Notes on Comparative Politics Overview and

Scope

• Definition: Comparative politics is a subfield of political science that systematically

studies government and politics across different countries to understand their
contrasts and similarities (Hague, Harrop, & McCormick, 2016).

• Objectives:
1. Nature and Scope: Provides an overview of comparative politics, exploring its
methods and rationale for comparison.

2. Methods of Comparison: Examines various approaches to comparing political

systems, emphasizing functional equivalence (Dogan & Pelassy, 1990).

3. Eurocentrism: Critically addresses the issue of Eurocentrism within

comparative politics and proposes alternatives (Mohanty, 1975). Theoretical
Perspectives and Thinkers

• Jean Blondel: Defines comparative politics as the simultaneous or successive

examination of political systems (Blondel, 1999).

• Functional Equivalence: Dogan and Pelassy (1990) argue for assessing the roles and
functions of institutions rather than focusing solely on institutional similarities.

• Daniel Caramani: Expands the scope of comparative politics beyond national political
systems to include sub-national, supranational, and single element comparisons
(Caramani, 2011).

Traditions in Comparative Politics

• Three Traditions (Caramani, 2011):

1. Single-Country Study: Initially focused on detailed descriptions of political
systems outside the US, often criticized for its lack of comparative analysis.

2. Methodological Tradition: Emphasizes the development of methods for cross-

national comparison.

3. Analytical Tradition: Focuses on theoretical frameworks and analytical tools

for understanding political phenomena across countries.

Conclusion

• Comparative politics offers insights into political systems and processes across diverse
societies, encompassing political activities, processes, and power dynamics. It evolves
through critical engagement with different methodological and theoretical
approaches to enhance understanding and explanation of political phenomena.
 Comparative Politics: Nature, Scope, and Critique

I. Understanding Comparative Politics Definitions and

Scope:

• A subfield of Political Science, alongside Political Theory and International Relations.

• Concerned with systematic study and comparison of political systems, institutions,

processes, and behaviour across different countries.

Manoranjan Mohanty (1975): Comparison enables deeper understanding and situates

political phenomena in larger frameworks of relationships.

II. Comparative Method: Purpose and Function Arend Lijphart (1971):

• Called it a “method of discovering empirical relationships among variables.”

• Comparative Method is distinct from:
o Descriptive tradition (focus on narration).
o Analytical tradition (focus on explanation).
• It provides rules and standards for valid comparative analysis and prediction.

Functional Equivalence (Dogan & Pelassy, 1990):

• Two Key Assumptions:

1. Different structures may perform the same function.

2. Same structure may perform different functions.

• Allows comparison across diverse political contexts (e.g., different roles of military or
presidency in different countries).
 •

Rooted in Functionalism, influenced by structural-functionalist thinkers like Gabriel

Almond.

III. Traditions within Comparative Politics (Daniel Caramani, 2011)

Tradition Key Feature Criticism

Descriptive / SingleCountry Country-focused, casestudy Non-comparative, static,

Study driven parochial

May ignore context,

Methodological Empirical, seeks patterns
overgeneralizes

Combines empirical data +

Analytical comparison Sometimes Eurocentric

IV. What Is Compared in Comparative Politics?

• National political systems are primary units (Caramani).

• Also includes:
o Sub-national units: Indian states, provinces. o Supranational units: EU, SAARC,
NATO.
o Empires: Ottoman, Mughal.
o Institutional Elements: Electoral systems, parties, bureaucracy.

V. Critique of Comparative Politics

Roy C. Macridis (1955): Classical Critique of Traditional Comparative Politics

Criticism Explanation

Non-comparative Focus on single-country descriptions, not comparisons.

Parochial Western-centric, ignores Global South.

Static Ignores political change and transformation.

Monographic Limited to institutions; lacks systemic explanation.

"Traditional comparative politics is descriptive, static, and institution-centric." – Macridis

VI. The Crisis of Comparative Politics – Neera Chandhoke (1996)

Reasons:

1. Attack on Grand Theories: Accused of ignoring contextual specificity and being

reductionist.

2. Ethnocentrism: Comparative politics studies the ‘other’, often from a Western lens.

3. Crisis of the Nation-State: Globalization, regionalism, and internal autonomy

movements challenge the state as the basic unit of comparison.

VII. Methodological Problems

Behavioural Approach:
• Emerged post-WWII with influence from positivism.
• Emphasis on empirical observation, surveys, statistics, and generalization.
• Inspired by David Easton, Gabriel Almond, and Sydney Verba.

Example:

The Civic Culture (Almond & Verba, 1963)

• Compared 5 nations: US, UK, Germany, Italy, Mexico.

• Argued liberal democracies (e.g., US) are more stable due to participant political
culture.

• Criticised for:
o Ethnocentrism
o Ignoring cultural specificity
o Imposing Western norms on non-Western societies
“Behaviouralism attempts to turn politics into science but often ends up quantifying the
unquantifiable.” – Critics of Behaviouralism Selection Bias (Landman, 2008):

Case selection can reflect ideological or cultural bias.

• Comparative studies may manipulate cases to reinforce predetermined theories.

Conclusion: Rethinking Comparative Politics

• Comparative politics must:

 •

o Move beyond Eurocentrism. o Embrace pluralism in theory and method.

o Focus on contextual explanation.
• A dynamic and reflexive subfield, constantly reshaped by global events,
methodological critiques, and theoretical innovation.

Key Thinkers to Remember:

• Jean Blondel – Definition of comparative politics

• Daniel Caramani – Traditions & scope
• Dogan & Pelassy – Functional equivalence
• Arend Lijphart – Comparative method as empirical tool
• Roy Macridis – Critique of traditional approaches
• Neera Chandhoke – Crisis and reductionism critique
• Gabriel Almond & Sydney Verba – Civic Culture & behaviouralism
• David Easton – Systems approach and behaviouralist framework

Why Compare in Comparative Politics?

“Comparing two or more things is a natural attribute of human behaviour.” Introduction:

Nature of Comparison

• Human beings instinctively compare while making choices (education, products, etc.).

• Politics, being complex and evolving, requires comparison to understand similarities,

differences, and causes behind political phenomena.

• Comparative Politics as a sub-discipline relies on systematic comparison for

understanding, explaining, and predicting political behaviour and institutions.

Todd Landman’s Four Reasons for Comparison

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

Contextual Description

• Definition: Description of political phenomena/events in particular or multiple

countries.
 • Objective: To understand unfamiliar systems from an outsider’s perspective.
• Related Tradition: First tradition – Descriptive
• Strengths:
o Gives deep insight into a single or group of countries. o Helps in identifying
systemic benefits or challenges (e.g., UK's Parliamentary system).

• Debate: Some scholars argue that single-country studies lack true comparison.

• Theoretical Link: Empirical realism – knowing “what is” before asking “why”.

(ii) Classification

• Definition: Organising and simplifying political information into categories.

• Purpose: Reduces complexity by grouping similar phenomena (e.g., regime types).

Example: UK (parliamentary) and US (presidential) systems are classified as

democracies despite institutional differences.

• Theoretical Legacy:
o Aristotle’s Classification of 158 city-states (384–322 BCE):

Those Who Rule Good Form Corrupt Form

One Monarchy Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Polity Democracy (mob rule)

o Theda Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions (1979):
Comparative classification of revolutions in France, Russia, China based on:

 State structure
 Class relations
 International pressures
➤ Method: Historical structuralism

(iii) Hypothesis-Testing

• Definition: Identifying causal relationships among political variables.

• Related Tradition: Second tradition – Analytical-comparative method.
• Core Idea: Build general theories by comparing empirical data.
• Arend Lijphart (1971):
 •

“The comparative method is a method of discovering empirical relationships among

variables.”

• Goal: Theory-building by testing variables across cases.

• Example: Understanding whether federal systems result in better ethnic conflict
management across different countries.

(iv) Prediction

• Definition: Making informed guesses about political outcomes based on theory.

• Role of Comparison:
o Enhances theory robustness. o Facilitates generalisation beyond
original cases.
o Helps forecast future trends and decisions.
• Good Theory Principle:
A theory is stronger if it accurately predicts future political developments.

Example: Predicting regime collapse under certain economic and institutional stress
conditions.

Additional Insights: Why Compare?

• Perspective Building:
o Encourages cross-cultural understanding.
o Helps in breaking ethnocentric assumptions by seeing multiple models of
governance.

• Criticism of Comparative Method:

o Eurocentrism: Imposes Western norms as universal. o Selection Bias:
Choosing countries based on subjective preference.
o Reductionism: Simplifies complex political realities into quantifiable variables
(criticised by Neera Chandhoke).

o Behaviouralism Critique: Over-reliance on positivist methods (surveys, stats).

Theoretical Traditions and Thinkers

Tradition Focus Thinkers & Works

 Todd Landman, Early constitutional
Descriptive
Cou
ntry-
specific
descrip
tion
studies

Empirical relationships & Arend Lijphart – The Politics of

Comparative
variables Accommodation
Tradition Focus Thinkers & Works

Theory-based comparative Theda Skocpol, Caramani, Neera

Analytical
studies Chandhoke

Normative & structural

Classical Aristotle – Politics
typologies

Sample MCQ Points

1. Who classified political systems based on number of rulers and quality of rule? →
Aristotle

2. Which of the following is not one of Todd Landman’s purposes of comparison?

a) Contextual Description
b) Classification
c) Ideological Justification
d) Hypothesis Testing
Ans: c) Ideological Justification

3. Which book by Theda Skocpol applies comparative methods to study revolutions?

→ States and Social Revolutions (1979)

4. Arend Lijphart is associated with which methodological emphasis? → Discovering

empirical relationships through comparison.

Detailed, note on Methods of Comparison

based on Kopstein and Lichbach (2005) and other scholars like J.S. Mill, Daniel Caramani, and
Black (1966).

Methods of Comparison in Comparative Politics

Theoretical Premise:

Comparative Politics aims to understand political systems by identifying similarities and

differences across space, time, or institutions. As Arend Lijphart observed, comparison is
the "basic tool of theory building" in political science.

I. Three Paths of Comparison: Interests, Identities, and Institutions

(Kopstein and Lichbach, 2005)
They argue that understanding political systems can be approached through three analytical
lenses:

(a) Focus on Interests (Rationalist Approach)

• Emphasizes material self-interest and rational calculations.

• Individuals act politically to maximize utility, life chances, or economic gains.
• Example: Citizens supporting or opposing a regime based on economic policies,
e.g., protests against IMF austerity measures in Latin America.

• Related Thinkers: Anthony Downs (Economic Theory of Democracy), Mancur

Olson (Logic of Collective Action).

• Critique: Overlooks social, emotional, and identity-driven behavior.

Quote: “People support the regime that maximizes their life chances.” – Kopstein & Lichbach
(2005)

(b) Focus on Identities (Constructivist/Cultural Approach)

• Suggests interests are shaped by identities, not vice versa.

• Identities such as ethnicity, religion, caste, gender influence political action.
• Example: Caste-based parties in India (BSP), or support for Islamic regimes.
• New identities also emerge: LGBTQ+, environmental movements, feminist politics.

• Related Thinkers: Benedict Anderson (Imagined Communities), Charles Taylor,

Ernest Gellner.

• Critique: Risk of essentialism and ignoring material/economic structures.

(c) Focus on Institutions (Institutionalist Approach)

• Institutions are rules, norms, and procedures that structure political behavior.
• Institutions can be formal (laws, constitution) or informal (customs, norms).
• Example: Variation in electoral systems (FPTP in U.S. vs. PR in Germany) leads to
different political cultures.

• Related Thinkers: James March & Johan Olsen, Douglass North, Theda Skocpol.

• Critique: Institutions are themselves products of historical and identitybased contexts.

 II. J.S. Mill’s Comparative Logic – Five Methods
(From A System of Logic, 1843; Applied to Politics by Finn, 2011)

1. Method of Agreement

• Compare multiple cases with same outcome, find common cause.

• Example: Revolutions in France and Russia both followed economic crises → economic
distress as cause.

2. Method of Difference

• Compare cases with different outcomes and one differing factor to isolate cause.

• Example: Two countries with similar socio-economic features, but only one
democratized → differing factor as probable cause.

• Also called Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) – Black (1966).

3. Joint Method (Agreement + Difference)

• Combines above two for robust causal inference.
• Example: Used in studies on war onset, revolution, democratization.

4. Method of Residues

• Remove known causes; remaining unexplained factor = real cause.

• Example: If economy, culture, and leadership do not explain an uprising, maybe
external influence (e.g., foreign intervention) is the residue.

5. Method of Concomitant Variations

• Looks at correlation between variables.

• Example: Greater education correlates with higher democratic participation.

III. Comparative Research Designs

(According to Daniel Caramani, 2011) Comparisons vary

by:

A. Spatial (Cross-Sectional)
• Comparing different countries/regions.
• Example: India and Canada as federal systems.

B. Longitudinal (Temporal)
 • Comparing across time within the same country.
• Example: Comparing India’s Congress System (1950s–60s) with Coalition Era (1990s
onward).

C. Functional (Cross-Organizational)

• Comparing institutions or policies within same polity.

• Example: Comparing education and defense spending in India.
Quote: “There is no single comparative method; method must suit the research question.”
– Daniel Caramani

IV. Additional Notes on Comparative Logic

Design Type Alternate Name Used When Example

Most Similar Mill's Method of Compare similar cases India vs. Pakistan's
Systems (MSSD) Difference with different outcomes democratic stability

Most Different Mill's Method of Compare different cases France & China (both
Systems (MDSD) Agreement with similar outcomes had revolutions)

Caution: Comparing societies from very different historical periods or unrelated contexts
may dilute explanatory value (Black, 1966).

Conclusion

Kopstein and Lichbach’s framework—Interests, Identities, Institutions—offers a pluralistic

lens for comparative analysis. Coupled with Mill’s scientific methods, comparativists can
investigate both causal patterns and contextual uniqueness. Ultimately, as comparative
politics is problem-driven rather than method-bound, scholars must select methods suitable
to their research questions, units of analysis, and objectives.

Understanding Comparative Method: How to Compare Countries

Category Details

- Compares a large number of cases (e.g., 30+ countries). - Uses

statistical/quantitative methods. - Focus on pattern recognition, theory testing,
and generalizability.
Large-N Key Thinkers: Arend Lijphart, Gabriel Almond, Robert Putnam Associated
Studies Theories: Behavioralism, Modernization Theory

Example: Seymour Martin Lipset’s study on economic development and

democracy (1959) Strengths: Broad comparison, general patterns, predictive
models Limitations: Lacks contextual depth, may miss historical and cultural
nuances

- Compares a small number of cases (typically 2–10). - Uses qualitative or mixed

methods; good for causal analysis.

Key Thinkers: Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Charles Ragin

Small-N Associated Theories: Historical Institutionalism, Path Dependency,
Studies
Comparative Historical Analysis

Example: Skocpol’s comparison of French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions

Strengths: Rich detail, helps theory building, process tracing Limitations:
Limited generalizability, potential case selection bias

- In-depth study of a single case. - Emphasis on historical, cultural, institutional

specifics. Key Thinkers: Samuel P. Huntington, Atul Kohli, James C. Scott
Associated Theories: Culturalism, Interpretivism, Case-Oriented
Single Institutionalism Example: Atul Kohli’s study on statedirected development in
Country India Strengths: Deep contextual insight, discovery of new variables
Study Limitations: Poor generalizability, risk of exceptionalism

Supplementary Comparative Designs (J.S. Mill's Logic)

Method Details

- Based on Mill’s Method of Difference - Compares similar

Most Similar
countries with different outcomes - Used to isolate a unique
Systems Design
causal factor - Example: India vs. Pakistan — why India retained
(MSSD)
democracy

Most Different - Based on Mill’s Method of Agreement - Compares different

Systems Design countries with similar outcomes - Used to identify common
(MDSD) causal elements - Example: French and Chinese Revolutions
Joint Method of
Agreement and - Combines both MSSD and MDSD to validate causal logic -
Difference Looks for shared presence and shared absence of a factor
- Removes known causes to isolate unknown or leftover cause -
Method of Residues
Useful in multifactor causal analysis

Concomitant - Examines correlations between changing variables - Useful in

Variation studying policy impact and reform outcomes

Quick Recap of Key Thinkers & Contributions

Thinker Contribution

Introduced logical methods for comparison—foundational to comparative

J.S. Mill
politics

Pioneered empirical democratic studies, typologies (majoritarian vs.

Arend Lijphart
consensus democracy)

Gabriel
Used large-N for cultural and structural comparisons; Civic Culture model
Almond

Theda Skocpol Historical institutionalist, focused on revolutions and social structures

Developed QCA method to bridge qualitative and quantitative

Charles Ragin
comparisons

Advocated deep, single-country analysis for understanding state-

Atul Kohli
society relations

Let me know if you'd like a summary diagram or mind map version!

Q: What do you understand by Eurocentrism? Highlight its impact on the study of

Comparative Politics.

Introduction

Eurocentrism refers to a worldview that positions Europe (or the West) as the central or
superior model for understanding history, politics, and society. In comparative politics,
Eurocentrism manifests in analytical frameworks, theoretical models, and empirical
assumptions that privilege Western experiences and marginalize nonWestern contexts.

As Neera Chandhoke (1996) argues, comparative politics has long suffered from an
epistemological bias where the “self” (West) is constructed in opposition to the “other”
(non-West)—leading to a distorted and hegemonic discourse.

Definition and Theoretical Origins

• Eurocentrism is rooted in the Enlightenment project, colonialism, and 19thcentury
positivism.

• It assumes a linear model of political development, in which non-Western societies

are seen as lagging behind.

• It reflects what Edward Said calls “Orientalism”—the practice of defining the East in
opposition to a rational, civilized West.

Manifestations in Comparative Politics

1. Theoretical Hegemony

• Liberal democracy, Weberian rationality, and Westphalian sovereignty are treated

as universal standards.

• The nation-state model is assumed to be the norm, ignoring precolonial and

postcolonial forms of political organization in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

2. Selection Bias and Case Framing

• Most “classical” comparative studies focus on Western Europe and North America.

• Even comparative works on non-Western societies, like The Civic Culture by Almond
and Verba (1963), present the Western liberal democratic model as the ideal.

Their study, comparing the US, UK, Italy, Germany, and Mexico, portrayed Mexico’s political
culture as “parochial,” implicitly validating liberal democracies.

3. Methodological Imperialism

• Western scientific methods (e.g., behavioralism, statistical modeling) are applied to

diverse societies without accounting for contextual specificities.

• As Roy C. Macridis (1955) criticized, traditional comparative politics was “essentially

non-comparative, static, and monographic,” grounded in Western institutions.
 Consequences of Eurocentrism
Impact Area Consequences

Marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems and nonWestern

Epistemological Bias
political ideas.

Imposition of external categories like “civil society,”

Analytical Limitations “democracy,” and “modernity” on societies with different
historical experiences.

Prescriptive models based on Western benchmarks fail in

Policy
nonWestern settings (e.g., failed transitions to democracy in Africa
Misinterpretation
post-Cold War).

Exclusion of the Ignores voices from below, reinforcing elite and colonial
Subaltern perspectives.

Critical Responses and Alternatives

• Postcolonial theory challenges Eurocentrism by asserting pluriversal knowledge.

o Scholars like Partha Chatterjee, Mahmood Mamdani, and Bhikhu Parekh

emphasize contextual modernities and indigenous frameworks.

• Global Comparative Politics is emerging as a corrective, including voices from the

Global South and adopting intersectional, decolonial approaches. “The West is not
the universal; it is just one part of the story.” — Walter Mignolo

Conclusion

Eurocentrism in comparative politics has limited the scope and depth of political analysis by
privileging Western experiences as normative. A truly comparative discipline must adopt a
pluralist, reflexive, and decolonized lens, recognizing that political modernity has multiple
trajectories, not all of which begin or end in Europe.
Q: The classification of political systems provides an important tool to understand
comparative politics. Evaluate.

Introduction

Classification is a fundamental method of comparative politics. It helps scholars organize

diverse political realities into meaningful categories for systematic analysis, comparison,
and theory-building. As Aristotle rightly stated, “He who sees things alike must treat them
alike, and he who sees things different must treat them differently.”

Thus, classification is not merely a descriptive exercise, but an analytical and explanatory
tool that enhances our understanding of political systems across time and space.

Conceptual Framework: What is Classification in Comparative Politics?

• According to Todd Landman (2008), classification means organizing information into
categories that allow for effective observation, generalization, and comparison.

• Gabriel Almond emphasized that classification allows us to abstract, compare, and

identify patterns across political systems despite surface-level differences.

Historical Foundations of Classification

1. Aristotle’s Typology

• Aristotle classified 158 Greek city-states based on: o Number of rulers (One,
Few, Many) o Purpose of rule (Common Good vs Self-interest)
Number Good Form Corrupt Form

One Monarchy Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Polity Democracy (Mob rule)

• His typology laid the foundation for normative and empirical comparisons.

2. Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws (1748)

• Differentiated between Republics, Monarchies, and Despotisms based on virtue,

honour, and fear respectively.
 Modern Classifications in Comparative Politics

1. Democratic vs Authoritarian Regimes

• Popularized during the Cold War era, this binary classification helped scholars like Juan
Linz, Larry Diamond, and Huntington to:

o Evaluate regime types o Predict transitions and stability 2.

Presidential vs Parliamentary vs Hybrid Systems

• Helps in understanding:
o Executive-legislative relations (e.g., UK vs USA vs France) o
Political stability and democratic accountability
3. Developed vs Developing States

• Employed in modernization theory to assess institutional capacity, governance

models, and policy performance

4. Typologies by Almond & Powell

• Based on structural-functionalism, Almond and Powell classified systems by:

o Role of political culture o

Functionality of input-output processes

Significance of Classification in Comparative Politics

Function Contribution

Simplification Makes sense of political complexity

Comparability Enables meaningful cross-national analysis

Forms basis for generalization, hypothesis formation, and

Theory-building
prediction

Function Contribution

Pedagogical Tool Helps students and scholars learn typologies and frameworks

Policy Classifications guide institutional design and reform in political Implications

engineering

Critical Evaluation & Limitations

 • Oversimplification: Reduces complex realities to binary or rigid categories (e.g.,
"Democracy vs Autocracy").

• Eurocentrism: Most classification systems are western-centric (e.g., liberal democracy

as the norm).

• Context Neglect: Ignores local socio-cultural and historical factors (Postcolonial critics
like Chatterjee).

• Dynamic Systems: Political systems evolve and hybridize, making fixed classification
inadequate (e.g., competitive authoritarianism by Levitsky and Way).

Recent Trends: Beyond Classical Classifications

• Scholars now explore non-western models like:

o Chinese meritocratic authoritarianism o
Islamic republics o African
consensus democracies
• Use of indices and typologies like:
o Polity IV o Freedom House
o Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
These attempt to quantify and classify systems more comprehensively.

Conclusion

In sum, classification of political systems is indispensable for the study of comparative

politics. It helps to simplify, organize, analyze, and theorize political diversity. However,
scholars must be aware of its limitations, contextual variances, and potential biases, and
use classification as a flexible, not rigid, analytical tool. As political systems become more
complex and hybrid, classification should evolve to better reflect global realities.

Would you like the Hindi version of this answer too?

Unit 2

Detailed notes on the Institutional Approach in Political Science, structured for exam
preparation with a scholarly and conceptual focus:

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

Definition & Origins

• The Institutional Approach emphasizes the study of formal political institutions such
as the state, government, legislatures, courts, and constitutions.

• It is one of the oldest traditions in political science, with roots in classical philosophy,
especially Aristotle, who famously analyzed 158 constitutions to determine which
institutions promote the best political life.
Aristotle: “Man is by nature a political animal” – hence institutions matter in shaping civic
life.

• Thinkers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke were deeply concerned with
institutional arrangements for maintaining order, authority, and liberty. o
Machiavelli advised the Prince on how institutions can secure power.
o Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), argued for a sovereign institution to prevent
civil war.

Key Contributors to Classical Institutionalism

• Became mainstream in late 19th and early 20th century.

• Key scholars:
o James Bryce – The American Commonwealth (1888), Modern Democracies
(1921) o A. Lawrence Lowell – Government and Parties in Continental
Europe
(1896) o Carl J. Friedrich, Herman Finer, Samuel Finer, Jean
Blondel
Jean Blondel: Bryce and Lowell are the true founders of comparative politics as a distinct
discipline.

• Woodrow Wilson compared American and European governments, highlighting

lessons and institutional evolution.

Core Characteristics of the Institutional Approach

(As identified by Guy Peters, 1999)

1. Legalism:

o Focus on law and constitutional structures.

o Institutions are studied in their legal forms; law is central to political behavior.

o Strong influence from Prussian and German legal traditions.

2. Structuralism:

o Emphasis on formal structures (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential). o

Assumes structure determines political behavior.
o Based on Weberian ideal types.
3. Holism:
 o Focuses on entire political systems.
o Studies are comprehensive but may lack specificity and generalizability.

4. Historicism:

o Institutions are studied in their historical context.

o Political systems are products of historical evolution.
o Helps in understanding institutional development.
5. Normativity:

o Concerned with “what ought to be” rather than just “what is”.
o Assesses institutions based on moral and ethical values, not just efficiency.

Criticisms of the Institutional Approach

Criticized mainly by Behaviouralist scholars post-1950s for being:

1. Overly Structural:

o Neglected the role of individuals, groups, and informal actors (e.g., interest
groups, corporates, NGOs).

o Failed to address non-structural dynamics in politics.

2. Eurocentric & Parochial:

o Emphasis on Western, formal institutions (Roy Macridis, 1955).

o Ignored political realities of developing or non-Western states.
3. Descriptive, not Analytical:

o Studies described institutions rather than comparing them rigorously.

o Macridis: “Comparative politics is more descriptive than comparative.”
4. Incompatible with Scientific Political Science:

o Behaviouralists sought empirical, quantitative, and testable theories.

o Rejected normative and speculative focus.
5. Difficulty in Generalisation:

o Holistic studies are difficult to replicate or apply universally.

The Behaviouralist Challenge

• Led by scholars like David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Sidney Verba, etc.
 • Emphasized individual behavior, empirical data, and systematic comparison.
• Argued for value-neutral analysis and use of scientific methodology.

Significance & Legacy

• Despite criticisms, institutionalism remains foundational.

• Even today, political science deeply engages with:
o Constitutional studies o
Parliamentary functioning o
Federalism and judiciary
• New Institutionalism emerged to update and revive the approach (covered
separately).

"Institutions are the rules of the game in a society" — Douglass North (New Institutionalism)

Key Texts to Refer

• James Bryce – Modern Democracies

• Lowell – Government and Parties in Continental Europe
• Guy Peters – Institutional Theory in Political Science
• Jean Blondel – Comparative Government
• Samuel Finer – History of Government

MCQ Pointers

• Who compared 158 constitutions? – Aristotle

• Key work of James Bryce? – The American Commonwealth
• Who criticized institutionalism for being descriptive? – Roy Macridis
• Which approach emphasizes 'what ought to be'? – Institutional approach
• Legalism is a feature of which approach? – Institutional
• Behaviouralism criticizes institutionalism for being...? – Normative, structural,
Eurocentric

Would you like comparative notes on classical vs new institutionalism next?

 Introduction: Understanding the Systems Approach in Political Science

The systems approach emerged as a scientific and empirical method in political science
to study political phenomena. It rejected the normative focus of traditional approaches
and instead emphasized interconnectedness, feedback mechanisms, and dynamic
processes within a political environment.

One of the most influential proponents of this approach was David Easton, who attempted
to make political science more systematic, predictive, and interdisciplinary by applying
general systems theory to politics.

How Systems Approach Works in a Political Environment

1. System and Environment

• A political system is surrounded by an environment (social, economic, cultural).

• The system interacts continuously with this environment through:

o Inputs (demands and supports) o Outputs (laws,
decisions, policies) o Feedback (reactions that affect
future inputs)
2. Input-Output Mechanism

• Demands: People’s expectations (e.g. employment, security, education)

• Supports: Trust, obedience, participation (e.g. voting, paying taxes)
• These inputs enter the political system (government institutions, parties, leaders),
which processes them and produces:

• Outputs: Public policies, laws, administrative decisions

3. Feedback Mechanism

• Feedback from the society evaluates the effectiveness of outputs.

• If outputs are unsatisfactory, new demands emerge, leading to adjustment within the
system.

• This makes the political system self-correcting and dynamic.

David Easton’s Systems Theory: A Summary

David Easton, in A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965), provided a comprehensive model
to understand political life as a system of behavior in a social context.
Core Concepts:
Concept Explanation

Politics "Authoritative allocation of values" (Easton, 1953)

Political “Set of interactions abstracted from social behaviour through which

System values are authoritatively allocated”
Concept Explanation

Inputs Demands + Supports from the environment

Outputs Policies and decisions responding to inputs

Feedback Responses that influence future policy

Stresses Disruptions due to unaddressed demands or declining support

Easton’s system is both "open" (influenced by environment) and "adaptive" (can respond to
feedback).

Types of Systemic Stress

• Demand Stress: When too many or contradictory demands overload the system.

• Support Stress: When citizens lose faith or withdraw support, threatening system
stability.

Easton emphasized balance between demand and support to ensure system survival and
stability.

Significance of Easton’s Theory in Comparative Politics

1. Objective Analysis: Shifted focus from normative to empirical and behavioral analysis.

2. Interdisciplinary: Borrowed concepts from biology, sociology, and systems science.

3. Macro-Level Tool: Helped in analyzing both Western and non-Western political

systems.

4. Predictive Model: Aimed to identify patterns, instability, and adaptability of political

systems.

5. Alternative to State-Centric Approaches: Broadened the field beyond formal

institutions.

Criticism of Easton’s System Theory

Critique Scholars & Explanation

Young (1968): Overgeneralizes political behavior; lacks

Too abstract and general
specificity

Ahistorical Ignores history and structural inequalities (e.g. colonial legacy)

Parochial outlook, despite claiming to study non-Western

Western bias
systems

Only considers citizens when they are “supportive”; excludes

Elitist bias
dissent

Ambiguity Difference between open/closed systems not clear

Paul Kress: An “empty vision of politics” with little real

Empty formalism
substance

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, David Easton’s systems approach remains a seminal contribution to
political science. It laid the foundation for a scientific study of political systems by
integrating empirical data, interdisciplinary methods, and dynamic models. It shifted the
discipline from normative theorizing to behavioral analysis and opened the way for more
comprehensive and comparative frameworks in political science.

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Definition:

Structural-functionalism is an approach in comparative politics that examines political

structures and the functions they perform to maintain system stability. It draws a
biological/organismic analogy, where the political system is like a living organism whose
parts (structures) perform specific roles (functions) necessary for survival.

Robert K. Merton: Functions are "those observed consequences which make for the
adaptation or readjustment of a given system."

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

Anthropological Roots:
 • Radcliffe-Brown and Bronisław Malinowski: Initiated structural-functionalism in
social anthropology.

• Emphasis on social cohesion and the maintenance of societal order.

Key Contributors in Political Science:

1. Gabriel A. Almond:

o Shifted focus from institutions to functions in political systems. o Viewed

Western democracies as models of modern political systems.
o Advocated four characteristics of political systems:
 All systems have political structures.
 The same functions are performed in all systems (though by different
structures).

 Structures may perform multiple functions.

 Every political system has a political culture.
2. David Easton:

o Integrated systems theory with structural-functionalism.

o Emphasized input–output models and the importance of system stability.

3. William C. Mitchell:

o Defined the political system as a sub-system of the social system.

o Focus on mobilization of resources and goal attainment.
4. David Apter:

o Applied the structural-functional approach to Third World states like Ghana

and Uganda.

o Criticized the "imported" Western systems for failing in the postcolonial

world.

BASIC CONCEPTS

Term Meaning

Structure A stable arrangement or institution in the political system.

Function The role or contribution made by the structure to system stability.

Dysfunction When a structure negatively affects the system (Merton).

 EXAMPLE APPLICATION

To compare Prime Ministers of India and UK:

• Instead of comparing legal frameworks, analyze how both perform executive

functions, manage parties, relations with the legislature, and public leadership.

• Function-oriented comparison allows understanding similarities and variations

beyond formal structures.

METHODOLOGY
• Emphasizes empirical observation and systematic comparison.
• Incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods.
• Focuses on pattern maintenance, adaptation, goal attainment, and integration
(Parsons’ AGIL framework).

CRITICISMS

1. Static and Status-quoist Nature

• Overemphasis on system equilibrium and order.

• Ignores conflict, power struggles, and revolutionary change.
Alvin Gouldner (1971): Functionalism is the "sociological conservation corps of industrial
society."

2. Eurocentrism and Parochialism

• Roy Macridis and others argued structural-functionalism is inappropriate for non-

Western societies.

• Almond’s model assumed traditional societies must become Western to modernize.

Bhambhri (1973): Called functionalists "defenders of bourgeoisie at home and of imperialism

abroad."

3. Neglect of Historical and Normative Analysis

• Focus on observable behavior ignores historical depth and normative values.

• Reduces politics to data rather than meaningful discourse on justice, liberty, or
democracy.

4. Limited Applicability to Third World

 • Apter tried adapting it for post-colonial states, but the framework still lacked
contextual sensitivity.

• The model was exported from Western academia (e.g., Harvard, Chicago) with limited
ground reality.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER APPROACHES

Approach Focus Nature Criticism

Ignores informal and societal

Institutional Formal structures Normative/legal
factors

Mechanical, ignores
Systems (Easton) Inputs–outputs Cybernetic
function/purpose

Structural- Structure- Status quoist, lacks normative

Organic/systemic functional
function link depth

CONCLUSION

Despite limitations, structural-functionalism remains a significant method for analyzing

modern Western democracies, offering a systematic and comparative lens. However, in
applying it to developing nations, one must contextualize the functions and structures to
the historical and cultural realities of those societies.

Give an elaborate explanation of the Structural-Functional Theory within the System

Approach in Political Science.

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL THEORY IN SYSTEM APPROACH

Introduction
The Structural-Functional Theory within the Systems Approach represents a synthesis of
biological and sociological analogies in political science. It aims to understand political
systems not just as mechanical entities (as in cybernetic systems theory), but as living social
organisms where structures perform vital functions necessary for survival, adaptation, and
transformation of the system.

This theory gained prominence during the post-World War II era and the behavioral
revolution in political science. It borrowed heavily from sociology (especially from the works
of Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton) and was adapted to political science by Gabriel A.
Almond, David Easton, David Apter, and others.

What is the System Approach?

The Systems Approach, popularized by David Easton, views politics as a system of

interrelated parts receiving inputs (demands and supports) and producing outputs (policies,
decisions). The emphasis is on stability, feedback, and equilibrium.

Easton defined the political system as “that system of interactions in any society through
which binding or authoritative allocations are made.”

However, critics found Easton’s model too abstract and mechanical. This led to the
integration of Structural-Functional Theory, which added depth to the internal operations
of the system by focusing on what structures do and how they contribute to system
maintenance.

Origins of Structural-Functionalism In

Sociology:

• Talcott Parsons: Introduced the AGIL scheme (Adaptation, Goal-attainment,

Integration, Latency).

• Robert K. Merton: Distinguished between functions and dysfunctions; emphasized

manifest and latent functions.

In Political Science:

• Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell adapted it to study political systems across
cultures.

Basic Components of Structural-Functional Theory

1. Structures:
 • The organized units or institutions within a system (e.g., legislature, executive,
judiciary, political parties).

• These are relatively stable patterns of behavior or institutions that persist over time.

2. Functions:

• The role or purpose played by structures.

• Functions are not predetermined by the nature of structures; multiple structures can
perform the same function, or one structure can perform multiple functions.

Merton defines a function as “an observed consequence which makes for the adaptation or
adjustment of a given system.”

Almond’s Structural-Functional Framework

Gabriel Almond in The Politics of the Developing Areas (1960) argued that all political
systems, regardless of culture or development level, must perform certain basic functions
to survive: A. Input Functions:

1. Political Socialization and Recruitment

2. Interest Articulation

3. Interest Aggregation

4. Political Communication B. Output Functions:

1. Rule-making

2. Rule-application

3. Rule-adjudication Almond emphasized:

• Functional universality: All political systems perform these functions.

• Structural variability: Different systems may use different structures to perform
similar functions.

Integration with System Approach

Structural-functionalism complements Easton's system approach by:

• Filling in the “black box” of the political system (Easton described input/output but
not internal processes).

• Explaining how internal structures (institutions) convert inputs into outputs by

performing specific functions.
 • Analyzing the performance, efficiency, and stability of political systems.
This marks a shift from institutional formalism (which focuses on form) to functionalism
(which focuses on performance and purpose).

Application to Comparative Politics

The structural-functional theory was used to:

• Analyze political development and modernization in post-colonial states.

• Understand why imported Western institutions (e.g., parliaments, bureaucracies)
often failed in Third World countries (David Apter).

• Design comparative models that are functionally equivalent even if structurally

different.

Criticisms

1. Static and Conservative Bias:

• Overemphasis on equilibrium and order, leading to status quo-ism. Gouldner (1971):

Called it the “sociological conservation corps of industrial society.”

2. Western-centric and Modernist Bias:

• Assumed that Western democracies are the ideal type of political systems.

• Ignored historical, cultural, and post-colonial specificities.

Bhambhri (1973): Accused structural-functionalism of defending imperialism and bourgeois
domination.

3. Neglect of Power and Conflict:

• Failed to account for struggles, revolutions, and class dynamics.

• Marxist and critical theorists rejected its depoliticized and apolitical tone.
4. Overemphasis on Functions:

• Tended to rationalize all structures as functional, ignoring dysfunctions or oppressive

roles.

• Assumed stability where there might be disintegration or crisis.

Conclusion
The Structural-Functional Theory within the Systems Approach marked a crucial phase in
the evolution of political science, especially in comparative politics. It introduced functional
analysis, shifted focus to political behavior and performance, and made the discipline more
empirically grounded.

Yet, the theory must be used critically, especially in the context of developing nations, where
political structures may not align with the idealized functions outlined in Western models.
While useful in explaining system maintenance and political development, it must be
complemented by historical, critical, and post-colonial perspectives to avoid
oversimplification.

POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH: A MODERN BEHAVIOURALIST FRAMEWORK

Introduction

The Political Culture Approach represents a behaviouralist and sociological turn in the
study of politics, emphasizing the reciprocal interactions between society and the political
system. It moves beyond formal institutions to explore subjective orientations—the
values, beliefs, emotions, and opinions of individuals and communities toward politics.

As Andrew Bove (2002: 3) noted:

“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.”

Background and Evolution

Behaviouralist Turn

• Emerged post-World War II during the rise of behaviouralism in political science.

• Shifted the focus from normative and institutional analysis to empirical study of
behavior.

• Instead of just studying constitutions or offices, political culture scholars analyze

citizen orientations, public opinion, and value systems.

Foundational Thinkers

• Early ideas trace back to Montesquieu, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Johann Gottfried
Herder—who emphasized the influence of national character and social mores on
politics.
 • However, it was Gabriel A. Almond (1956), with his essay Comparative Political
Systems, who formalized the concept within political science.

Key Definitions

🗨 Gabriel Almond:

“Every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to political

action”—this is political culture.

🗨 Almond & Verba (1963):

“Political culture refers to the political orientations—attitudes toward the political system and
its various parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system.”

🗨 Alan Ball:

“The political culture is composed of the attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and values of society
that relate to the political system and to political issues.”

🗨 Roy C. Macridis:

Political culture refers to “commonly shared goals and accepted rules of interaction” in the
political system.

Core Features of Political Culture

Element Description

Beliefs Perceptions about authority, legitimacy, democracy, governance

Attitudes Emotional dispositions toward leaders, institutions, policies

Values Deep-seated orientations like liberty, equality, justice

Flags, national heroes, constitutions as objects of loyalty and

Symbols and Myths
meaning

Expected behavior in civic life (e.g., voting, protest, obedience to

Norms
law)

Samuel H. Beer emphasized that “values, beliefs, and emotional attitudes” form the nucleus
of political culture.
🏛 Types of Political Culture (Almond & Verba)

In their seminal work The Civic Culture (1963), Almond and Verba outlined three major types
of political culture:

Type Characteristics Example

Low awareness of political system; little citizen

Parochial Tribal societies
participation

Type Characteristics Example

Citizens are aware of the system but passive; Authoritarian

Subject
obedience is emphasized regimes

Mature
Participant High awareness and active involvement in political life democracies

Civic Culture: A blend of all three types—a balanced political culture that supports stable
democracy.
E.g., Britain and the USA in the 20th century.

Political Sub-Cultures

Political culture is not uniform across a society:

• Different ethnic, linguistic, religious, or regional groups may hold divergent political
orientations.

• E.g., Political culture in Kerala (high civic engagement) differs from that in Uttar
Pradesh (often influenced by caste dynamics and identity politics).

Example: Voter turnout in Kerala Assembly Elections (2019) was 77.68%, while Delhi’s (2020)
was 62.82%.

Methodology and Relevance

• Employs survey techniques, opinion polls, interviews, participant observation, and

value studies.

• Helps in comparative politics, political development, and democratization studies.

• Offers predictive insights: e.g., societies with participant culture are more likely to
sustain liberal democracies.
 Significance of Political Culture Approach

1. Legitimacy and System Stability

– Cultures that value constitutionalism and tolerance contribute to democratic
consolidation.

2. Bridging Society and State

– Connects citizen attitudes with institutional functioning.

3. Comparative Analysis
– Explains why similar political institutions yield different outcomes in different
countries.

4. Post-WWII Relevance
– As Formisano (2001) notes, political culture offered legitimacy to political science in
the post-war period.

Criticisms

Criticism Thinker / Perspective

Over-generalization Ignores internal diversity in cultures

Determinism Treats culture as static and causal

Marxists: Ignores class, material conditions (e.g., Louis

Neglects Structure & Economy
Althusser)

Ethnocentrism Over-relies on Western models of civic culture

Empirical Challenges Difficult to quantify values, attitudes, symbols

Conclusion

The Political Culture Approach signifies a vital shift in political analysis—from what
institutions are to how people interact with them. By focusing on subjective orientations
and civic attitudes, it enriches our understanding of political systems in a sociological and
comparative framework.

While it must be used cautiously—avoiding cultural essentialism or determinism—it

remains indispensable for assessing democratic health, legitimacy, and political
development.
As Almond stated, “A stable democracy depends not only upon the structure of institutions,
but also upon the orientations and attitudes of its citizens.”

Here are exam-oriented political science notes on Almond and Verba’s conception of
political culture, structured thematically with key scholars, definitions, and concepts, as per
your preparation needs:

ALMOND AND VERBA'S CONCEPTION OF POLITICAL CULTURE

Key Thinkers & Background

• Political culture became a major analytical tool in comparative politics postWWII.

• Scholars like Lucian Pye, Edward W. Lehman, Samuel H. Beer, Roy C. Macridis, Ronald
Inglehart contributed to different standpoints.

• However, Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba’s The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes
and Democracy in Five Nations (1963) remains groundbreaking.

"The civic culture is a mixed political culture that balances passive and active citizen roles and
sustains democratic stability." – Almond & Verba (1963)

🏛 Objective of the Study

• Context: Cold War anxieties, fear of decline in democratic values due to

overtechnologization and erosion of traditions.

• Core Question: “How can humane etiquettes of liberal democracies survive in a world
caught in the grip of science and technology?” (A&V, 1963:7)

• Aim: To discover which type of political culture supports the stability of liberal
democracy.

Comparative Methodology

• Empirical and cross-national survey (1959–60) in:

o United States o
United Kingdom
o Italy o Mexico o
West Germany
• Based on surveys, interviews, and behavioral approach.
 Three Orientations of Political Culture

1. Cognitive Orientation o Knowledge of political system, roles, institutions,

inputs, and outputs.
o Focus: What people know about politics.
2. Affective Orientation o Emotional attachment to political symbols,
institutions, or leaders.
o Focus: How people feel about politics.
3. Evaluative Orientation o Judgments/opinions formed by combining
information with values.
o Focus: What people think about the performance and legitimacy of the political
system.

Types of Political Culture

Almond and Verba classified political culture into three ideal types:

1. Parochial Political Culture

• Found in tribal or traditional societies.

• Citizens are:
o Unaware of political institutions. o Apathetic toward
political events.
o Not participants; they are politically ignorant.
• Example: African tribal communities, isolated rural areas.
“Politics is alien to daily life in parochial cultures.” – Almond & Verba

2. Subject Political Culture

• Citizens have:
o Awareness of politics and authority.
o But low political participation.
• Obedience over agency; law is something to be obeyed, not shaped.
• Common in authoritarian or centralized systems.
• Citizens feel passive, though informed.

"The citizen obeys, not shapes policy." – Almond & Verba

3. Participant Political Culture

• Characteristic of democratic systems.

• Citizens are:
o Politically informed. o Actively involved in political
processes.
o Consider themselves stakeholders.
• They evaluate, participate, and influence governance.
• Encourages civic engagement and accountability.
“Citizens tend to be oriented toward an ‘active’ role of the self in the polity…” – Almond &
Verba (1963:18)

Civic Culture: A Mix of All Three

• Almond and Verba argue:

o No political culture is pure.
o Even democracies contain parochial or subject elements.
• The "civic culture" is a harmonious blend:
o Active participation (participant) o
Trust and legitimacy (subject) o Stability
and continuity (parochial)
“Stable democracies require a mix of orientations and roles.” – Almond & Verba

Theoretical Significance

• Influenced behavioralism and comparative political analysis.

• Helped explain why democracies survive in some societies and not in others.
• Criticized for:
o Western bias (focus on liberal democracies). o Methodological
limitations (survey tools).

o Underestimating dynamic and changing nature of political

cultures.
 Key Terms to Remember for MCQs

Term Meaning

Civic Culture A balanced mix of parochial, subject, and participant cultures.

Cognitive Orientation Political knowledge.

Affective Orientation Emotional attachment to politics.

Evaluative Orientation Judgments about political performance.

Parochial Culture Political ignorance, typical of tribal societies.

Subject Culture Informed but passive citizenship, often in authoritarian states.

Participant Culture Active and engaged citizenry in democracies.

Thinkers to Quote

• Gabriel Almond: “A political culture is the particular pattern of orientations toward

political objects.”

• Lucian Pye: Political culture bridges the gap between systemic analysis and individual
political behavior.

• Ronald Inglehart: Emphasized post-materialist values shaping modern political

culture.

Here are notes on Almond and Verba's analysis of the civic culture (with reference to the
figure 4.1 and related theoretical perspectives):

2.5 Civic Culture - Almond and Verba’s Analysis

Civic Culture in Comparison to Parochial and Subject Cultures

• Ideal Political Culture for Stable Democracy:

o Participant culture is ideal for a stable liberal democracy where citizens play
an active and constructive role in governance.

o However, Almond and Verba argued that no single political culture could
guarantee democratic stability on its own. They proposed that the most stable
democracy emerges from a blend of different political cultures.

"Democracy proves most stable when different political cultures are blended in a particular
mix." – Almond & Verba
The Civic Culture - A Mixed Approach

• Definition of Civic Culture:

o A mix of parochial, subject, and participant cultures. The civic culture is not
entirely participant-based but includes elements of all three types.

o This mix creates a balance between the participation of citizens and the
effective governance of political elites.

o Almond and Verba emphasized that the stability of democracy lies in this
balance.

Characteristics of Civic Culture

• Informed Citizens:
o Majority of citizens are aware of their political system and responsibilities,
similar to participant culture.

• Passive Minority:
o The passive minority (parochial and subject elements) provides stability by
not actively participating in politics or opposing governmental decisions
unless absolutely necessary.

o This non-participation helps maintain order and prevent chaos.

"The passive minority provides stability to the system by refraining from constant opposition."
– Almond & Verba

Balance Between Popular Control and Effective Governance

• In the civic culture, there is a delicate balance:

o Popular control: Citizens can influence government decisions (through voting,
public opinion, etc.).

o Effective governance: Political elites sometimes need flexibility to make

decisions that may not align with popular opinion.

"The civic culture plays a significant role in maintaining a balance between popular control
and effective governance." – Almond & Verba

Case Studies - United States & United Kingdom

 • Democratic Stability:
o In Britain and the United States, citizens felt they could influence the
government, but often chose not to. This behavior allowed the government
to make agile decisions, which is key to democratic stability.

• Other Countries:
o In countries like Mexico, Italy, and West Germany, Almond and Verba found
that political cultures were less aligned with the civic culture, which created
challenges for democratic stability.

Ronald Inglehart’s Contribution to Political Culture

• Inglehart’s View on Civic Culture:

o Inglehart, in his 1988 work "The Renaissance of Political Culture", developed
a more sociological perspective on civic culture.

o He emphasized that societies characterized by high personal satisfaction,

political satisfaction, interpersonal trust, and support for the social order are
more likely to maintain stable democracies.

o He connected personal and political satisfaction with democratic stability.

"Societies with high levels of personal satisfaction, political satisfaction, and interpersonal
trust are more likely to maintain stable democracies." – Inglehart, 1988

Inglehart’s Coherent Syndrome

• Key Concept: A "syndrome" of attitudes:

o Personal life satisfaction + political satisfaction + interpersonal trust =
Positive political culture.

• Inglehart's analysis found that countries with high levels of this syndrome are more
likely to promote democratic ethos and strengthen democratic institutions.

"The syndrome of positive attitudes toward democratic institutions correlates with

democratic stability." – Inglehart, 1988

Comparison: Almond and Verba vs. Inglehart

• Almond and Verba focused on the ideal mix of political cultures (parochial, subject,
and participant) for stable democracies.
 • Inglehart expanded on this, linking civic culture with individual well-being and trust
as key elements for sustaining democratic systems.

Key Points to Remember for Exams

1. Civic Culture: A mix of parochial, subject, and participant cultures that helps stabilize
democracy.

2. Role of Passive Citizens: Passive citizens help maintain stability by refraining from
excessive political participation.

3. Agility in Government: Governments require flexibility to make decisions, especially

when popular opinions are divided.

4. Inglehart’s Civic Culture: Focuses on personal satisfaction, political satisfaction, and

interpersonal trust as indicators of a stable democracy.

5. Britain and the US: Examples of societies with a civic culture that allows democratic
stability.

Key Terms

• Civic Culture: A blend of parochial, subject, and participant political cultures.

• Personal Satisfaction: A key indicator of stable democracy.
• Political Satisfaction: Positive feelings about the political system.
• Interpersonal Trust: Trust in others and the political system.
• Syndrome of Positive Attitudes: Inglehart’s idea that a stable democracy relies on a
mixture of personal, political, and trust-related satisfaction.

Political Culture – Other Imporatant Perspectives

1. Historians' Contribution to Political Culture

By the late 1980s, the political culture approach gained prominence among historians, who
began applying it to historical inquiries.

• John L. Brooke (1989):

In his work, Society and Political Culture in Worcester County, Massachusetts, 1773-
1861, Brooke examined political culture through a historical lens, showing how
political values shaped the region's political behavior over time.

• Daniel Walker Howe (1991):

 Howe, in The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the North during the
Second Party System, expanded the concept of political culture by incorporating
social movements into the analysis of political power. He argued that social
struggles—such as those for gender justice, racial justice, environmental
protection, and workers' rights—were pivotal in shaping U.S. politics, and that
political culture should account for these campaigns, not just electoral outcomes.

“Define political culture to include all struggles over power, not just those decided by
elections.” – Daniel Walker Howe

2. Social Capital and Political Culture

In the 1990s, scholars like Robert Putnam brought a new dimension to the political culture
approach by linking social capital with democratic stability.

• Robert Putnam (1993):

In his influential work, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,
Putnam studied the regional governments in Italy and emphasized the role of social
capital in facilitating effective governance and stable democracy.

o Social Capital refers to “networks together with shared norms, values, and
understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups” (Keeley,
2007: 103).

o Putnam’s Hypothesis: Societies with high levels of social capital tend to have
more active political participation, leading to greater political stability and
efficient governance.

"Social capital may possibly be more important than physical or human capital for stable
democracies and administrative efficiencies." – Robert Putnam

• Robert I. Rotberg (1999):

Rotberg further connected the ideas of social capital and civic culture, arguing that a
high level of social capital contributes to a political culture that is open, pluralistic,
deliberative, tolerant, and democratic.

3. Political Culture and Ideology

During the 1960s and 1970s, neo-Marxist scholars like Louis Althusser offered an alternative
perspective on the role of culture in politics by emphasizing ideology.

• Louis Althusser:
Althusser argued that the state operates through two key components:
 1. Repressive State Apparatuses (coercive power): Police, military, law
enforcement, etc.

2. Ideological State Apparatuses (ideological power): Family, education, religion,

culture, media, etc.

Althusser stressed that political culture could not be reduced merely to individual
political attitudes; it was rather a value system imposed by the dominant class to
maintain hegemony. This ideology helps stabilize the political order by shaping people's
beliefs and attitudes in favor of the ruling class.

“Political culture becomes the prevailing value system and knowledge structure dispersed
throughout society by the dominant classes.” – Louis Althusser

4. Subcultures in Political Culture

Scholarly works on political culture have highlighted the existence of multiple political
cultures within a nation, emphasizing the idea of subcultures rather than a single, unified
political culture.

• Subculture refers to distinct identities within society formed by different social groups
and communities, each with their own political orientations, opinions, and behaviors.

• Dennis Kavanagh (1972):

Kavanagh identified four bases upon which political subcultures develop:

1. Elite vs. Mass Culture: The political culture of elites differs significantly from
that of the general public.

2. Cultural Divisions within Elites: Differences in political orientations among the

elite groups themselves.

3. Generational Subcultures: Different generations may have distinct political

cultures based on their experiences.

4. Social Structure: Subcultures can be shaped by social class, ethnicity, religion,

or other social markers.

• Impact on Political Systems:

The interaction of these subcultures within a political system can influence the overall
political culture and the functioning of the political system.

5. Integration of Social Movements into Political Culture

• Social Movements and Political Struggles:

 Scholars like Daniel Walker Howe expanded political culture by incorporating the
struggles of social movements, which are seen as integral to understanding political
power. Movements for gender justice, racial equality, environmental protection,
and workers' rights are central to shaping the political culture of a nation.

"One must define political culture to include all struggles over power, not just those decided
by elections." – Daniel Walker Howe

Key Takeaways for Exam Preparation:

1. Historians and Political Culture: Historians like Brooke and Howe extended the
study of political culture by analyzing historical contexts and integrating social
movements.

2. Social Capital: Robert Putnam’s work highlighted the importance of social capital—
the networks, norms, and trust that facilitate cooperation within society—on
political stability and democratic functioning.

3. Ideology in Political Culture: Louis Althusser’s theory suggests that political culture
is an ideological construct used by dominant classes to maintain political hegemony
and stability.

4. Subcultures: Political culture is not uniform; different subcultures based on elite-

mass divides, generational differences, and social structures coexist within a
political system and shape its overall political culture.

5. Social Movements: Social struggles for justice, rights, and equality are vital
components of political culture, expanding the boundaries of political analysis
beyond electoral politics.

Notes on Historical Institutionalism

Introduction to Historical Institutionalism:

Historical institutionalism is a theoretical framework that evolved as a response to the
limitations of behavioralism and rational choice theory.

It emphasizes the role of institutions in shaping political behavior and policy outcomes over
time. It is particularly concerned with understanding how institutions evolve and how they
influence political decisions, especially in the long run.

Judith Goldstein’s article, Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy (1988), is a key
example that illustrates the importance of historical institutionalism.

Goldstein studied the persistence of contradictory ideas—such as laissez-faire,

protectionism, and interventionism—within U.S. trade policy.
Rather than seeing these ideas as replacing one another, Goldstein found that they
coexist and layer over time. This persistence is a result of the influence of legal
constraints and government institutions, which make it difficult for one idea to fully
replace another.

Foundational Scholars and Works:

Historical institutionalism has been shaped by several influential scholars and works,
including:

• Suzanne Berger: Peasants Against Politics: Rural Organization in Brittany, 1911–

1967 (1972) and The French Political System (1974)

• Peter Katzenstein: Small States in World Markets (1985) and Cultural Norms and
National Security (1996)

• Theda Skocpol: States and Social Revolutions (1979) and Social Policy in the United
States (1995)

• Peter A. Hall: Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic
Policy Making in Britain (1990)

• John Ikenberry: Reasons of State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American
Government (1988)

• Stephen Skowronek: Building a New American State (1982)

These scholars helped shape the development of historical institutionalism and its application
to political science.

Origins and Inspirations:

Historical institutionalism has its roots in two major theoretical traditions: group theory and
structural-functionalism.

1. Group Theory:

o Group theory in political science is often associated with Marxism and class-
based analyses. It views politics as being driven by conflicts over scarce
resources, which groups and classes compete for. o Historical
institutionalism, however, distances itself from Marxism because it argues
that broad class analyses do not fully capture the dynamics at the national
and institutional levels.

o Instead of focusing solely on class conflict, historical institutionalism seeks to

understand how institutions shape political conflict and behavior.

2. Structural-Functionalism:
 o Structural-functionalism sees society as a system made up of interconnected
parts or structures.

1. While it focuses on how the different parts of a system function,

historical institutionalism places more emphasis on how institutions
shape political processes and behaviors over time.

o Historical institutionalism shares more similarities with structuralism

(concerned with the role institutions play in shaping actions) rather than the
functionalist approach (focused on how institutions serve societal needs).

Key Concepts in Historical Institutionalism:

1. Critical Junctures:

o One of the central ideas in historical institutionalism is the concept of "critical

junctures." These are moments of significant change in which existing
institutions are disrupted, creating a "branching point" that can lead to the
development of new institutional structures.

o Critical junctures often determine the long-term trajectory of political and

institutional development.

2. Path Dependency:

o Historical institutionalism stresses path dependency, the idea that decisions

made in the past influence future political and institutional choices.

o Once certain institutional arrangements are set, they become difficult to

change, leading to long-term stability or gradual evolution.

3. Institutional Layering:

o A key concept in Goldstein’s study of U.S. trade policy, institutional layering

refers to the way new ideas or policies are added to existing structures rather
than completely replacing old ones. o Historical institutionalism emphasizes
that institutions evolve through incremental changes and layers over time
rather than through sudden, radical shifts.

4. The Role of Institutions:

o Historical institutionalism focuses on understanding how institutions shape

and constrain political behavior. Institutions are not merely neutral structures;
they actively structure political outcomes by creating rules, norms, and
routines that guide political actors' actions and choices.

Historical Institutionalism vs. Rational Choice and Behavioralism:

 • Behavioralism focused on individual political behavior and quantifiable data but often
ignored the institutional context within which political actions occur.

• Rational Choice theory assumes that political actors make decisions based on
maximizing their personal utility, often overlooking the historical and institutional
context that shapes their preferences and behaviors.

• Historical institutionalism critiques both theories by stressing that political decisions

cannot be fully understood without considering the historical development of
institutions and the way they shape preferences, policies, and actions over time.

Marxism's Influence:

Although historical institutionalism distances itself from Marxism, it still retains some Marxist
concepts, such as class analysis and institutional change.

Historical institutionalists use terms like "critical junctures" and "path dependency," which
can be seen as analogous to Marxist ideas of historical materialism, where social and
economic conditions shape political outcomes.

Key Approaches in Historical Institutionalism:

• The Calculus Approach: This approach examines how institutions shape political
behavior through a rational cost-benefit analysis, but it also recognizes that
preferences are socially constructed and not merely individualistic.
 •

The Cultural Approach: The cultural approach emphasizes the role of shared norms,
values, and understandings in shaping the behavior of political actors. It suggests
that the institutional context is deeply embedded in cultural practices, which can
influence policy decisions and political outcomes.

Conclusion:

Historical institutionalism provides a framework to understand the persistence of certain

political outcomes and the evolution of political institutions. By examining the role of
institutions over long periods, it helps to explain why certain political structures and ideas
persist, even in the face of contradictory forces. The framework is useful for analyzing not
only the evolution of political systems but also the interplay between institutions, culture,
and political behavior across different regions and historical periods.

Notes on The Calculus Approach and The Cultural Approach The

Calculus Approach:

• Focus on Individuals as Strategic Actors: The calculus approach views individuals as

strategic, calculative, and instrumental in their actions. However, these traits are not
independent; they operate within the constraints set by institutions.

• Institutional Constraints: While individuals may calculate their actions strategically,

their behavior is shaped by the rules, codes, and practices of the institutions they
operate within. Their actions are not entirely free or autonomous but are guided by
institutional norms and structures.

• Instrumentality as Institutionally Mandated: The instrumental actions of individuals

are not just personal preferences but are mandated by institutions. This means that
even though individuals make decisions based on their goals, these goals are shaped
by the institutional context in which they exist.

• Socially Constructed Instrumentality: While the instrumentality of political actors is

socially constructed, it is publicly known and accepted by society. The calculation of
actions within the institutional framework is strategic, but it aligns with the rules and
practices that are socially embedded.

• Central Focus on Individual Calculation: Unlike the cultural approach, the calculus
approach places a central emphasis on individual calculation. Individuals are seen as
primarily focused on maximizing their utility, and their actions are strategically
motivated.

The Cultural Approach:

 • Characterization of the Individual: The cultural approach contrasts with the calculus
approach by viewing individuals as satisficers rather than utility maximizers. Instead
of constantly seeking to maximize utility, individuals follow established routines or
norms within an institution.

• Preference Formation and Alliance Building: In the cultural approach, preference

formation is seen as problematic, meaning that preferences are not given or fixed
but are shaped through social interactions and institutional norms. Alliance
formation is not just the alignment of self-interests but involves more complex social
processes and institutional dynamics.

• Routine-Oriented Behavior: Instead of always seeking to maximize their utility,

individuals in the cultural approach are expected to conform to the established
routines of the institution. The institution demands goal-oriented behavior, but this
behavior is part of the routine rather than a conscious, individual-driven pursuit of
maximizing personal utility.

• Institutional Demand for Utility Maximizing: While individuals are not seen as
entirely utility-maximizing agents, institutions enforce utility-maximizing behavior as
part of their routines and practices. Individuals are expected to act purposefully
within the bounds of these institutional expectations.

Criticism of Historical Institutionalism:

• Eclectic Nature as Strength and Weakness: The flexibility of historical

institutionalism, allowing it to integrate various perspectives, is both its strength and
its limitation. Its ability to adapt and incorporate new approaches is beneficial for
understanding complex institutional dynamics, but it also creates challenges.

• Lack of a Reliable Model: One significant criticism of historical institutionalism is its

failure to develop a clear, reliable model to explain the relationship between the
individual and the institution. While it is able to incorporate various viewpoints, it
has not elaborated a precise model for understanding how individual actions and
institutional structures interrelate as systematically as some other theories.

Key Takeaways:

• Calculus Approach emphasizes individual strategy, calculation, and instrumentality

within institutional constraints.

Cultural Approach focuses on institutional norms shaping individual behavior,

where individuals follow routines and are shaped by the collective practices of the
institution.
 •

• Criticism highlights the eclectic nature of historical institutionalism, which, while

versatile, lacks a coherent framework to fully integrate individual and institutional
interactions.

Notes on Rational Choice Institutionalism Background:

• Origin of Rational Choice Institutionalism: In the 1970s, scholars using the rational
choice approach began questioning its efficacy, particularly in explaining
congressional behavior. The key issue was that rational choice, with its emphasis on
utility maximization and strategic calculations, predicted that majorities in Congress
would constantly form and dissolve based on individual interests.

• Problematic Pattern: According to rational choice theory, individuals in Congress

would avoid participating in majorities where their interests weren’t represented.

• This should lead to a cycling effect, where no stable majority could emerge.
However, in practice, majorities in Congress were relatively stable, highlighting a gap
between theory and reality.

Emergence of Rational Choice Institutionalism:

• Theoretical Shift: To address this discrepancy, rational choice institutionalism

emerged as a refinement. While still based on rational choice theory, it incorporated
insights from institutionalism to explain the stability of majorities.

• Role of Institutions: Rational choice institutionalism asserts that institutions play a

central role in shaping individual behavior. Institutions control choices and set
agendas, which structure the strategic calculations of individuals. In this way,
institutions don’t eliminate rational behavior but rather guide and constrain it.

Key Components:

1. Strategic, Calculative Individuals: Individuals are still seen as strategic, calculative,

and utility-maximizing agents. However, their actions are structured by institutions
that control the available choices and set the agenda.

2. Institutional Constraints: Institutions reduce transaction costs and mitigate

uncertainties. They provide a structure within which individuals maximize their utility,
but the choices available to them are shaped by institutional rules.

3. Influence of 'New Economics of Organization': The rational choice institutionalism

draws on the "new economics of organization," which emphasizes how institutions
lower transaction costs and uncertainties, making it easier for individuals to achieve
their goals.

4. Voluntary Formation of Institutions: For rational choice institutionalism, institutions

are not the result of impersonal or historical forces. Instead, they are voluntary
 formations driven by the personal and strategic calculations of individuals.
Institutions persist because they offer benefits to individuals who create and sustain
them.

5. Expanding Scope: Initially applied to the study of Congress, rational choice

institutionalism has expanded to include:

o Political party deliberations o The relationship between Congress, courts,

and regulatory agencies o International relations and institutions o Cross-national
competitions and negotiations Criticism:

• Focus on Individual Rationality: One of the criticisms of rational choice

institutionalism is its focus on the individual as a rational, utility-maximizing agent.

• Critics argue that this perspective oversimplifies the complexities of social and
institutional dynamics, as it ignores the impact of non-rational or collective forces.

• Applicability Issues: While rational choice institutionalism is often useful in broader

contexts, it can be less effective when applied to smaller, more specific cases. The
individualistic focus may obscure important social or institutional factors in certain
scenarios.

Key Takeaways:

• Rational Choice Institutionalism builds upon rational choice theory by introducing

the role of institutions in shaping individual behavior.

• Institutions control choices, set agendas, and reduce transaction costs, providing a
structure within which rational individuals can maximize their utility.

• The approach has expanded beyond Congress to encompass broader political and
international issues.

Criticisms center around its focus on individual rationality and its limited
applicability in smaller, more specific contexts. Notes on Sociological
Institutionalism
Introduction:

• Sociological institutionalism emerged as a critique of both historical institutionalism

and rational choice institutionalism.

• It challenges the traditional distinction between bureaucratic institutions (which are

seen as rational and efficient) and other aspects of society, which were often
dismissed as mere culture.
 •

• Unlike historical and rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism

argues that bureaucratic rationality is itself embedded in culture, not purely rational
or efficient.

Key Concepts:

1. Bureaucratic Rationality and Culture:

o Sociological institutionalism argues that bureaucratic institutions’

rationality is not independent of culture. Instead, rationality is deeply
embedded in the cultural forms that predated it, especially in Western
religious traditions. o Bureaucratic practices are sustained not only by
efficiency but by the cultural forms within which they operate. The rationality
of bureaucracy has its roots in cultural practices, which go beyond mere
efficiency.

2. The Frame of Meaning:

o Sociological institutionalism broadens the definition of institutions to

include more than just formal rules and structures. It introduces the concept
of the frame of meaning, which encompasses:

 A network of rules, procedures, and norms.

 Symbolic and moral cognates that influence behavior.
o This expanded definition allows sociological institutionalism to include
cultural elements that were previously excluded from institutional analysis. o
The broader perspective takes into account institutions that were once seen
as mere culture but are now seen as integral to institutional life.

3. Cognitive Dimension:

o Institutions not only provide normative guidelines but also cognitive

scripts, models, and categories that structure individual behavior. o The
cognitive dimension is crucial because it gives individuals the necessary
frameworks (or "frames") to make sense of their actions and roles within an
institution. o For example, a teacher isn’t just someone performing
teaching duties; they "become" the teacher within the institutional context,
with roles, expectations, and behaviors pre-established. o Actions within
an institution are not simply strategic or calculative; they are socially and
culturally prescribed roles.

4. Role of Social Legitimacy:

o Sociological institutionalism stresses the importance of social legitimacy

and appropriateness over mere rationality or efficiency. o Institutions
 operate based on the legitimacy conferred by society, and any change or
continuity within an institution depends on shifts in these social standards of
legitimacy. o Rather than being driven by rational efficiency, institutional
changes are driven by what is deemed socially appropriate or legitimate
within a given cultural context.

5. Interpretative Approach:

o Sociological institutionalism adopts an interpretative approach. It does not

deny that individuals can be purposive or strategic, but argues that their
actions are shaped by socially constructed expectations and roles. o The
strategic decisions individuals make are already framed by social norms and
institutional expectations. The institution defines the boundaries within which
individuals can act strategically.

Criticism:

1. Lack of Conflict and Struggle:

o A major critique of sociological institutionalism comes from historical

institutionalism, which argues that sociological institutionalism overlooks the
inherent conflicts and struggles within institutions for power and resources.
 o This oversight reduces the ability of sociological institutionalism to explain
institutional change that arises from power struggles or resource conflicts.

2. Erasure of Historical Ruptures:

o Sociological institutionalism is criticized for focusing too much on the

continuity between culture and institutions, neglecting the historical ruptures
and breaks that shape the formation of new bureaucratic institutions. o By
emphasizing continuity, sociological institutionalism may fail to account for
the disruptive changes that lead to the establishment of new institutional
forms.

Conclusion:

• Sociological institutionalism offers a broader and more culturally integrated

perspective on institutions, challenging the view that bureaucratic rationality is
independent of cultural influences.

• It emphasizes the role of culture, legitimacy, and cognitive frameworks in shaping

institutional behavior, offering a more interpretative and socially constructed view
of institutional dynamics.

• Despite its strengths, it faces criticisms for underemphasizing conflict, struggle, and
historical change in institutional development.

Write on the relationship between Institutionalism and Neo-Institutionalism, and a

thorough explanation of Neo-Institutionalism and its different types, integrating
theoretical debates, thinkers, and key ideas.

1. Relationship between Institutionalism and Neo-

Institutionalism Traditional Institutionalism:

• Also known as Classical Institutionalism, this approach was dominant during the late
19th and early 20th centuries.

• Focused primarily on formal structures: constitutions, legal frameworks, and

bureaucratic institutions.

• Institutions were viewed as static, formal, and legalistic entities.

• Thinkers like Woodrow Wilson, Walter Bagehot, and James Bryce are associated with
this tradition.
 • Emphasized description over analysis, with little attention to informal norms, culture,
or agency.

Crisis of Classical Institutionalism:

• Criticized during the behavioral revolution of the 1950s and 1960s for being
ahistorical, normative, and descriptive.

• Behavioralists (e.g., David Easton) argued that classical institutionalism ignored

individual behavior, attitudes, and the empirical functioning of institutions.

Neo-Institutionalism:

• Emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a response to both the excessive
individualism of rational choice theory and the formalism of traditional
institutionalism.

• Revived interest in institutions but expanded the meaning of "institution" to include

rules, norms, routines, culture, and symbolic systems.

• Emphasized the interaction between structure and agency, and the embeddedness
of individual action within institutional contexts.

Relationship Overview:

Classical Institutionalism Neo-Institutionalism

Focus on formal institutions Focus on both formal and informal institutions

Classical Institutionalism Neo-Institutionalism

Legal and constitutional lens Cultural, historical, rational, and cognitive lenses

Static and descriptive Dynamic and explanatory

Normative analysis Empirical and theoretical analysis

2. Neo-Institutionalism and its Types Definition:

Neo-Institutionalism refers to a broad set of theoretical approaches that recognize the

importance of institutions in shaping political, social, and economic behavior, but go
beyond the rigid formalism of classical institutionalism.

• James G. March and Johan P. Olsen (1984) are seminal contributors, especially
through their work “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life”.
 • They argued that “Institutions provide scripts, rules, and routines that shape individual
behavior and preferences.”

Types of Neo-Institutionalism:

1. Rational Choice Institutionalism

• Origin: Economics and public choice theory (esp. in the U.S. Congress).
• Key Thinkers: Kenneth Shepsle, Barry Weingast, Douglass North.
• Core Idea: Individuals are rational, utility-maximizing agents, but their choices are
constrained by institutions.

• Institutions act as rules of the game (Douglass North) that reduce transaction costs,
shape incentives, and determine outcomes.

• Institutions are endogenous: created and maintained because they benefit the actors
involved.

• Critique: Overemphasis on strategic behavior; ignores norms, culture, and historical

path dependencies.

2. Historical Institutionalism

• Origin: Comparative politics and political history.

• Key Thinkers: Theda Skocpol, Paul Pierson, Kathleen Thelen.

• Core Idea: Institutions are shaped by critical junctures and path dependencies.

• Institutions are sticky and resistant to change once established.

• Focuses on temporal sequences, unintended consequences, and incremental change.

• Highlights how power asymmetries and institutional design advantage certain groups
over time.

• Critique: May neglect agency and strategic behavior in favor of structure.

3. Sociological Institutionalism

• Origin: Sociology and organizational theory (e.g., Meyer and Rowan, 1977).
• Key Thinkers: John W. Meyer, Brian Rowan.
• Core Idea: Institutions are deeply embedded in cultural and cognitive frameworks.

• Focus on the symbolic, moral, and cognitive dimensions of institutions.

• Actions are shaped not just by norms but also by social legitimacy and
appropriateness.
 • Institutions provide “scripts” that actors follow; roles are socially constructed.
• Emphasis on legitimacy over efficiency.
• Critique: Downplays power struggles and agency; sees actors as passive cultural
carriers.

Comparison of Types of Neo-Institutionalism

Feature Rational Choice Historical Sociological

Embedded in historical
View of Actor Rational, strategic Cultural role-bearer
context

Created through critical

Role of Constrain and Shape meanings,
junctures, path
Institutions structure incentives legitimacy, and identity
dependent
Feature Rational Choice Historical Sociological

Sequences, processes, Culture, norms, cognitive

Focus
Utility maximization and outcomes scripts

Key Path dependence, Symbolic systems,

Mechanism Strategic calculation feedback appropriateness

Calculated or
Through punctuated Through changes in
Change through new equilibrium equilibria legitimacy and meaning

Conclusion:

Neo-Institutionalism represents a paradigm shift in political science and related disciplines,

moving from formalist and legal conceptions of institutions toward a more interdisciplinary,
dynamic, and contextual understanding. It has redefined how we study power, agency,
rules, norms, and political outcomes, offering a more nuanced and layered approach to
institutional analysis.