social reality.

Environment

Demands Political System Laws

Supports Policies

Feedback
A simple diagrammatic description of the Political System

18
2.2.2 David Easton’s Systems Analysis
David Easton pioneered the movement of systems analysis in the political science discipline.
His celebrated work, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965), provided “an original set of
concepts for arranging at the level of theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new
and helpful way” (Davis and Lewis 1971). Easton stood for a political theory that is capable
of explaining both national and international political systems that helps us more in
comparison. He rejected scholars of the traditional approach who were obsessed with
normative analysis and championed the cause of the need for scientific methods in
understanding the political system. Easton has extensively written on systems analysis in his
various works, and let us try to summarise his theory in a brief way.
David Easton coined new definitions for the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’
instead of using existing definitions that were prevalent in political theory. For Easton,
politics is “the authoritative allocation of values”. A Political system, therefore, is a “set of
interactions abstracted from the totality of social behaviour, through which values are
allocated for society” (Easton 1956). It should be kept in mind that the term values for Easton
are not similar to value-laden politics. Johari (2011) argues that the term value was probably
used in the economic sense meaning price or worth. Easton believes that those in power
determine the values, and politics becomes the allocation of values.
Natural and social systems have certain common properties, like a coping mechanism
that enables them to cope with disturbances that may be caused. Easton argued that the
political system has a ‘responding ‘and ‘self-regulating’ mechanism to correct, change and re-
adjust its process. The political system is therefore not simply static but a dynamic affair,
although each system tries to maintain its identity intact. This happens through a ‘feedback’
mechanism that transmits information from the environment to the political system.
However, Easton argues that a political system still may face challenges from the
environment, which he calls as stresses. There are two kinds of stresses- demand stress and
support stress. Demand stress may arise either if the systems fail to take feedback into
consideration or fails to meet certain demands. This is termed as “demand-input overload”.
Support stress arises when the members of the political system do not support the system
resulting in failure of the system. Therefore, there needs to be a proper balance between
inputs and outputs. Further, the political system also requires certain structural bases like that
of elections, political parties and political beliefs and attitudes of people for the survival of
the system. In short, the political system for David Easton, as Davies and Lewis (1971)
rightly pointed out, is an “input-output mechanism dealing with political decisions and the
activities associated with these conditions”.
2.2.3 Criticism
We have seen from the above discussion that the systems analysis in political science has
come from natural sciences. But general systems theory and the systems theory in political
science are not completely similar. We have also seen characteristics of the system and David
Easton’s, one of the prominent proponents of systems theory, contribution to the field.

19
However, David Easton’s systems theory has been criticised by many scholars for the
limitations of the approach in understanding political systems. We will briefly mention some
of the criticisms.
David Easton’s definition of the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’ is very broad and
abstract in nature that it either, on the one hand, “forces all phenomena into the framework of
a system” (Young 1968) or on the other hand it is too abstract to formulate any hypothesis
and propositions. Secondly, there is not much description of the political system, making it
very ambiguous in nature. The distinction between open and closed systems are too blurry as
well. Thirdly, systems theory takes only the present into account and ignores the historical
and social conditions that are necessary to predict the future of the political system. Fourthly,
Systems theory still does not overcome the problem of the parochial nature of traditional
approaches and views world and politics from only the western lenses. Lastly, Easton
criticised the traditional approaches for too much emphasis on formal institutions, and he
tried to understand the behaviour of the political system through the individual as an actor.
But it is evident from his analysis that Easton was only interested in the individual only when
they are part of the process of preserving the system. Although the word nation or the state
from traditional approaches have been avoided and replaced with the term system, the
emphasis is only on the system. In this regard, Varma (1975) rightly pointed out that Easton,
in his serious efforts to move away from the traditional approaches to the behavioural
approach, finds himself somewhere in the middle. Paul F. Kress (1969) argues that the
theory, like Easton’s systems analysis, so respectful of facts, lacks any substance and presents
to us as an ‘empty vision of politics’.
2.2.4 Concluding remarks
Despite the above critical remarks by various scholars, it cannot be denied that systems
theory in political science has had a considerable impact on the discipline. It provided a
macro analysis of the political system that could be studied objectively. It also broadened the
scope of the discipline by studying the political systems of the non-western world. Though
Easton was hanging in the middle between traditional approaches and behavioural
approaches, his emphasis on facts led to the scientific revolution in the discipline as we
witness it today.
2.3 Structural functionalism
Structural functionalism is the third approach in comparative politics that we discuss in this
chapter after outlining the institutional and systems approach. In a nutshell, structural-
functionalism means explaining the functions of political structures as a tool of investigation.
For example, if a researcher wants to compare the institution of the Prime Minister in India
and the United Kingdom, one could do so by understanding the functions performed by the
respective Prime Ministers of India and the United Kingdom and find out the similarities and
differences. But before we go on to a detailed discussion of the approach, we need a basic
understanding of what a structure and function are. It need not be emphasised here again that

20
the definitions for structure and function vary not only based on the discipline but also among
the scholars within the discipline. Arrangements within a political system that perform a
function or certain functions are broadly called as structures. These functions can be either
simple or complex. Further, it can be a case that a single structure can perform a function, or
a group of structures together perform a complex function. It should be clear from the above
discussion what a function is, but it is essential to define it in precise terms. Robert K. Merton
(1959) defines functions as “those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or
readjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions those observed consequences which lessen
the adaptation or adjustment of the system”. If system analysis considers the political system
as a cybernetic machine with inputs and outputs, functionalism gives space to the
‘organismic’ analogy.
The structural-functional approach in social science marked its moment in social science
by the mid-1960s. It became one of the dominant modes of explanation in political science.
Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski are two prominent scholars known for the introduction of
structural functionalism in social anthropology. Structural-functional approaches of Marion
Levy Jr., Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons in Political Sociology has a deep impact on
the political science discipline, after which there has been systematic development of the
structural-functional approach. It is not our purpose here to engage with Brown, Malinowski,
Levy, Merton and Parsons in detail. Instead, we focus specifically on structural functionalism
in the political science discipline.
We shall very briefly mention some of the scholars in the discipline to whom structural-
functionalism owes its conceptual framework. Since the focus of the chapter is only to
introduce the students to the structural-functional approach, we avoid an in-depth discussion
of each of the scholars mentioned below. David Easton can be regarded as one of the
prominent scholars in functionalist thought in political science. He was concerned with the
stability of a given political system. Much of his analysis was described in the earlier
sections. Another prominent scholar in this approach is William C. Mitchell. Mitchell, unlike
Easton, does not make the mistake of confusing the political system with the social system
and regards it as a sub-system of the social system which performs the function of mobilising
resources for meeting the goals of the social system. David Apter focused on the political
systems of African countries such as Uganda and Ghana and argued that the ’imported
systems ‘in Third World countries imposed by the colonial masters and therefore do not
function properly as western scholars predicted. He sought to understand the political systems
in Third World by understanding the functions of the government. Thus, structural
functionalism gave a conceptual framework to understand political systems belonging to
Third World.
Gabriel A. Almond is another political scientist who sought to understand the change in
political systems from traditional polities to modern. In the classification of the political
system, the efficiency of the political system was the key factor in Almond‘s classificatory
model. He categorised that traditional polities are less effective and move toward a modern
21
political system which is most effective. He believed that a researcher who seeks to
understand the political change in developing societies has to understand the political systems
of western societies for a proper analysis. For Almond, western modern political systems
form an ideal political system. He argued that a political system has four characteristics-
every political system has structures with varied specialisation; despite structural
differentiation, every political system performs some similar political functions; many
structures perform multiple functions, and; political systems have a culture of their own. You
will learn more about political culture in the next chapter. Almond shifted the focus of
comparison from observable institutional mechanisms to functions of the system.
2.3.1 Criticism
Structural functionalism became one of the dominant explanations in political science after
the behavioural revolution within the discipline. However, it has some severe limitations. We
will try to look at few shortcomings of the approach. As it can be noticed from the above
discussion on the structural-functional approach, like the systems approach, it focuses much
on the static relationships. It fails to take into account the dynamic relationships and historical
account of the political system. In their search for quantifiable methods to compare, political
science was reduced to static relationships instead of answering rich normative questions.
Secondly, the theories of Easton, Mitchell, Apter, Almond and other functionalist theorists
were broadly concerned with questions of survival of the system and sought to answer the
method of stable adaptation in the event of any change. In other words, structural-
functionalism tended to be status quo-ist and against any sudden change. This excessive
concern to maintain the status quo raised eyebrows among scholars of Marxist and critical
tradition. For example, Gouldner (1971) criticised functionalists as “sociological
conservation corps of industrial society”, and Bhambhri (1973) accused functionalists of
being “defenders of bourgeoise at home and of imperialism abroad”. Marxists emphasised the
need for a revolutionary change in the system where the masses are exploited by the
bourgeoisie with the help of political leaders. The functional approach, therefore, is seen as a
threat that hampers the revolutionary consciousness of the masses.
In the previous section, we saw how functionalism gave impetus to a conceptual
framework to study the political systems of countries belonging to the Third World.
However, this is not prone to criticism. Many pointed out the irony that scholars of the
functional approach developed frameworks to understand the developing societies in their
comfortable libraries and office rooms in Harvard and Chicago Universities that lacked
political reality. The extravagant concern for the quantitative methods led to validating
exploitative western society and accusing Third World societies of not being modern enough.
The parochial nature of theory could be seen in Almond‘s theory, as well as he believed that
the ideal society was modern western society and change can only be traditional to modern.
Despite the above-mentioned criticisms, it is no doubt that the structural-functional
approach has certain advantages in studying western democracies, but application in the case
of Third World countries has to be done with a certain caution. A researcher has to give
22
priority to political and societal realities instead of depending on an approach that might not
completely understand the political system.
2.4 Summary
This chapter introduced the reader to dominant approaches used in comparative politics. The
characteristics, merits and criticisms of the institutional approach were discussed in the first
section of this chapter. The development of approaches like systems analysis and structural
functionalism was introduced in the context of the behavioural revolution in social sciences
and the determination of scholars to do away with strict disciplinary boundaries that inhibited
knowledge about social and natural phenomena. We argued that each of the approaches
discussed in this particular chapter has their own merits and shortcomings. A researcher who
seeks to do comparative research should carefully plan which approach can possibly suit the
field of their research instead of fixating on a particular approach.
References
Almond, G and Coleman, J. S. (1960), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Apter, David (1978), Introduction to Political Analysis, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
Bertalanffy, Von Ludwig (1956), General systems theory, General systems, vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Bhambhri, C. P. (1973), “Functionalism in Politics”, Indian Journal of Political Science, vol.
XXXIV, No. 4, October-December.
Bryce, James (1888), The American Commonwealth, London: MacMillan and Co.
Bryce, James (1888), Modern Democracies, New York: MacMillan.
Davies, Morton R. and Lewis, Vaughan A. (1971), Models of Political System, New Delhi:
Vikas Publications.
Doig, J. (1983), ‘if I see a Murderous Fellow Sharpening a Knife Cleverly…’: The Wilsonian
Dichotomy and Public Authority, Public Administration Review, vol. 43, pp. 292-304.
Easton, David (1956), A Framework for Political Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Easton, David (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gouldner, A. G. (1971), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, New Delhi: Hiene-mann.
Hobbes, Thomas (2009), Leviathan, Oxford: Oxford University Publications.
Johari, J. C. (2011), Comparative Politics, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Kaplan, Morton A. (1967), “Systems Theory”, in James C. Charlesworth (eds.),
Contemporary Political Analysis, New York: Free Press.

23
Kress, Paul F. (1969), “A Critique of Easton’s Systems Analysis”, in James A Gould and
Vincent V Thursby (eds.), Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in Scope, Value, and
Direction, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1896), Government and Parties in Continental Europe, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1913), Public Opinion and Popular Government, New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Macridis, Roy (1955), The Study of Comparative Government, New York: Random House.
Merton, Robert K. (1959), Social Theory and Social Structure, Illinois: Free Press of
Glancoe.
Peters, B. Guy (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New Institutionalism’,
London: Pinter.
Varma, S. P. (1975), Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas Publications.
Young, O. R. (1968), Systems of Political Science, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

24
 Unit-2

(b) Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

Political Culture Approach
Dr. Kamal Kumar

Introduction
The present chapter attempts to analyse the political culture approach in the field of
comparative politics. Approaches and methods are significant, especially in the context of
social sciences including political science, not just in developing an understanding about the
socio-political phenomena, but also in enabling the researchers and political scientists to offer
a solution to certain complex problems in any given time and context. In particular,
approaches hold a very important place in the field of comparative politics as they help us to
systematically explain the different political processes, political events and institutional
activities as well as social behaviours in a comparative manner. At the same time, they
encourage the scholars (of comparative politics) to predict the social and political outcomes.
In the preceding chapters, the analysis on different key traditional and modern approaches has
been offered. This chapter seeks to evaluate one of the significant modern approaches, that is,
political culture to the study of comparative politics. It begins with the discussion on the
meaning of the term ‘political culture’ and overview of key conceptions offered by its
principal proponents, especially the conception of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. It will
be followed by its key limitations and criticisms.
Political Culture Approach
Society is an integral part of a political system including democratic system, and the study of
continuous interactions between the society and political system is the key concern of the
political culture approach. Scholarly interest in this modern approach is associated with the
emergence of behavioural science. As Andrew Bove (2002: 3) noted that “political culture
was brought in as ally of, and soon became a crucial term within, a behaviouralist science
whose basic mode is strict causal explanation, not interpretative description.” Instead of
emphasising upon the study of formal political institutions and processes, the behaviourist
political science—unlike the traditional approaches such as traditional institutional approach,
historical approach and philosophical approach among others—places the study of human
behaviour and interaction with natural world (political institutions and society in the context
of social sciences) at the centre of its analysis. With the increasing popularity of
behaviouralist methods and tools in social sciences, scholars began to attach more
significance to the sociological (cultural) aspects—in comparison to the structural and
historical aspects—in the studies of political science. Furthermore, it is observed that the
“political culture literature helped to provide political science itself with a sense of legitimacy
and authority after World War II” (Formisano, 2001: 397). In that sense, the political culture

25
marked the emergence of a new epoch in political science where sociological and behavioural
aspects gained the significance in the scholarly investigations.
The political culture approach attracted the attention of political scientists and researches
in the mid of twentieth century. Scholars though attribute its genesis to the writings of Johann
G. Herder, Alexis de Tocqueville and Montesquieu among others, but it was Gabriel Almond
whose ground-breaking work, entitled “Comparative Political Systems” (1956) credited to
popularise the concept in the field of political science during the modern times. For Almond,
“every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to political action”,
and he defined this pattern as “political culture” (cited in Formisano, 2001: 396). In that
sense, the latter concept is imperative to understand the people’s orientations (in terms of the
political actions) in any given political system.
The term political culture, in general, refers to the people’s behaviours, beliefs, attitudes,
opinions, and orientations towards the political system and its varied institutions as well
political processes and activities. In fact, in order to understand the “political tendencies in a
nation, one place to begin is with public attitudes toward politics and the citizen’s role in the
political system—what we call a nation’s political culture” (Powell, et al. 2015: 63). In this
regard, Alan A. Ball argues that the concept of “political culture is composed of the attitudes,
beliefs, emotions and values of society that relates to the political system and to apolitical
issues” (Ball, 1971: 56). In a similar vein, Almond and Verba (1963: 14) state that this term
denotes the “political orientations—attitudes towards the political system and its various
parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system.” Furthermore, Roy C. Macridis
interestingly offers a slightly different understanding of the concept of political culture, he
asserts that it “constitutes commonly shared goals and commonly accepted rules of individual
and groups interaction in terms of which authoritative decision and choice will be made by all
the ‘actors’ within a political system” (cited in Kim, 1964: 331). In other words, the study of
human interaction with the government and its different formal political institutions is the
central objective of the political culture approach.
It is important to note here that the different communities, groups and members of the
society may have their own individual political culture indicating their peculiar political
understanding and orientations. However, it does not refer to the people’s opinions and
viewpoints towards individual political actors like head of the government (president in the
context of US and the Prime Minster of India) and political party leader. While evaluating the
key components of the political culture, Samuel H. Beer argues that “values, beliefs and
emotional attitudes” are the principal components (Kim, 1964: 324). In other words, people’s
values, beliefs and attitudes, for Beer, toward the political system and governance is what that
implies their political culture. Moreover, the nature of political culture varies according to the
degree of civic engagement in the political system. Owing to different socio-political and
economic contexts, citizens in some political system or some part of the country are likely to
be more active in the politics than the other. For an example; the voter turnout in 2019 Kerala
assembly elections (77.68%) is considerably higher than 2020 Delhi assembly elections

26
(62.82%) according to the Election Commission of India. Hence, the political culture of
distinct groups and communities in a society can be varied according to the context and
socio-political milieu.
Almond and Verba’s Conception of Political Culture
Many scholars like Lucian Pye, Edward W. Lehman, Edmund Burke, Samuel H. Beer, Roy
C. Macridis and Ronald Inglehart among others defined the theoretical underpinnings of
political culture from different standpoints. The ground-breaking work on political cultural
that inspired generation of researchers and scholars, has been presented by Gabriel A.
Almond and Sidney Verba in their landmark study entitled, “The Civil Culture: Political
Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations” (1963). They comprehensively defined and
explained the key elements of the political culture approach by following the comparative
methods and empirical tools. Almond and Verba’s analysis is based on the cross-national
survey and interviews carried out, during 1959-1960, on a large scale in five democratic
countries such as the United State, Italy, Britain, Mexico and West Germany. The primary
objective of their classic study was to identify the political culture that may help to sustain
and strengthen the liberal democracy. While explaining the rationale of their study in the
introductory chapter, Almond and Verba posed a question that “How can these subtleties and
these humane etiquettes [of liberal democracies] survive even among ourselves in a world
caught in the grip of a science and technology run wild, destructive of tradition and of
community and possibly of life itself?” (Almond and Verba, 1963: 7). In other words, they
had perceived a potential threat to the stability of democratic regimes in the cold war period,
and probably that was why, they were engaged in exploring the ways to consolidate the
institutions of liberal democracy.
While outlining the different types of political culture, Almond and Verba emphasised
upon the three types of political orientations (that primly exists among the individuals and
social groups) such as cognitive orientation, affective orientation and evaluational
orientation. The first orientation denotes the “knowledge of and belief about the political
system, its roles and the incumbents of these roles, its inputs and its outputs” (Almond and
Verba, 1963: 7). The affective orientation explains the “feeling about the political system, its
roles, personnel, and performance” (Ibid.). The third major orientation, evaluational
orientation, refers to the “judgements and opinions about political objects that typically
involve the combination of value standards and criteria with information and feelings” (Ibid.).
This three-fold classification of political orientation indicates the relationships between the
members of the society and the political system, and the degree of this relationship defines
the role of the people in politics that in turn, shapes their political culture, as discussed in the
following paras.
Based on their rigorous cross-national field-work and comparative research, Almond and
Verba classified the political cultures into following three main categories:

27
(i) Parochial Political Culture: This political culture refers to such societies where citizens
are neither aware of their political system nor interested in the political activities and
events. People, in parochial political culture, do not possess any expertise in the
political activities and processes that explicitly reflect in their political attitudes and
orientations. At the same time, people’s expectations from the politics are virtually none
and, therefore, they are not active in politics. For instance; the “political cultures of
African tribal societies and autonomous local communities” are perfect example of this
type of political culture (Almond and Verba, 1963: 14). It is also worth noting that
“parochial cultures have been rare in established democracies but elements can be
found in isolated rural communities” where the lives of common people appear
unaffected by the national politics (Rod and Martin, 2004: 89). In other words, citizens’
understanding of the political system, political processes and political leaderships is
very low or probably zero because of their complete ignorance about the political
system and its different affairs. Also, they are not eager to be part of the political
processes in order to influence the political outcomes rather occupied with their routine
lives.
(ii) Subject Political Culture: In this second type of political culture, citizens have a good
sense of the politics and government that governs them. People, however, are not much
interested in participating in the political activities since they consider themselves as the
“subject” of the political system rather than its active participant or agent. In this regard,
Almond and Verba state that the citizens here consider the governmental policies and
law as “something [they] obeys, not something [they] helps” shaping them (Almond
and Verba, 1963: 118). Subject political culture appears in tune with the character of
highly centralised and hierarchical political regimes like authoritarian regimes where
the people do have a good knowledge about the political system and activities, but they
are not often encouraged or legitimately allowed to participate in the politics (Rod and
Martin, 2004: 89). In other words, people unlike parochial political culture, are well
aware of the political system and government’s working as well as their political rights,
but they lack or have minimal opportunities to influence the political outcome and
decision-making process, and probably that is why, they are politically passive.
(iii) Participant Political Culture: The participant culture is one where the members of the
society, like subject culture, are highly informed of their country’s politics and the
political system. But unlike the subject culture, they are active participants of politics as
they as consider themselves as one of its significant stakeholders who cannot just
influence the political outcomes but can also shape the governmental policies and
decisions. In this regard, Almond and Verba (1963: 18) argue that the citizens “tend to
be oriented toward an ‘active’ role of the self in the polity…” Moreover, citizens as the
keen observers of politics have a very strong political opinion and view about the
politics and as a result, they do not hesitate to raise their voice against the government
while find any governmental decision and policy not in tune with the peoples’ demands.

28
 Participant cultures are seemingly most compatible to the democratic regimes because
of its vibrant nature.
While classifying the political cultures in above three categories, Almond and Verba
(1963: 19) state that their classification “does not imply homogeneity or uniformity of
political cultures. Thus political system with predominately participant cultures will, even in
the limiting case, include both subjects and parochials.” In that sense, all three political
cultures can be found coexisting in any given political system including democracy.
Civic Culture
In comparison to parochial and subject cultures, the participant culture undoubtedly appears
as the best suitable political culture for the stable liberal democracy where citizens are
encouraged to play an active and constructive role at the different levels of the government.
However, Almond and Verba rejected any of such propositions because, according to them,
the democracy would “prove most stable in societies blending different cultures in a
particular mix”, and they termed this mixture as the “civic culture” as illustrated in the figure
4.1 (Rod and Martin, 2004, 89). In other words, the mixed culture consisting of the elements
of all three major cultures—parochial, subject and participant cultures—appears ideal for the
stability of a democratic political system.
Figure 4.1 – Almond and Verba’s Analysis of the Civic Culture

In the civil culture, majority of the citizens are informed about the political system and
their political responsibilities, but it is “the passive minority, whether parochials, subjects or
both, [who] provide stability to the system” (Rod and Martin, 2004, 90). Furthermore, the
citizens (the participants) are not engaged in the politics to the extent that they refrain to
follow those governmental decisions and orders with which they do not agree and become the
source of chaos in a society. In other words, citizens in the civil culture are capable of

29
participating in the political activities and influencing political outcomes and decisions (like
they are in the participant political culture), but they often do not do so (like parochial and
subject political cultures). Therefore, the civil culture plays a significant role in maintaining a
balance “between popular control and effective governance” in a democratic system (Ibid). In
other words, the citizens have access to many platforms to influence the government’s
decisions and policy-making process on the one hand, and the political elites have flexibilities
to sometime take tough decisions on sensitive issues against the popular opinions on the other
hand. In their cross-national study of five democratic countries, Almond and Verba
concluded that the political culture in Britain and the United States—unlike of the Mexico,
Italy and West Germany—was in sync with norms of the civil culture, and thus, found best
suitable for stable democracy. Because in the both United States and Britain, the members of
the nation “felt they could influence the government but often chose not to do so, thus giving
the government its required agility” (Ibid).
Other Major Conceptions on Political Culture
Ronald Inglehart is one of principal proponents of the political culture approach. In his
popular work entitled “The Renaissance of Political Culture” (1988), he states that citizens in
different societies “are characterised by durable cultural orientations that have major political
and economic consequences” (Inglehart, 1988: 1203). In that sense, Inglehart—in contrast to
Almond and Verba—links the cultural factors (civic culture) with political stability as well as
economic development. He offers a somewhat fresh and interesting explanation of the term
‘civic culture’ and defines it as “a coherent syndrome of personal life satisfaction, political
satisfaction, interpersonal trust and support for the existing social order” (Ibid). For Inglehart,
the societies with a high degree of this syndrome have more probabilities than those with a
low, to be stable democracies. In other words, his cross-national analysis suggests that there
is a positive co-relation between personal and political satisfaction as well as interpersonal
trust and the stable democracy since these all factors constitute “a syndrome of positive
attitudes toward” the democratic institutions (Ibid., 1215). Hence, societies with a high
degree of such syndrome are to be expected to promote democratic ethos as well as
strengthen democratic institutions than those characterising by a low degree of such attitudes.
By the late 1980s, political culture approach had gained the prominence amongst the
historians. Most notably, two historians such as John L Brooke in his award-winning work
entitled “Society and Political Culture on Worcester County Massachusetts, 1773-1861”
(1989) and Daniel Walker Howe in “The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the
North during the Second Party System” (1991) followed this approach in their historical
inquiries. In fact, Howe extended the conceptual arena of political culture by including the
social movements and their struggle for political power. He emphasised that one had “to
define political culture to include all struggles over power, not just those decided by
elections” (Formisano, 2001: 416). For Howe, the people’s campaigns for gender justice,
environmental protection, racial justice and the rights of working class among others were
significant in the US politics, and their appropriate analysis was essential to develop a

30
comprehensive understanding about the locals’ political culture. In his way, Howe credited to
broaden the definition of ‘political culture’ as well as ‘politics’ by bringing the social
movements under its theoretical ambit.
Social Capital and Political Culture
In the latter decade of twentieth century, the political culture approach attracted more
popularity with the works of scholars like Robert Putnam. In his most prominent work
entitled “Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy” (1993), Putnam
studied the working of Italian regional governments by employing varied approaches and
empirical tools. David D. Laitin (1995) credited the latter work to mark a “stunning new
beginning for political culture research” (Formisano, 2001: 406). However, Putnam
employed the term ‘social capital’ to analyse the roots of people’s engagement in politics.
The term refers to “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (Keeley, 2007: 103). According to Putnam,
social capital “may possibly be more important than physical or human capital” for stable
democracies and administrative efficiencies (Rotberg, 1999: 339). Since he hypothesised that
societies with a high degree of social capital encouraged people to participate in political
activities and processes that was considered significant for political stability and effective
governance. While analysing the interrelation between civic culture (Almond and Verba) and
social capital (Putnam), Robert I. Rotberg (1999: 341) argues that a “civic culture exists
because citizens have accumulated large amount of social capital… [In other words, the] high
levels of social capital contribute to the creation of political culture that is open, pluralistic,
deliberative, tolerant and democratic.” In this way, Putnam’s classic work encouraged the
researchers to further develop the concept of political culture approach. The positive co-
relation between the social capital and political culture is observed as the high degree of the
former is linked with the latter’s development. The next section sheds light on the major
criticisms and deficiencies of the political culture approach.
Political Culture and Ideology
During the 1960s and 1970s, scholarly work on political culture was primarily confined to the
behavioural aspects. However, neo-Marxist scholars like Louis Althusser offered an
alternative perspective (with emphasise on the concept of ‘ideology’) to analyse the role of
culture in politics. According to Althusser, the “state has two key components: repressive and
ideological state apparatuses” (Rosamond, 1997: 66). The repressive apparatuses include the
armed and law enforcement agencies like police and paramilitary forces (function via
coercion) while the latter include the family, educational institutions, religion, and culture
among others (operates ideologically). Interestingly, ideological apparatus becomes
significant to rule at times when the coercive ones could not function. From this standpoint,
“political culture becomes the prevailing value system and knowledge structure which is
dispersed throughout society by the dominant classes at any given time” (Ibid., 65). In other
words, political culture is not linked with the political attitude and orientation of the members

31
of the society, but it is a value system of dominant classes that favours the governing class to
maintain their political dominance (hegemony), thus stabilizing the political order.
Subcultures
Some of the scholarly writings on political culture highlighted the fact that the existence of
one political culture across the nation was nothing more than an idealistic assumption. It is
very likely that many “political cultures may co-exist within any given political system”
rather than a single national political culture (Rosamond, 1997: 67). To develop a
comprehensive understanding about the interconnection between the culture and political
system, it is important to investigate “the interaction of different subcultures and the impact
of that interaction upon the political system as a whole” (Ibid). The term ‘subculture’ refers to
distinctive identity of diverse social groups and communities in any given society. In the
context of political culture, it refers to the existence of different range of behaviours,
opinions, orientations and attitudes possess by the different communities and social groups
toward the political system. Dennis Kavanagh in his work entitled “Political Culture” (1972),
identifies “four distinct bases on which subcultures develop: elite versus mass culture,
cultural divisions within elites, generational subcultures and social structure” (Ibid). In this
way, these four bases produce different sets of sub-culture in a society that have different
social and political implications.
Limitation of Political Culture Approach
The political culture approach like any other approach of comparative politics has attracted a
stark criticism from the different political scientists. First and foremost, critics argue that the
proponents of this approach tend to depict a national political culture of a communities and
social groups in a given society. Rather, the scholars “should have focused more on
subcultures of race and class within the societies examined” (Rod and Martin, 2004: 90). For
an example, it may be possible that peoples within a community (based on race, class, caste,
religion and so on) may portray different political culture owing to their personal satisfactions
and way of lives. Furthermore, scholarly works on the political culture approach did not offer
a comprehensive account of its origin and evolution in social science, which in turn created
obstacles in a way of developing a historical understanding of the concept (Ibid). On the other
side, political culture as an analytical method and tool employed principally in the western
democracies, for many years, to study the individuals’ political beliefs and orientations
towards politics (Bove, 2002: 1). It did not only limit the scope of the political culture
studies, but also made its analysis western dominated.
Edward W. Lehman alleges that the political culture approach has a “tendency to
‘reduce’ cultural factors either to social system characteristics (especially to structure) or to
treat them as merely the statistical aggregation of the intrapsychic orientations of the
individual members of society” (Lehman, 1972: 362). This reductionist approach offers a
very narrow understanding of the cultural factors that shapes the national and local politics.
Furthermore, Lehman states that the cross-national survey method—employed by Almond

32
and Verba in their study of political culture in the five major liberal democracies as discussed
above—has inaccurately led us believe that “all the members of society have equal ‘leverage’
in determining the dominant cultural patterns or that all groups equally subscribe to them”
(Ibid). Studies like M. Mann (1970) have proven that people in a society act differently in a
political domain and at the same time, their individual capability to access the politics and its
different institutions varies.
On the other side, critics claim that political culture approach intended to maintain the
status-quo and thus favouring the interests of the ruling elites. Lowell Dittmer noted that “the
concept of political culture was too fixated on systemic stability, as if the absence of change
required explanation” (Dittmer, 1974: 577). In other words, critics found the approach
conservative in term of its political consequences and thus, rejecting the possibilities to bring
change in a society. At times, the change in social as well as political order is imperative to
promote democracy and its basic values like justice, fairness and equality etc. Nonetheless,
these critics do not undermine the significance of political culture approach in the study of
comparative politics. In recent years, scholars like Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel
(2003) have attempted to address these deficiencies and called for retaining this approach as a
significant comparative analytical tool in political science.
Concluding Observations
Political culture is one of the key modern approaches in field of comparative politics. It has
enabled the political scientists and researchers to empirically analyse the interactions between
the individual behaviours and political system on the one hand, and facilitated them in
exploring the significance of civic engagement in political stability and governmental
effectiveness on the other. It is also observed that the emergence of political culture approach
in modern comparative politics has supplemented the “behaviouralist analysis of individual
political decisions,” and thus offering realistic explanations about the political phenomenon
(Bove, 2002: 3). However, scholarly efforts are required to revise the components and scope
of political culture approach so that it stays relevant with time.
References

 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sydney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Ball, Alan R. 1971. Modern Politics and Government. London: Macmillan.
 Bove, Andrew. 2002. The Limits of Political Cultures: An Introduction to G.W.F. Hegel’s
Notion of Bildung. In: A Bove. eds. Questionable Returns. Vienna: IWM Junior Visiting
Fellows Conference, Vol. 12.
 Dittmer, Lowell. 1974. Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical
Synthesis. World Politics, XXIX, accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2577258

33
 Formisano, Ronald P. 2001. The Concept of Political Culture. The Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 31 (3), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/207089
 Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. 2004. Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction. 6th Ed. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. The Renaissance of Political Culture. The American Political
Science Review, 82 (4), accessed on 18 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1961756
 Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian. eds. 2003. Political Culture and Democracy:
Analysing Cross-Level Linkage. Comparative Politics. 63 (1), accessed on 21 November
2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150160
 Keeley, Brian. 2007. Human Capital: How What You Know Shapes Your Life. 1st Ed.,
OECD: Paris.
 Kim, Young C. 1964. The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics. The
Journal of Politics, 26 (2), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127599
 Lehman, Edward W. 1972. On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical
Reassessment. Social Forces, 50 (3), accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2577040
 Powell, G. Bingham, Dalton, Russell J. and Strøm, Kaare W. 2015. Comparative Politics
Today: A World View. 11 Ed. Harlow: Pearson.
 Pye, Lucien W. and Sydney, Verba. eds. 1965. Political Culture and Political
Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Rosamond, Ben. 1997. Political Culture. In: Barrie Axford. et al. Politics: An
Introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 57-81.
 Rotberg, Robert I. 1999. Social Capital and Political Culture in Africa, America,
Australasia and Europe. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 29 (3), accessed on 18
November 2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/207132

34
 Unit-2

(c) New Institutionalism

Yerramadasu Udaykumar

In the book they edited, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative

Analysis, Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo remarked, “‘Political science is the study of
institutions,’ a senior colleague once remarked. ‘So what's new about the New
Institutionalism?’ he asked. This question reveals a scepticism toward the so-called new
institutionalism that deserves attention. Political scientists, sociologists, and economists have
studied institutions for a very long time. So what is all the fuss about?” (Thelen and Steinmo
1992) In its essence, the new institutionalism is a contradiction and a paradox. The concern of
the study of politics is, always has been and will remain institutions. Institutions are the heart
and soul of politics. It is not an exaggeration; if there are no institutions, there are no politics
either. Institutionalism is not an approach among the multiple approaches to politics. Instead,
the other approaches proceed from taking for granted the rule governing institutions. If we
take politics seriously, with the seriousness that politics deserve, the new institutionalism
attempts not to go back to institutions; to be fair, It attempts to go back to politics itself.
However, it is crucial not to overlook; not all institutions are political. Institutions,
sometimes, are resistant to what we conventionally call politics. Family, marriage, religion,
and numerous other institutions do not neatly subsume under politics. On the contrary, they
often seek to situate themselves outside the interference of politics. The passionate feminist
slogan, personal is political, in a way, is the rejection of the desire of the family to stay
outside the interference of politics. It might be helpful to reflect on what we mean when we
say something as politics or someone is doing politics. The prevalent use of the term made it
obscure. Politics is often used either as synonymous with power or interest. While this view
is widespread and has many supporters, it is also the most impoverished notion of what
constitutes politics.
For the sake of illustration, take a look at the slogan mentioned above for another time;
the personal is political. When politics are taken as interest and power, the slogan seems
contradictory. The slogan seems to suggest, the family and the personal are outside power
and interests, while that is absolutely untrue. Both the family and the personal are deeply
entrenched in power. The filial, the paternal, the fraternal and even the maternal, none of
them are outside the power. Instead, they are outside what Hegel defined and later, Derrida
reconceptualised the politics; it is neither interest nor power; it is the ethical difference
(Sittliche Differenz). Thus, politics is the contestation over ethics. The family and the
personal, if they are outside politics or if they seek to be outside the politics, they do not seek
to be outside power relations. Instead, they seek to live outside the ethical contestation, and
they seek to resist the ethical contestation over the power relation intrinsic to them. With this,
we made the concepts complex instead of simplifying. However, that is, unfortunately, the
35
only way to get to the bottom of things. The institutions are all entrenching and possibly
extend beyond politics, then what is new about this new institutionalism within political
science? Or, So what is all the fuss about?
Any meaningful account of the New Institutionalism is possible only on the condition
that we elucidate what is institutionalism in the first place and second what is new to the
extent that it is distinct and yet is prefixed to the institutionalism. Thus, it is unavoidable to
give at least preliminary remarks on institutionalism. There are two distinct ways in which
institutionalism or every political category is to be analysed. While not utterly dissociable
from one other, at least based on emphasis, every political category can be analysed
philosophically or historically. A philosophical approach or the conceptual approach
considers the essential meaning of the concept, in this case, the institution. It tries to
differentiate the institution from other categories, such as the opposing category, the
individual.
On the other hand, the historical approach considers the evolution or consecutive
changes that the institutions underwent. The historical approach privileges context over the
concept. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the historical approach can not dispense with
a preliminary understanding of the question, what is an institution? Thus, a preliminary
definition is indispensable. So, what is an institution? We know of the educational
institutions, military institutions, medical institutions, and the list is almost inexhaustible. An
institution is an aggregate of individuals. While the aggregate of individuals is the necessary
condition for an institution, it is not sufficient. An institution requires much more than a
collection of individuals. Mobs and masses are a collection of individuals, but they are not
institutions.
James March and Johan Olsen define the institution as, “An institution is a relatively
enduring collection of rules and organised practices, embedded in structures of meaning and
resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively
resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing
external circumstances.” (March and Olsen 1984) It is visible from the above definition that
individuals and the idiosyncratic preferences of the individuals are exactly posed as opposing
one another. However, unlike the individual, an institution is resilient, enduring and resistant
to change. Maybe we might take a look at another well-known definition. Peter Hall and
Rosemary Taylor define institutions as “the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms
and conventions embedded in the organisational structure of the polity or political economy.
They can range from the rules of the constitutional order or the standard operating procedures
of a bureaucracy to the conventions governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.”
(Hall and Rosemary 1996)
So far, we defined what an institution is, defined politics, and gave preliminary remarks
about the interdependency of politics and institutions. Next, we will look at the specific
conditions under which the new institutionalism emerged. Institutionalism as an approach to
politics faded into the background with the outburst of behaviouralism and rational choice
36
approaches that dominated social sciences in the 1960s and '70s. Institutionalism suddenly
started appearing outdated and metaphysical with the forceful entry of behaviouralism and
the rational choice approach. Though, both behaviouralism and rational choice approaches
disrupted the possibility of institutionalism to survive. They wanted to analyse observable
facts and predictable patterns. While institutions survive, they are seen as nothing but the
agents within which the self-seeking individuals participate rather than institutions
determining the individuals. The huge aversion of the behaviouralism and rational choice
approaches towards any theory based not on observable facts is self-evident.
However, to sustain their claims, both theories need metaphysical assertions to be the
foundation. Thus, both theories propagated and based on the metaphysics of the individual.
According to these theories, the individual is self-seeking, utility maximising, goal-oriented,
calculative, atomised, and, to be precise, narcissistic. Rather than a stable human attribute, the
atomised and narcissistic individual is a characteristic trait of the modern individual. Suppose
Foucault painstakingly presents that the army and the prisons with its investments in the
microphysics of power produce the free subject or what he calls the docile bodies. Thus, the
narcissistic individual is not a stable human condition. Instead, it is institutionally
constructed. This construal is the post-structuralist catchphrase, ‘the subject formation.’
“Institutions are not simply equilibrium contracts among self-seeking, calculating individual
actors or arenas for contending social forces. They are collections of structures, rules, and
standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in political life.” (March
and Olsen 1984)
The new institutionalism is the escape from this outburst of behaviouralism and rational
choice approaches. Though the new institutionalism emerged from the theoretical impasse of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it also deviated from old institutionalism.
More importantly, the new institutionalism is not one set of unified approaches. Instead, it
has multiple proponents and viewpoints. Considering the vast body of literature that emerged
from the rejection of behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it is not advisable to
restrict them to a single body of literature. Despite the accepted redundancy of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, there is considerable disagreement among
the different strands of new institutionalism on the significance and insignificance of both
approaches. Thus, Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor differentiate the new institutionalism into
three broad subgroups. According to them, these three subgroups within the new
institutionalism comprise Historical Institutionalism, Rational Choice Institutionalism and
Sociological Institutionalism. We will individually look at these three approaches to see both
the convergences and divergences. However, both Hall and Taylor remark that despite their
overlapping interests and goals, it is surprising that they seldom come together for a fruitful
collaboration.
2.1 Historical Institutionalism
To give a simple demonstration of historical institutionalism, we might look at Judith
Goldstein's article, Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy (1988). In this work, she
37
tried to explain protectionism in the United States. Unlike the common perception, she
noticed that rather than replacing one form of ideas with another, the contradictory ideas
about state policy such as Laissez-faire, protectionism and interventionism simultaneously
co-habit in the US. It is safe to suggest that this phenomenon might be true of other regions as
well. Based on this layering of ideas, she concludes, ‘a society embalmed in the “rule of law,”
legal constraints encourage the layering, rather than the replacing, of government
institutions.’ (Goldstein 1988) Instead of the efficient and rational approach replacing the less
efficient counterpart, her research suggests, the contradictory ideas tend to persist. Such an
analysis is made possible only by historical institutionalism. It evaluates the institutions over
a long period to observe the changes and continuities.
Before proceeding, it might be helpful to mention some of the significant contributors
and works that laid the foundations and continue to inspire historical institutionalism. A few
prominent figures include Suzanne Berger, Theda Skocpol, Douglas Ashford, Peter Hall,
Rosemary Taylor, John Ikenberry, Stephen Skowrone,k and Peter Katzenstein. These are
some prominent scholars who shaped historical institutionalism and gave new impetus to the
new institutionalism in political science. However, the list is not exhaustive. Historical
institutionalism is too broad to restrict it to a handful of academics. It might be helpful to note
a few notable works in the field as well. Peasants Against Politics: Rural Organization in
Brittany, 1911-1967(1972) and The French Political System(1974) by Suzanne Berger
deserves special mention. Small states in world markets (1985) and Cultural Norms and
National Security (1996) by Katzenstein, States and Social Revolutions (1979) and Social
policy in the United States (1995) by Skocpol, Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the
State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain (1990) by Peter A. Hall, Reasons of
State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (1988) by John Ikenberry and
Building a new American state (1982) by Stephen Skowronek are some of the critical and
unavoidable works on historical institutionalism.
What is historical institutionalism? Historical institutionalism emerged from the rejection
of behaviouralism and rational choice approaches. However, what is not clear is from where
historical institutionalism took inspiration? From where does the impetus come? “The idea of
socially and politically constructed preferences that figures prominently in the work of many
contemporary historical institutionalists echoes the writings of an earlier generation of
economic institutionalist-historians.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996) Peter Hall and Rosemary
Taylor mention two approaches that gave impetus to historical institutionalism. Among them,
one is group theories and the second, structural-functionalism. The group theories of politics
articulated the politics based on conflict, and such a conflict, in their view, is always based on
scarce resources. Thus, for the group theories, politics is essentially based on the contestation
over scarce resources. This mode of analysis made the group theories proximate to Marxism
and class analysis. However, historical institutionalism seeks to distance itself from both
Marxism and group theories on the grounds that while both theories deal with broad
contestations, they fail to explain the intermediate level conflicts. They tend to ignore the

38
national and institutional differences that affect both policy outcomes and space for
contestation.
Suppose, in her work, States and Social Revolutions (1979), Skocpol demonstrates the
inadequacy of the class analysis to explain the political dynamics of the states and social
revolutions. In her book, she tried to compare social revolutions in France, China and South
Africa. She notes, “Working strictly in terms of class analysis, it was difficult to
conceptualise, let alone adequately explain, the structure of the South African state and the
political role of the Afrikaners.” (Skocpol 1979) There is a remarkable distinction among
countries and how the working class in specific countries articulate their demands. Broad
theoretical generalisation, though it guides the analysis, the permutations and combinations of
the interest articulation and ‘the mobilisation of biases’ are outside the scope of Marxism.
“Criticising the ahistorical approach of traditional interest-group theories and Marxist
analysis alike, these theorists wanted to know why interest groups demanded different
policies in different countries and why class interests were manifested differently cross-
nationally.” (Thelen and Steinmo 1992) While the echo of Marxism is alive in the historical
institutionalism as a tool kit and a compass, the methods, micro-level tactics and 'the logics of
appropriateness' are incorporated anew. Marxism remained to inform the theoretical outlook,
while historical institutionalism made headway into the analysis of historical and regional
specificities. The influence of Marxism is evident in the vocabulary of the historical
institutionalists. For example, they emphasise the changes in institutions in terms of ‘critical
junctures,’ which cause disruption in the existing institutional structure by enabling a
‘branching point’ and pave the way for new institutional structures.
Apart from the Marxist class analysis, the emergence of historical institutionalism is
attributable to another legacy, structural-functionalism. However, unlike the class analysis,
structural-functionalism does not base the analysis on a conflicting class or group interest.
Instead, for structural-functionalism, the system is an aggregate of interacting parts or groups,
which brings it closer to the aims and goals of historical institutionalism. However, one
crucial qualificatory remark is necessary before comparing both. Historical institutionalism is
akin or proximate to structuralism rather than the functionalism of structural-functionalism.
Central to the approach is the question; it is well established that institutions mould, structure,
and to some extent, determine the individual behaviour, but how do institutions perform such
a role? To this question, Rosemary and Hall respond with two approaches within historical
institutionalism; one is the calculus approach and the other, the cultural approach.
2.1.1 The Calculus Approach
Between the two, the calculus approach takes into account individuals as strategic, calculative
and instrumental. However, these traits do not operate independently of the institutions.
Individuals are strategic but that strategy is confined within the parameters set by the
institutions. They calculate their actions in accordance with other actors and rules, codes and
persistent notions of the institutions. Moreover, the instrumentality is institutionally
mandated. Even though individuals and political actors are instrumental, they “organise
39
themselves and act in accordance with rules and practices which are socially constructed,
publicly known, anticipated, and accepted.” (March and Olsen 1984) One can even argue, the
instrumentality of an individual is socially constructed and publicly accepted. However, the
calculus approach is careful not to entertain such an opinion. Unlike the cultural approach, it
still emphasises individual calculation at the centre of analysis.
2.1.2 The Cultural Approach
Contrary to the calculus approach, the cultural approach characterises the individual as a
satisficer instead of a utility maximiser. “Taking preference formation as problematic rather
than given, it then also follows that alliance formation is more than a lining up of groups with
compatible (pre-existing and unambiguous) self-interests.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996)
According to the cultural approach, an individual follows ‘the established routine’ instead of
constantly seeking to maximise utility. It is not to say that individuals are not rational and
utility maximising. But such traits are part of the established routine rather than the conscious
goal-oriented activity of the individual. In other words, the institution demands the individual
through the established routine to be purposive and goal-oriented. Utility maximising is
demanded and enforced by the individual to be a part of an institution.
2.1.3 Criticism
The strength of historical institutionalism is its eclectic character. However, the eclectic
character is the source of its significant criticism as well. While eclecticism is its strength, it
is also its greatest weakness. Because of its ability to take and incorporate the new horizons
to understand institutions, it never developed a reliable model for interpreting the
interrelation between the individual and the institution as elaborately as the other
institutionalists.
2.2 Rational Choice Institutionalism
In the 1970s, scholars deeply engaged in the rational choice approach began to raise some
doubts and concerns pertaining to the efficacy of their approach. These doubts are specific to
congressional behaviour. The strict adherence to the notions of rational choice such as utility
maximising and strategic calculations are expected to result in the constant formation and
dissolution of the majorities in policymaking. If individuals in Congress are strategic, they
have no reason to participate in majorities where their interest is not placed. According to the
expectations, this pattern should cause a ‘cycling effect’ in which the possibility of any
observable majority is impossible. However, contrary to the expectations, the majorities in
the congressional legislature are reasonably stable. Rational choice institutionalism emerged
out of this impasse to account for the evident discrepancy in their articulation. Thus, these
theorists looked for explanations in institutionalism while simultaneously adhering to the
foundational notions of rational choice.
Control of choices and agenda setting are two essential components of institutions that
rational choice institutionalism considers along with the assumptions of the rational choice

40
approaches. Individuals are still strategic, calculative and utility maximisers. However, those
aspects of the individuals are either enhanced or diminished nonetheless, certainly structured
by institutions. Thus, institutions control the choices and set an agenda for the individual to
try and maximise their utility. In this direction, it took inspiration and tools from ‘the new
economics of organisation.’ By taking inspiration from these approaches, the rational choice
institutionalism postulates, the institution reduces transaction costs and uncertainties. Thus,
the utility maximising individuals is still operative, but in an institution in which the choices
are controlled, agendas are already set, transaction costs are immensely reduced, and
uncertainties are mitigated. However, a critical distinction with the other approaches to
institutionalism deserves mention here. Unlike the other approaches, rational choice
institutionalism still adheres to the notion that the individuals are driven not by impersonal
and unmeasurable forces of history or society. They are driven purely on rational and
personal motivation. Even when the individual is forced to collaborate and act according to
the institutionalist paradigm, the reasons are personal and strategic calculations. They are not
collective in essence. Thus, for rational choice institutionalism, institutions' formation and
continued existence are based on benefits that the institutions offer to the individuals. In this
sense, the institution is the voluntary formation of individuals.
In recent years, rational choice institutionalism expanded from congressional structure
analysis into more broad research areas. These areas include deliberations among the political
parties, the relationship between Congress and courts, the relationship between Congress and
regulatory agencies. It also expanded influence into the discipline of international relations.
This approach has been applied to international institutions, cross-national competitions and
negotiations.
2.2.1 Criticism
It is self-evident by now that rational choice institutionalism is akin to rational choice
theories, which suffer from the criticism of the characterisation of the individual. While its
theories are often applicable in broader frames, they tend to obscure when applied to smaller
samples.
2.3 Sociological Institutionalism
Unlike both historical institutionalism and rational choice institutionalism, to some extent,
sociological institutionalism is counterintuitive. It emerged as a countermeasure to destabilise
the notion that while bureaucratic institutions are rational and operate on efficiency, the other
aspects of society are mere culture. Sociological institutionalism problematises this
distinction. Bureaucracy indeed operates on the principle of rationality and efficiency, but
such an operation is cultural rather than rational. Rationality is as much part of the culture as
myth and ceremonies. While the premodern forms of organisation are based on myth and
ceremonies, the modern culture operates on rationality and efficiency. Thus, it argues that the
bureaucratic institutions' self-evident rationality ought to be elaborated and theorised in
cultural terms. Since the interpretations of bureaucracy by Weber, at least within sociology,

41
the bureaucratic rationality is not something that emerged from nowhere but deeply
entrenched inside the cultural forms that predated it. The bureaucratic rationality has its roots
in the western religious life where the rationality is already embedded. The practices of the
bureaucracy are neither formed nor sustained because they are either rational or efficient.
They are both formed and sustained because they have been culturally embedded in the
western cultural forms.
Sociological institutionalism emphasises, there are apparent symbolic and ritualistic
forms even the rational bureaucracy adheres to, and these forms ought to be considered for
the analysis in much broader terms. In their efforts to break down the distinction between
institution and culture, sociological institutionalists consider institutions in much broader
terms than traditionally defined by institutionalism. It takes into account ‘the frame of
meaning.’ The frame of meaning is a broad network of rules, procedures and norms and
symbolic and moral cognates. This way, it incorporates aspects not incorporated into the
definition of the institutions before and widens its scope and meaning. The institutions that
are not studied before and relegated as mere culture is incorporated and analysed. This
broadening is possible because of the widened definition attached to the institutions.
The second crucial intervention by sociological institutionalism is its emphasis on the
cognitive dimension. What is the cognitive dimension? We are acquainted with the idea that
institutions shape individual behaviour; however, the cognitive dimension is not just
normative but also cognitive scripts, models and categories for the individual actions.
Without such categories and models, individual action is impossible. In other words,
institutions, according to sociological institutionalism, not just offer appropriate and
inappropriate codes, and they do not just offer strategic avenues; they offer the very frames
from which the strategic, appropriate, and calculations work. The cognitive dimension
provides the necessary field for the action to be meaningful in the first place based on which
the individual roles are performed in an institution. The individual in an institution is not
merely embedded in it. The individual holds a position and is situated in a specific role.
Suppose a teacher in an institution is not an individual who performs the role of teacher.
Instead, the individual becomes the teacher, demands respect from the students, performs
duties of teaching and participates in the building of the institution. The teacher is more of a
role than a performance. Thus, the role already pre-establishes the expectations.
The actions of the individuals are neither strategic nor calculative. They are
institutionally structured roles. They prescribe the frames of advantage and disadvantage so
that individuals act within the given frame to either enhance or diminish. The frames are
already culturally specified so that individuals can act. Therefore, sociological
institutionalism is interpretative. It is not to suggest that individuals are not purposive,
strategic and goal-oriented. What is strategic and goal-oriented is already socially mandated
or socially constructed. Thus, if there are any institutional changes, they do not stem from
rationality and efficiency. They stem from the broader legitimacy of the cultural milieu that
the institution is functioning. Instead of the rationality and efficiency that bureaucracy hails,

42
sociological institutionalism emphasises legitimacy and social appropriateness. Change,
continuity and functioning of an institution are based on the changing yardsticks of
legitimacy and social appropriateness.
2.3.1 Criticism
The major criticism against sociological institutionalism comes from historical
institutionalism. Sociological institutionalism takes no account of the conflict and struggles
inherent within the institutions for power and resource control. Another major criticism is that
by emphasising the continuity between institutions and culture, sociological institutionalism
erases the historical ruptures that gave shape to the new bureaucratic institutions.
2.4 Conclusion
The new institutionalism is just the revival of the old institutionalism. By carefully
elaborating the interaction between the individual and the institutions, it revitalised the old
institutionalism. In that process, it gave new direction and impetus to the institutions. The
new institutionalism is a new space for dialogue among the competing tendencies and
theories within political science. It opened up space for dialogue with other approaches such
as behaviouralism, rational choice approach, structuralism, functionalism, Marxism, post-
structuralism and structural-functionalism. Despite the rational choice being one of its
constituents, the new institutionalism goes beyond the definition of an institution as a
collection of individuals voluntarily joined together to maximise their utility. An institution is
more complex and multifaceted than a mere aggregate of individuals. Historical
institutionalism is successful in bringing the conflict to the core of the institutional analysis.
Unlike functionalism, because of historical institutionalism, power, conflict, and struggle
became central features to conceptualise institutions. It also brought to light the unequal
power that some actors are able to mobilise over others.
The common phrase in the vocabulary of the old institutionalism, ‘the mobilisation of
biases’, has become the central component in the analysis and explanations of the new
institutionalism. Moreover, it has attained special status owing to the diverse fields with
which the new institutionalism engages over a long period. While Marxism and post-
structuralism analysed the broader historical and cultural variations, the new institutionalism,
in many respects, gave significant material support for those theories at the microlevel.
Though none of the three institutionalists agrees on familiar ground at the core, they have
considerable space to merge and dialogue with one another at the margins. Many rational
choice theorists are now less averse to cultural and historical analysis. There is greater
emphasis placed on working together across multiple strands of new institutionalism.
References
Collier, D and Collier, R. B. (1991), Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the
Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

43