Modern Comparative Politics is a major field of political science that examines and compares political systems, structures, and behaviors across different countries to understand patterns, causes, and consequences of political phenomena. Unlike earlier comparative studies that largely focused on descriptive accounts of political institutions, modern comparative politics is theoretically driven and often employs empirical methods to analyze data across countries. By exploring a wide range of political environments, it seeks to build generalizable theories about how political systems work, how they influence societal outcomes, and how they differ across contexts. Modern comparative politics is shaped by several defining features, including behavioralism, structuralism, institutionalism, rational choice theory, political culture, and the study of globalization and transnational factors.

Behavioralism

One of the major shifts in modern comparative politics is the emphasis on political behavior rather than just institutions. Behavioralism, which gained prominence in the mid-20th century, argues that understanding politics requires examining the individual and collective actions of people within political systems. This approach focuses on voter behavior, political participation, interest group activities, and elite decision-making, viewing politics as the result of human behavior rather than just structural arrangements.

The behavioralist approach uses quantitative methods and data analysis to identify patterns in political behavior across different countries. For instance, behavioralism might analyze factors such as voting patterns, political efficacy, ideology, and political attitudes to explain why certain political outcomes occur. Behavioralism has helped shift the focus of comparative politics from merely comparing formal institutions to understanding how these institutions function in practice, based on the behavior and attitudes of those within the political system.

Structuralism

Structuralism is another key feature of modern comparative politics that emphasizes the economic and social structures influencing political outcomes. Structuralist theories argue that political systems cannot be fully understood without considering the underlying economic relationships and class structures within a society. For example, Marxist approaches to comparative politics fall within structuralism, focusing on how class relations and the distribution of economic power affect political systems and policies.

Structuralism often looks at factors such as class divisions, resource distribution, and economic dependencies to explain why political systems develop in certain ways. Structuralist approaches have been used to explain phenomena like authoritarianism, democracy, and revolution, suggesting that political outcomes are closely linked to a society’s economic base and the relationships between social groups. For example, dependency theory in Latin America posits that the region’s political and economic development is heavily influenced by global economic structures that perpetuate inequalities between wealthy and poor countries.

Institutionalism

Institutionalism has become increasingly important in modern comparative politics, as scholars examine how formal and informal institutions shape political behavior and outcomes. Institutions are rules, norms, and structures that guide political life, including constitutions, electoral systems, bureaucracies, and legal systems. Institutionalism in comparative politics is concerned with how these institutions influence political stability, decision-making, and policy implementation.

One prominent strand, new institutionalism, emphasizes the idea that institutions are not just the background against which politics happens, but they actively shape political behavior by establishing incentives and constraints. For example, electoral systems (e.g., proportional representation vs. first-past-the-post) can determine the number of political parties in a system and the likelihood of coalition governments. Institutionalism also considers informal institutions, such as clientelism or patronage networks, which may operate outside formal rules but still significantly influence political outcomes.

By comparing institutions across countries, institutionalist approaches help explain why similar countries might develop very different political systems. For example, comparative studies might explore why parliamentary systems tend to have higher levels of party discipline compared to presidential systems or how federal structures can affect the distribution of power within a country.

Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theory is a theoretical framework in comparative politics that examines how individuals make political decisions based on rational calculations to maximize their self-interest. This approach assumes that political actors—whether voters, politicians, or organizations—make choices after considering the costs and benefits of different actions.

In comparative politics, rational choice theory is often used to explain electoral behavior, coalition formation, and policy choices. For instance, rational choice theorists analyze how political parties in democratic systems position themselves to appeal to the median voter, as well as how interest groups influence policy by maximizing their lobbying efforts. Rational choice theory has been applied to voting behavior across countries, explaining why voters may choose one party over another based on policy preferences, economic expectations, or short-term gains.

While rational choice theory has faced criticism for sometimes oversimplifying human behavior and ignoring social context, it has provided important insights into strategic interactions in politics. Comparative studies have used rational choice theory to explore phenomena such as coalition politics in multi-party systems and the behavior of autocratic leaders who seek to maintain power through strategic repression and resource distribution.

Political Culture

Political culture is a critical concept in modern comparative politics, focusing on the values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape the political behavior of individuals and groups within a society. Political culture emphasizes how historical, cultural, and social factors influence political stability, legitimacy, and participation.

The concept of political culture can help explain why certain countries develop stable democracies while others experience frequent regime changes or authoritarianism. For example, studies in comparative politics have examined civic culture in Western democracies, looking at how public attitudes towards democracy, trust in institutions, and political engagement contribute to democratic stability. Political culture studies also explore phenomena such as nationalism, ethnic identity, and religious influences on politics, recognizing that cultural factors can play a critical role in shaping political systems.

Example: The political culture approach has been used to analyze the persistence of democratic values in Western countries, as well as the influence of Confucian values on East Asian political systems, which prioritize social harmony and authority over individual freedom. By comparing cultural values and norms across countries, political culture studies can offer explanations for the diversity in political practices and institutions around the world.

Globalization and Transnational Influences

Globalization and transnational influences are increasingly central to comparative politics, recognizing that domestic politics are often shaped by global forces. Economic integration, international organizations, migration, and global communication networks have created a more interconnected world where national boundaries are less significant. This has led to the study of how global trends and transnational actors affect domestic political systems.

For instance, comparative politics examines how international organizations (such as the United Nations, the European Union, and the World Bank) influence national policies by setting norms and providing incentives for specific policies. Additionally, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational corporations (TNCs) exert significant influence on national politics, pushing for changes in areas such as human rights, environmental policy, and labor standards.

Globalization has also brought new challenges, such as global inequality, transnational terrorism, and climate change, which require cooperative governance across borders. Comparative politics explores how states respond to these challenges, with some embracing international cooperation while others adopt nationalist or isolationist policies. This approach highlights the growing complexity of governance in a globalized world and the need for comparative analysis to understand the interplay between domestic and international forces.

Comparative Analysis of Democratization and Regime Change

One of the core themes in modern comparative politics is the study of democratization and regime change. Scholars analyze factors that lead countries to transition from authoritarian regimes to democracies or vice versa, exploring political, social, and economic conditions that facilitate or hinder democratic governance. This includes examining democratic consolidation, the process through which new democracies stabilize, as well as understanding democratic backsliding, where democracies revert to authoritarian practices.

Comparative studies on democratization often investigate the role of civil society, economic development, political institutions, and international influences in fostering or undermining democracy. For example, modernization theory argues that as countries become more economically developed, they are more likely to adopt democratic systems due to the growth of a middle class that demands political representation. Others explore how external factors, like foreign aid or international pressure, impact democratization, particularly in countries transitioning from authoritarianism.

Methodological Advancements

Modern comparative politics has made significant strides in methodology, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze political systems. Comparative politics often relies on cross-national statistical analyses, using large datasets to identify patterns and causal relationships between variables such as economic development, education levels, and political stability. Advanced statistical techniques, like regression analysis and experimental designs, allow researchers to make inferences about causal relationships in complex political phenomena.

At the same time, qualitative methods—such as case studies, interviews, and process tracing—remain valuable in comparative politics. These methods are particularly useful for studying unique political systems, historical developments, and detailed mechanisms of change. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) combines elements of both approaches to analyze patterns across small-to-medium sample sizes.

Conclusion

Modern comparative politics encompasses a diverse array of approaches and focuses on understanding political systems through behavioral, structural, institutional, rational, cultural, and global lenses. By employing a range of methodologies and theories, modern comparative politics seeks to provide insight into the complexities of political life in different countries, offering explanations for both universal patterns and unique differences. As global challenges and international influences continue to grow, comparative politics remains essential for understanding how political systems adapt, transform, and influence the lives of people across the world.

The political systems approach in comparative politics, derived from the work of political scientist David Easton, provides a framework for analyzing how different political entities function within broader social contexts. This approach, which emerged in the mid-20th century, has become one of the foundational models in the field of comparative politics, offering insights into how political systems interact with their environments and manage demands, stresses, and change.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Concepts

The political systems approach is grounded in systems theory, originally developed in the natural sciences and later adapted to the social sciences. David Easton defined a political system as “a set of interactions abstracted from the totality of social behavior, through which values are authoritatively allocated.” This definition highlights the interactional and functional aspects of political systems and the role of authority and legitimacy in governance.

Easton’s model of a political system includes three primary components:

1. Inputs: These are the demands and supports that arise from society and influence the political system. Demands represent the needs or requests from individuals and groups (e.g., calls for economic reform, education, healthcare improvements), while support refers to the legitimacy and backing provided by the populace.

2. Process (or Throughput): This is where demands are converted into authoritative decisions or policies. The process involves complex interactions within the system, including decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation. It reflects how the political system processes societal demands and transforms them into binding outputs.

3. Outputs: These are the decisions, policies, and actions taken by the political system in response to inputs. Outputs have an impact on society, influencing social, economic, and political landscapes and, in turn, affecting future demands and support levels.

4. Feedback Loop: One of the key contributions of Easton’s approach is the emphasis on feedback, where the results of political outputs feed back into the system, influencing future demands, supports, and the system’s overall stability. Feedback allows the system to adjust to societal changes and either enhance or diminish its legitimacy.

Importance and Contributions

The political systems approach has contributed significantly to comparative politics by providing a structured method to examine how different political entities function within various socio-economic and cultural environments. Some of the main contributions of this approach include:

• Holistic Perspective: The systems approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of a political system with its social, economic, and cultural environment. This holistic view enables researchers to understand how external pressures influence political stability and decision-making processes, offering a more integrated understanding of governance.

• Stability and Change Analysis: The model’s feedback mechanism allows for the analysis of stability and change within political systems. By understanding how feedback impacts inputs, researchers can assess the adaptability and resilience of political systems over time. For example, Easton’s model helps explain why some systems, like democracies, tend to have more adaptive feedback mechanisms, while authoritarian regimes may struggle to address societal demands, risking instability.

• Cross-Cultural Applicability: The political systems approach is widely applicable across different political contexts, enabling comparative studies between various forms of government, from democracies to authoritarian regimes. This adaptability makes it a powerful tool for comparing systems across nations, highlighting common patterns and differences.

• Focus on Legitimacy and Authority: Easton placed a strong emphasis on the importance of legitimacy in the stability of political systems. When a system loses legitimacy, it risks a loss of support, increased demands for change, and potentially, systemic breakdown. This focus is critical for analyzing contemporary issues like political disenchantment, populism, and the decline of democratic institutions in various parts of the world.

Practical Applications in Comparative Politics

The political systems approach has been used extensively to study a wide range of political phenomena, such as political stability, policy-making processes, and regime change. Some of the prominent applications include:

• Analyzing Democratic Resilience: In democracies, the systems approach helps examine how institutions respond to citizens’ demands and how feedback mechanisms (e.g., elections, referendums) reinforce or weaken democratic legitimacy. Comparative studies have applied this model to understand why some democracies are more resilient to crises than others, examining the feedback process in places like Western Europe versus emerging democracies in Eastern Europe.

• Authoritarian Regime Stability: The approach has also been used to evaluate authoritarian systems, where feedback mechanisms are often suppressed. The absence of open feedback channels in authoritarian regimes can lead to discontent and unrest, as societal demands go unaddressed. This has been evident in various historical cases, such as the fall of the Soviet Union or recent political instability in authoritarian states where political suppression ultimately led to crises.

• Policy Analysis in Developing Nations: The systems approach has been instrumental in studying policy effectiveness in developing countries, where governments face significant demands from their populations for services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. By understanding the demand-support dynamic and feedback mechanisms, researchers can assess how these governments adapt their policies to maintain legitimacy and respond to evolving social needs.

Limitations and Criticisms

While the political systems approach has provided valuable insights, it is not without limitations. Some of the main critiques include:

• Abstract and Mechanical: Critics argue that Easton’s model is overly abstract and treats political systems as mechanistic entities. This simplification overlooks the complexities of human behavior, individual agency, and ideological conflicts that shape political outcomes. By emphasizing system processes, the approach may fail to capture the nuances of political struggles and individual motivations.

• Limited Agency and Power Dynamics: The political systems approach has been criticized for its lack of focus on power relations and agency within political systems. Unlike models that emphasize conflict, negotiation, and power struggles, Easton’s framework primarily views politics as a process of managing demands and support, downplaying the significance of political actors and groups that influence decision-making through power and coercion.

• Inadequate Explanation of Change: Although Easton incorporated feedback mechanisms, critics argue that the model is limited in explaining fundamental political transformations and revolutionary changes. The systems approach is more effective in explaining incremental change within stable systems, but it struggles to address why some systems experience sudden and profound upheavals, as seen in revolutions or regime collapses.

• Ethnocentric Bias: Some scholars argue that the model has an ethnocentric bias due to its origins in Western political thought. It may not fully account for the unique cultural and historical factors influencing non-Western political systems, especially those that do not fit neatly into a systems-based framework. This has led to critiques that the model imposes a Western-centric view of political stability and legitimacy.

Conclusion

The political systems approach has been a significant advancement in comparative politics, providing a structured way to analyze how political systems manage societal demands, maintain stability, and adapt to change. Its contributions to understanding political stability, legitimacy, and resilience have shaped both theoretical and empirical studies, offering insights into democratic resilience, authoritarian stability, and policy-making dynamics in diverse contexts.

However, the model’s limitations—particularly its abstract nature, limited focus on power dynamics, and challenges in explaining transformative change—suggest the need for complementary approaches. Despite these critiques, the political systems approach remains an influential model in comparative politics, valuable for understanding institutional stability, legitimacy, and policy adaptation in a rapidly changing world.

The modern approach to comparative politics emerged as a response to the limitations of the traditional approaches that had previously dominated the field. Comparative politics as a discipline sought to understand political systems across countries, but early methods were often descriptive, Eurocentric, and focused on normative questions rather than empirical analysis. The development of a modern approach reflected a shift toward scientific rigor, empirical research, and systematic comparison across different political systems, grounded in both social science methodologies and interdisciplinary insights.

The Need for a Modern Approach in Comparative Politics

Shortcomings of the Traditional Approach

The traditional approach to comparative politics, also known as the legal-institutional approach, was primarily concerned with the formal institutions of government—such as constitutions, legislatures, and courts. Rooted in legalistic and historical methods, this approach was often descriptive rather than analytical, focusing on the formal structures of government in individual countries without systematically comparing their processes or outcomes. Several factors necessitated the shift toward a modern approach:

1. Descriptive and Normative Focus: Traditional approaches in comparative politics were largely descriptive, detailing how government structures were organized in various states but lacking a broader analysis of political dynamics and processes. It also had a normative bias, often prescribing what “should be” rather than investigating what “is.”

2. Eurocentrism and Limited Scope: Early comparative studies were heavily Eurocentric, focusing primarily on Western political systems. This limited scope failed to address the diversity and complexity of political systems in non-Western countries, particularly in newly independent states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

3. Static Analysis: Traditional approaches often ignored the dynamic aspects of political life, such as social movements, class conflicts, and ideological shifts. These approaches viewed political systems as static and fixed entities, without acknowledging the continuous processes of change, adaptation, and influence exerted by social, economic, and cultural factors.

4. Lack of Empirical Rigor: The traditional approach relied on historical and legalistic methods rather than empirical data, limiting its ability to provide accurate, evidence-based insights into political phenomena. This lack of empirical rigor made it challenging to generalize findings and test hypotheses, an essential part of scientific inquiry.

Global Political Changes and the Rise of Behavioralism

The need for a modern approach was also driven by post-World War II global transformations and the rise of new social science methodologies, such as behavioralism. During this period, the world saw a wave of decolonization, leading to the emergence of many new states with distinct political systems and challenges. Scholars recognized that the legal-institutional focus of traditional approaches was insufficient to understand the complexities of governance and political development in these newly formed states. The behavioral revolution in political science further emphasized the importance of empirical research, quantitative methods, and focus on political behavior over mere institutional descriptions.

Behavioralism encouraged the study of politics as an empirical science, with an emphasis on hypotheses, data collection, and the study of political behavior, including voting patterns, political socialization, and elite dynamics. This paved the way for the development of a more comprehensive and systematic approach in comparative politics that could be applied universally.

Characteristics of the Modern Approach to Comparative Politics

The modern approach to comparative politics incorporates a range of theoretical frameworks and methodologies, drawing from fields such as sociology, psychology, and economics. The main features of the modern approach include:

1. Empirical and Scientific Methods: The modern approach emphasizes the scientific method, using empirical data, hypothesis testing, and statistical techniques to understand political phenomena. Quantitative methods, such as survey research and regression analysis, became crucial for collecting and analyzing data on political behavior, institutions, and policies.

2. Focus on Political Processes and Behavior: Unlike the traditional focus on formal structures, the modern approach examines political processes and behavior within and around these structures. This includes studying political participation, party competition, leadership styles, political socialization, and the impact of public opinion on policy-making.

3. Comparative and Cross-National Analysis: The modern approach prioritizes systematic comparison across countries, rather than studying political systems in isolation. Scholars look for patterns, similarities, and differences across different political systems, which allows for more generalizable conclusions and insights.

4. Interdisciplinary Perspective: Modern comparative politics integrates insights from multiple disciplines, including economics, sociology, and anthropology, to develop a more nuanced understanding of political dynamics. For example, the modernization theory uses insights from economics to explain how economic development influences political change.

5. Focus on Systemic Theories and Models: Building on systems theory, scholars like David Easton developed models that view political systems as entities interacting with their environment. This led to theories such as the political systems approach, structural-functionalism, and dependency theory, which allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of how different political systems function and adapt to change.

Is the Modern Approach an Improvement?

The modern approach marks a significant improvement over the traditional approach in several ways, enhancing both the depth and breadth of comparative political analysis. Some key improvements include:

1. Greater Explanatory Power

The modern approach provides a better understanding of political behavior, social influences, and economic factors affecting governance. While the traditional approach often focused on the “ideal” structure of government, the modern approach investigates how institutions work in practice and how they are affected by broader social forces. For example, political culture theory, developed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, shows how cultural attitudes toward authority and civic participation influence democratic stability, a factor overlooked by traditional models.

2. Ability to Address Complex Political Phenomena

The modern approach enables scholars to address complex political phenomena such as political development, regime change, and political instability. Through theories like dependency theory and world-systems theory, modern comparative politics explores how global economic structures and colonial histories shape political outcomes in developing nations.

3. Enhanced Scientific Rigor

By emphasizing empirical research, the modern approach provides a scientifically rigorous foundation for comparative politics. Hypotheses can be tested, variables can be measured, and patterns can be identified with a degree of precision unavailable to traditional approaches. This empirical basis allows for more reliable and valid conclusions.

4. Comparative Focus and Global Applicability

Modern approaches are not limited to Western systems and can be applied across diverse contexts, making them better suited to understanding political phenomena in the Global South. The post-colonial states of Africa and Asia, for example, pose unique challenges to governance, often marked by ethnic diversity, economic dependency, and weak institutional structures. Modern approaches, such as state theory and post-colonial theory, address these unique political realities, while traditional approaches failed to account for them adequately.

5. Theoretical Diversity and Innovation

The modern approach has led to a rich array of theories and models that offer multiple perspectives on political phenomena. For instance, rational choice theory focuses on how individuals make decisions based on self-interest, while institutionalism examines how institutions shape political outcomes. This diversity of approaches allows for a deeper and more flexible understanding of politics.

Criticisms and Limitations of the Modern Approach

While the modern approach has clear advantages, it is not without its criticisms:

• Reductionism and Over-Quantification: Some critics argue that the modern approach is overly quantitative, which can lead to reductionism, where complex political phenomena are oversimplified into numerical data, losing valuable contextual nuances.

• Lack of Emphasis on Normative Analysis: The focus on empirical analysis has led some to criticize the modern approach for neglecting normative questions about what “ought to be” in political systems. Some argue that understanding ethical and moral dimensions is essential to the study of governance and justice.

• Ethnocentrism in Theoretical Models: Some theories within the modern approach, such as modernization theory, have been critiqued for their Western-centric assumptions about economic and political development, which do not always align with the experiences of non-Western societies.

Conclusion

The modern approach to comparative politics represents a substantial improvement over the traditional approach, addressing its limitations by incorporating scientific rigor, empirical analysis, and cross-national comparisons. It provides a more comprehensive and flexible framework for understanding diverse political systems, political behavior, and the impact of social, economic, and cultural factors on governance. By moving beyond the limitations of descriptive and normative analysis, the modern approach has allowed comparative politics to evolve into a truly scientific discipline, capable of analyzing complex and global political phenomena.

However, as with any approach, it is essential to recognize the limitations of modern methods and to continue refining them, especially to accommodate diverse cultural and political contexts. Despite its criticisms, the modern approach remains a pivotal step in the evolution of comparative politics, transforming the field into a rigorous, scientifically grounded area of study that is well-equipped to address the complexities of contemporary political life.

Comparative politics is the subfield of political science that involves the systematic analysis, comparison, and study of various political systems, institutions, processes, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. This discipline seeks to identify patterns, similarities, and differences among political entities in order to develop insights, theories, and generalizations about political phenomena and their underlying causes. By examining and comparing different cases, comparative politics aims to provide a deeper understanding of how political systems function and how they respond to challenges within diverse cultural, historical, and social contexts.

The primary goal of comparative politics is to identify patterns, trends, and factors that influence political outcomes in different countries. Researchers in this field often compare different countries or regions to draw insights and develop theories about political phenomena. By comparing different cases, scholars can identify general principles and causal relationships that may shed light on the functioning of political systems and the factors that shape them.

According to John Blondel, comparative politics is “the study of patterns of national governments in the contemporary world”.

M.G. Smith described that “Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change”.

E.A Freeman stated that “Comparative Politics is comparative analysis of the various forms of govt. and diverse political institutions”.

Comparative politics can encompass a wide range of topics, including:

1. 1. Political Institutions: Comparative politics studies the structures of government, including systems such as democracies, autocracies, and hybrid regimes. It examines the roles and powers of various branches of government, electoral systems, and legal frameworks.
   2. Political Culture and Behavior: This area focuses on citizen attitudes, political participation, voting behavior, and political ideologies. It explores how cultural and social factors influence political preferences and actions.
   3. Public Policy: Comparative politics analyzes how different countries develop and implement policies to address challenges in areas such as economics, healthcare, education, and social welfare.
   4. State-Society Relations: This topic explores the interaction between governments and civil society, including social movements, interest groups, and non-governmental organizations.
   5. Conflict and Cooperation: Comparative politics examines the causes of domestic and international conflicts, as well as mechanisms for conflict resolution and cooperation between nations.
   6. Development and Governance: Scholars study how different political systems impact economic development, governance effectiveness, and the distribution of resources.

Evolution

The evolution of comparative politics as a subfield within political science has undergone several key stages over time. While the following overview is not exhaustive, it highlights some of the significant developments and shifts that have shaped the field’s progression:

1. Early Foundations and Area Studies (19th Century – Early 20th Century): Comparative politics has roots dating back to the 19th century, where scholars like Alexis de Tocqueville and Max Weber made comparative observations about political systems. This early stage often focused on studying individual countries or regions in isolation, emphasizing cultural and historical factors.
2. Modernization Theory and Behavioralism (Mid-20th Century): In the mid-20th century, the field began to evolve with the emergence of modernization theory and behavioralism. Scholars sought to identify universal patterns of political development and behavior across different countries, focusing on factors such as economic development, industrialization, and citizen attitudes. Comparative studies were conducted with an aim to discover generalizable principles.
3. Institutionalism and Structured Comparisons (1960s – 1970s): During this period, there was a growing emphasis on examining political institutions and their impact on political behavior and outcomes. Comparative politics increasingly used structured and systematic methods to compare political systems, focusing on variables such as electoral systems, party systems, and executive-legislative relations.
4. Critiques and Cultural Turn (1980s – 1990s): The 1980s and 1990s saw a shift toward critiques of the assumptions underlying comparative politics. Scholars questioned the applicability of Western theories to non-Western contexts and highlighted the importance of cultural, historical, and contextual factors in shaping political outcomes. This period saw the rise of postcolonial and feminist perspectives within the field.
5. New Institutionalism and Rational Choice (Late 20th Century): The late 20th century witnessed the rise of new institutionalism and rational choice approaches within comparative politics. These perspectives focused on formal political institutions and their role in shaping political behavior and outcomes. Rational choice theory emphasized the rational calculations of individuals in making political decisions.
6. Globalization and Complex Interdependence (Late 20th Century – 21st Century): As globalization intensified, comparative politics expanded its focus to include the study of international factors that influence domestic politics. This period saw increased attention to topics such as transnational issues, global governance, and the impact of international organizations on state behavior.
7. Methodological Innovations and Mixed Methods (21st Century): Contemporary comparative politics continues to evolve with the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Scholars often employ mixed-method approaches to gain a more comprehensive understanding of complex political phenomena. Additionally, the field increasingly engages with interdisciplinary approaches, incorporating insights from sociology, anthropology, economics, and other disciplines.

Throughout its evolution, comparative politics has become more inclusive, recognizing the diversity of political systems and the importance of context in shaping political outcomes. The field remains dynamic, adapting to changes in the global political landscape and incorporating new theoretical perspectives and methodological tools.

Comparative governments vs Comparative politics

Comparative governments and comparative politics are closely related subfields within political  science that share similarities but also have distinct focuses and objectives. Here’s a comparison between the two:

1. Scope and Focus:

• Comparative Governments: This subfield primarily focuses on the examination of the structures, functions, and dynamics of various governmental systems. It delves into the specific institutions, branches of government, and decision-making processes within different political systems.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics, on the other hand, takes a broader approach by analyzing not only governmental structures but also the entire political landscape, including institutions, political behavior, public policies, political culture, and more.

2. Level of Analysis:

• Comparative Governments: This subfield often employs a micro-level analysis, zooming in on the details of specific government institutions, such as executive offices, legislatures, and judiciaries.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics operates at a more macro-level, considering a range of factors that influence the functioning of political systems. It includes the interactions between various political institutions and actors.

3. Emphasis:

• Comparative Governments: The main emphasis here is on the structural aspects of government, such as the design of constitutions, forms of executive leadership, types of legislatures, and judicial systems.
• Comparative Politics: This subfield emphasizes the broader study of political systems, their interactions, and their outcomes. It looks at how political institutions, behavior, and culture interact and influence one another.

4. Questions Addressed:

• Comparative Governments: Researchers in this subfield may address questions related to how different forms of government (e.g., presidential vs. parliamentary) affect policy-making, governance, and decision-making.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics researchers address a wide range of questions, including the study of political ideologies, public opinion, social movements, political parties, electoral systems, and the impact of globalization on political systems.

5. Methodology:

• Comparative Governments: Research in this subfield often involves in-depth analysis of specific government structures and institutions using case studies, interviews, and document analysis.
• Comparative Politics: Research methods in comparative politics vary widely and can include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Researchers may use cross-national statistical analysis, surveys, ethnography, and historical research to explore political phenomena.

6. Interdisciplinary Connections:

• Comparative Governments: While still rooted in political science, comparative governments may have stronger connections to legal studies and constitutional law due to its focus on government structures.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics often integrates insights from various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, economics, and international relations, to provide a more holistic understanding of political systems.

In summary, while both comparative governments and comparative politics involve the study of political systems, the former focuses more narrowly on governmental structures and processes, whereas the latter takes a broader approach encompassing a wider range of political phenomena and interactions.

Nature of Comparative politics

The nature of comparative politics is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach, its focus on cross-national analysis, and its exploration of the diverse elements that shape political systems and behaviors. Here are some key aspects that highlight the nature of comparative politics:

1. Interdisciplinary Approach: Comparative politics draws on insights and methodologies from various disciplines, including political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, history, and more. This interdisciplinary approach helps provide a comprehensive understanding of political systems by considering cultural, historical, economic, and social factors.
2. Cross-National Analysis: At its core, comparative politics involves the systematic comparison of political systems, institutions, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. This cross-national analysis allows researchers to identify patterns, similarities, and differences that shed light on the functioning of political systems and the factors that influence them.
3. Contextual Sensitivity: Comparative politics recognizes the importance of context in shaping political outcomes. It acknowledges that political systems are embedded within specific cultural, historical, and social contexts, and therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate. This sensitivity to context contributes to a more nuanced understanding of political phenomena.
4. Theory Development: Comparative politics aims to develop theories and generalizations about political behavior and outcomes. By systematically comparing different cases, researchers can identify underlying causal mechanisms and principles that explain why certain political phenomena occur. These theories contribute to the broader body of knowledge in political  science.
5. Methodological Pluralism: Comparative politics employs a wide range of research methods to explore political systems. Researchers use both quantitative methods (statistical analysis, surveys) and qualitative methods (case studies, ethnography) to gather data and generate insights. The choice of method often depends on the research question and the nature of the phenomena being studied.
6. Focus on Political Institutions and Behavior: Comparative politics examines not only the formal structures of political institutions (such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries) but also the behavior of political actors, including citizens, political parties, interest groups, and elites. This dual focus provides a comprehensive view of how political systems function.
7. Globalization and Interdependence: The nature of comparative politics has evolved to reflect the increasing interconnectedness of the world. Scholars now examine how international factors, such as globalization, trade, migration, and international organizations, impact domestic political systems and policies.
8. Diversity of Political Systems: Comparative politics recognizes the diversity of political systems around the world. It encompasses the study of democracies, autocracies, hybrid regimes, federal systems, and various other governance structures. This diversity allows for a more inclusive understanding of political realities.
9. Practical Relevance: Comparative politics has practical implications for policymakers, international relations, and global governance. Insights gained from cross-national analysis can inform policy decisions, aid in conflict resolution, and contribute to a deeper understanding of global political dynamics.

In essence, the nature of comparative politics involves exploring the complexities of political systems through a multi-faceted lens, considering context, theory, methodology, and interdisciplinary perspectives to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of political phenomena.

Scope of comparative politics

The scope of comparative politics is broad and encompasses a wide range of topics, issues, and areas of inquiry. It involves the systematic study and analysis of political systems, institutions, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. Here are some key areas that fall within the scope of comparative politics:

1. Political Institutions: Comparative politics examines various political institutions such as executive branches, legislatures, judiciaries, and local governments. It explores how these institutions are structured, how they interact, and how they shape political processes and outcomes.
2. Forms of Government: The scope includes the study of different forms of government, including democracies, autocracies, monarchies, and hybrid regimes. It investigates how these forms of government function, their strengths, weaknesses, and the impact they have on citizens’ lives.
3. Political Behavior: Comparative politics explores political behavior, including voting patterns, political participation, public opinion, and political ideologies. It seeks to understand why individuals and groups make certain political choices and how these choices impact the political system.
4. Political Parties and Electoral Systems: This area focuses on the role of political parties, their organization, ideologies, and electoral strategies. Comparative politics also examines various electoral systems, such as proportional representation and first-past-the-post, and how they influence representation and governance.
5. Public Policy: The scope includes the study of public policies across different countries, including social welfare, healthcare, education, economic policies, and environmental regulations. Researchers analyze policy formulation, implementation, and the effects of policies on societies.
6. Political Culture and Identity: Comparative politics investigates the cultural and identity-based factors that influence political behavior and attitudes. It explores how cultural norms, traditions, and historical experiences shape citizens’ perceptions of politics and their engagement with the political process.
7. Conflict and Cooperation: This area focuses on domestic and international conflict, negotiation, diplomacy, and conflict resolution. Comparative politics examines the causes of conflicts, how different political systems manage conflicts, and the role of international actors in mediating disputes.
8. Globalization and Transnational Issues: The scope of comparative politics has expanded to include the study of how globalization impacts political systems. This includes analyzing the effects of global trade, migration, communication, and the role of international organizations on domestic politics.
9. State-Society Relations: Comparative politics explores the interactions between governments and civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social movements, interest groups, and advocacy networks. It examines how these interactions influence policy-making and political change.
10. Development and Governance: The field studies the relationship between political systems and economic development, examining how different governance structures impact economic growth, poverty reduction, and inequality.
11. Institutional Design and Reform: Comparative politics also delves into the design and reform of political institutions. It examines how constitutional design, electoral reforms, and institutional changes can influence political stability and democratic governance.
12. Regime Transitions and Democratization: The scope includes the study of regime changes, transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, and democratic consolidation. It analyzes the factors that facilitate or hinder the establishment and maintenance of democratic political systems.

The scope of comparative politics is not limited to these areas alone; it is a dynamic and evolving field that adapts to changes in the global political landscape and incorporates emerging issues and perspectives. By systematically comparing different cases, comparative politics contributes to our understanding of political systems, their interactions, and the factors that shape their outcomes.

Conclusion

Overall, the evolution of comparative politics reflects its adaptability to changing theoretical paradigms, methodological innovations, and the complex global political landscape. As the field continues to evolve, it remains a crucial avenue for understanding political systems’ dynamics and contributing to the broader discourse on governance, democracy, and international relations.

Political investigators use different approaches tools to arrive at greater political understanding. Approaches support in defining the kinds of facts which are relevant.

The diversity of approaches is used by political scientists to attack the complexity of political systems and behaviour.

Conventionally, the study of comparative politics is termed as ‘comparative government’. It includes the study of political institutions existing in various states .The features, advantages, demerits, similarities and dissimilarities of political institutions were compared. It was an attempt to ascertain the best of political institutions. The focus (Traditional view), continued to remain popular up to the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, the study of political government underwent revolutionary changes. The traditional focus of the study of politics got substituted by new scope, methodology, concepts, techniques which were known as contemporary view of the study of politics. Political researchers made great attempts to develop a new science of ‘comparative politics’. They espoused comprehensiveness, realism, precision and use of scientific methods as the new goals for the study of comparative politics. This new endeavour is nowadays promoted as ‘modern’ comparative politics. In the modern assessment, the scope of comparative politics is much wider. It includes the analysis and comparison of the actual behaviour of political structures, formal as well as informal. Researchers believe that these political structures, governmental or non- governmental, directly or indirectly affect the process of politics in all political systems.

Both traditional and modern comparative politics adopt different approaches to its study. Traditional scientists follow narrow and normative approach. It involves descriptive studies with a legal institutional framework and normative prescriptive focus. Whereas modern political scientists follow empirical, analytical studies with a process orientated or behavioural focus and they adopt scientific methodology. It seeks to analyse and compare empirically the actual behaviour of political structures.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES

The traditional approach to Political Science was broadly predominant till the occurrence of the Second World War. These approaches were mainly associated with the traditional outlook of politics which underlined the study of the state and government. Consequently, traditional approaches are principally concerned with the study of the organization and activities of the state and principles and the ideas which motivate political organizations and activities. These approaches were normative and principled. The political philosophers supporting these approaches and raised questions such ‘what should be an ideal state?’ According to them, the study of Political Science should be limited to the formal structures of the government, laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, the supporters of the traditional approaches stress various norms such as what ‘ought to be’ or ‘should be’ rather than ‘what is’.

Characteristics of Traditional approaches:

• Traditional approaches are mostly normative and stresses on the values of politics. 
• Prominence is on the study of different formal political structures. 
• Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research. 
• These approaches consider that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can never be scientific.

There are many types of traditional approaches that are as follows:

Philosophical approach

Philosophical approach is conventional approach to study politics. Customarily, the study of politics was subjugated by philosophical reflections on universal political values that were regarded as essential to the just state and the good state. The oldest approach to the study of politics is philosophical. Philosophy “is the study or science of truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being.” It entails that philosophy or philosophical approach tries to explore the truth of political incidents or events. It discovers the objective of political writings or the purpose of political writer.

Main aim of philosophical approach is to evaluate the consequences of events in a logical and scientific manner. Van Dyke opined that “philosophy denotes thought about thought. Somewhat more broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and means, purposes and methods.” The purpose of philosophical approach is to explain the words and terms used by the political theorists. The enquiry started by the philosophical approach removes confusion about the assumptions.

Several Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle were the creators of this approach. The main subject of Plato’s writings was to define the nature of an ideal society. This approach states that values are inseparable from facts. It is mainly an ethical and normative study of politics, hence is concerned with what ‘should be’ or ‘ought to be’. This approach seeks to understand our fundamental nature and aim as human beings, recognizing principles and standards of right conduct in political life. It is normative in character and believes in developing norms or certain standards. It followed the logical method where investigator has his own values and determined philosophies.

Benefit of philosophical approach is that it enters into the depth of every aspect of political phenomena and examines them without any partiality. Its interpretation of political activities conjures interest in the minds of students of politics. Words and phrases used by philosophers highlight point on the subject. Philosophical approach enhances linguistic clarity. That is why it is said that this approach aims at thought about thought.

Philosophical approach use procedure of logical analysis. It uses reason to explore the truth. The truth which this approach establishes may be of various kinds-normative, descriptive or prescriptive. But the philosophical approach is indifferent to the nature or category of truth.

This approach also tries to establish standards of good, right and just. Many critics observed that this approach determines what is in the interest of the public and he identifies interest more with ends that with means.

In the huge arena of political science, there are a number of great or outstanding books. Philosophical approach explores the meaning and central theme of these books as well as the exact purpose of the authors. In the contemporary Greek city-states of Plato morality, moral values and idealism ruined to such an extent that he received a great shock and seriously thought to recuperate these and this urge encouraged him to write The Republic. He wanted to establish that politics and morality are not an etheric concepts. Rather, an ideal and moral body politic can be made a real one through the selfless administration by a philosopher-king. John Locke composed his Second Treatise to rationalize the interests and objectives of the new middle class and he struggle of people for liberty.

Other political philosopher such as Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote to support royal absolutism. Some critics may not agree with the views of these philosophers or the arguments of these books, but it must not be forgotten that the books were written at particular and critical moment of history.

It is well established that Philosophical approach helps people to understand the contemporary history and the nature of politics suggested by philosophers. In other words, the philosophical approach aids to comprehend the political ideologies of past centuries. In this sense, the philosophical approach is very important for researchers and people.

Application of the philosophical approach in political science focuses on the great ideas, values and doctrines of politics. The normative-philosophical approach is the ancient and the least scientific approach to the study of politics and it has been taken over although not completely displaced by contemporary approaches.

Criticism of the Philosophical Approach

Though philosophical approach is highly important for scholars and other people to the study of politics, critics have raised several problems about its worth. It is documented in literature that one of the central ideas of political philosophy is idealism and it is conspicuous in Plato’s The Republic. Critics argued that idealism itself is quite good but when its practical application arises it appears to be a myth.

Plato emphasized Idealism in his theory, but it had not practical importance and be fully realised that idealism would never be translated into reality. It is a subject of absolute imagination. Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote with the only purpose of supporting the status quo.

The philosophical intellectuals of the earlier periods were impractical philosophers. They had no intention to promulgate ideas which can change society. They were apathetic to people’s liking and disliking, their love for liberty, their sorrows and sufferings and they failed to provide prophylactic devices. As an academic discipline, philosophical approach is appropriate, but in practical guide for action, it has barely any importance.

Historical approach

This approach states that political theory can be only understood when the historical factors are taken into consideration. It highlights on the study of history of every political reality to analyse any situation. Political theorists like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning believed that politics and history are strongly inter-related, and therefore, the study of politics always should have a historical viewpoint. Sabine considered that Political Science should include all those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers since Plato. History defines about the past as well as links it with the present events. Without studying the past political events, institutions and political environment, the analysis of the present would remain largely imperfect.

Main attribute of historical approach is that history as a written or recorded subject and focuses on the past events. From history, researchers come to know how man was in the past and what he is now. History is the store-house of events. From the profiles, autobiographies, descriptions by authors and journalists investigators know what event occurred in the past.

It is to be prominent that the events must have political revealing or they must be politically significant. These events provide the best materials upon which theory and principles of political science are built. History communicates researchers how government, political parties and many other institutions worked, their successes and failures and from these, they receive lessons which guide them in determining the future course of action.

Evaluation of Historical Approach: The historical approach to the study of politics has numerous challenges from several quarters. One of the main fulcrums of the challenges is that history has two faces. One is documentation of facts which is quite naive and the other is construal of facts and phenomena. The accretion of evidences is to be judged from a proper perspective.

The implication is that adequate care should be taken while evaluating evidence and facts and such a caution is not always strictly followed and, as a result, the historical facts do not serve the purpose of those who use it. This is the main complaint against the historical approach to the study of politics.

Alan Ball has also criticized the historical approach. He debated that “past evidence does leave-alarming gaps, and political history is often simply a record of great men and great events, rather than a comprehensive account of total political activity.” Very few historians interpret historical events and evidences broadly and freely . 

Institutional approach

There is a strong belief that philosophy, history and law have bestowed to the study of politics and it is in the field of institutional approaches. Institutional approaches are ancient and important approach to the study of Political Science. These approaches mainly deals with the formal aspects of government and politics. Institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal political structures like legislature, executive, and judiciary. It focused on the rules of the political system, the powers of the various institutions, the legislative bodies, and how the constitution worked. Main drawback of this approach was its narrow focus on formal structures and arrangements. In far- reaching terms, an institution can be described as ‘any persistent system of activities in any pattern of group behaviour. More concretely, an institution has been regarded as ‘offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy, each agency having certain functions and powers.

The study of institutions has been dominant not only to the arena of comparative politics, but to the political science field as a whole. Many writers have argued that institutions have shaped political behaviour and social change. These authors have taken an “institutionalist” approach which treat institutions as independent variables.

The institutional approach to political analysis emphasises on the formal structures and agencies of government. It originally concentrated on the development and operation of legislatures, executives and judiciaries. As the approach developed however, the list is extended to include political parties, constitutions, bureaucracies, interest groups and other institutions which are more or less enduringly engaged in politics.

Though, descriptive-institutional approach is slightly old, political experts still concentrate chiefly on scrutinising the major political institutions of the state such as the executive, legislature, the civil service, the judiciary and local government, and from these examinations, valuable insights as to their organisation can be drawn, proposals for reform conversed and general conclusions obtainable. The approach has been critiqued for the disregard of the informal aspects of politics, such as, individual norms, social beliefs, cultural values, groups’ attitudes, personality and the processes. Institutional approach is also criticized for being too narrow. It ignores the role of individuals who constitute and operate the formal as well as informal structures and substructures of a political system. Another problem is that the meaning and the range of an institutional system vary with the view of the scholars. Researchers of this approach ignored the international politics (J. C. Johari, 1982).

Legal approach

In the realm of traditional approaches, there is a legal or juridical approach. This approach considers the state as the central organization for the creation and enforcement of laws. Therefore, this approach is associated with the legal process, legal bodies or institutions, and judiciary. In this approach, the study of politics is mixed with legal processes and institutions. Theme of law and justice are treated as not mere affairs of jurisprudence rather politics scientists look at state as the maintainer of an effective and equitable system of law and order. Matters relating to the organizations, jurisdiction and independence of judicial institutions become and essential concern of political scientists. This approach treats the state primarily as an organization for creation and enforcement of law (J. C. Johari, 1982).

The supporters of this approach are Cicero, Bodin, Hobbes, John Austin, Dicey and Henry Maine. In the system of Hobbes, the head of the state is highest legal authority and his command is law that must be obeyed either to avoid punishment following its infraction or to keep the dreadful state of nature away. Other scientists described that the study of politics is bound with legal process of country and the existence of harmonious state of liberty and equality is earmarked by the rule of law (J. C. Johari, 1982). The legal approach is applied to national as well as international politics. It stands on assumptions that law prescribes action to be taken in given contingency and also forbids the same in certain other situations. It also emphasizes the fact that where the citizens are law abiding, the knowledge of the law offers an important basis for predictions relating to political behaviour of people. Though it is effective approach but not free from criticism. This approach is narrow. Law include only one aspect of people’s life. It cannot cover entire behaviour of political actions (J. C. Johari, 1982).

Criticism of traditional approaches

The traditional approaches have gloomily unsuccessful to identify the role of the individuals who are important in moulding and remoulding the shape and nature of politics. In fact, individuals are important players of both national and international politics. The focus is directed to the institutions.

It is astounding that in all the institutions, there are individuals who control the structure, functions and other aspects. Singling out institutions and neglecting individuals cannot be pronounced as proper methods to study politics. The definition politics as the study of institution is nothing but an overstatement or a travesty of truth.

Other political researchers argued that traditional approach is mainly descriptive. Politics does not rule out description, but it is also analytical. Sheer description of facts does not inevitably establish the subject matter of political science. Its purpose is study the depth of every incident. Investigators want to know not only occurrence, but also why a particular incident occurs at a particular time.

The standpoint of the traditionalists is limited within the institutions. Political researchers in modern world are not motivated to limit their analysis of politics within institutions. They have explored the role of environment into which is included international politics multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations or trans-national bodies.

It is assumed that traditional analysis is inappropriate for all types of political systems both Western and non-Western. To recompense this deficiency, the political scientists of the post-Second World War period have developed a general system approach which is quite comprehensive. The outstanding feature of traditional approaches is that there is value laden system.

Introduction

Difference between comparative politics and comparative government is very subtle that they are often referred to as one. Studying the political system in terms of divisions, countries, and regions has had substantial history. Politics is the practice and theory related to governance- organized control of the human community which also describes the practice of distribution of power not only within a particular community but also with interrelating communities. Furthermore, a political system is a framework of practices within a particular political territory. That is to say, the political system of one country may (or sometimes may not) be different from that of another country or territory. The body with the political power of a particular territory is called a government.

What is Comparative Politics?

Comparative politics is a term referring to the study of political understanding of more than one nationstate or country in order to make precise comparisons. It is an area of study in politics that is largely discussed and studied all over the world. There are two main approaches to comparative politics: one being the cross national approach and the other being the area studies approach. The first type of approach involve simultaneous studying of a large number of nation-states in order to obtain a wider understanding of theories and their applications. The latter type of approach deals with an in-depth analysis of politics within a particular political territory, a state, a country, a nation-state, or a region of the world.

What is Comparative Government?

The comparative government is a sub-division of politics that systematically studies, analyses, and compares the nature of governments in a number of selected countries. A government is the topmost hierarchical body of governance in the country or a nation-state. Through the study of comparative government, different forms of governments encountered around the world are studied, analyzed, and compared with a view to understanding the differences and seeking any potential practices a country can learn from another and adapt.What is the difference between Comparative Politics and Comparative Government?

• Comparative politics is a wider body whereas comparative government is one of its sub-divisions.
• Comparative politics studies and compares different theories and political practices of countries or/and nation-states. Comparative government is the study, analysis, and comparison of different government systems around the world.
• Comparative politics is not only about the government; it encompasses studying political aspects in terms of governance, foreign policies, etc. However, comparative government only compares different forms of governmental bodies in the world.

Despite these differences mentioned, the terms comparative politics and comparative government are often referred together in the sense that if a university offers a course in this field, it would best be on comparative politics and government. They are not often separated when studied.

Introduction to Comparative Politics

Comparative politics is a subfield of political science that examines and compares political systems, institutions, processes, and behaviors across countries. Over time, the study of comparative politics has evolved significantly, transitioning from traditional approaches focused on descriptive and normative analysis to modern approaches emphasizing empirical and scientific methods. This evolution reflects shifts in the academic priorities of the discipline, influenced by broader intellectual trends and technological advancements.

Traditional Approach to Comparative Politics

1. Nature and Focus

The traditional approach to comparative politics dominated the field from its inception until the mid-20th century. This approach is primarily descriptive, normative, and historical, focusing on formal institutions and legal frameworks.

• Key Characteristics:
  • Emphasis on formal institutions such as constitutions, legislatures, and judiciaries.
  • Use of historical analysis to understand the evolution of political systems.
  • Normative concerns with prescribing the “ideal” political system.
  • Limited attention to informal political structures, behavior, or cultural influences.
• Scope: Comparative studies were often confined to the Western world, particularly European countries, reflecting a Eurocentric bias.

2. Theoretical Underpinnings

The traditional approach relied heavily on political philosophy and legal analysis. It drew inspiration from classical theorists such as Plato, Aristotle, and Montesquieu, who emphasized normative ideals over empirical realities.

• Example: Aristotle’s classification of governments (monarchy, aristocracy, and polity versus tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy) represents an early comparative analysis of political systems, focusing on their normative evaluation rather than their practical functioning.

3. Methodology

The traditional approach employed qualitative methods such as:

• Historical analysis: Examining the origins and evolution of political institutions.
• Case studies: In-depth analysis of specific countries or political systems.
• Legal analysis: Studying constitutions and legal codes as the foundation of political systems.

4. Limitations

• Descriptive Bias: Focused on describing systems without explaining why they function the way they do.
• Neglect of Informal Politics: Ignored the role of culture, public opinion, and political behavior.
• Lack of Scientific Rigor: Relied on normative judgments rather than empirical testing.
• Eurocentrism: Failed to incorporate non-Western political systems, leading to a narrow understanding of global politics.

Modern Approach to Comparative Politics

1. Nature and Focus

Emerging after World War II, the modern approach to comparative politics marked a paradigm shift. It emphasizes scientific inquiry, empirical analysis, and a broader scope that includes informal political processes and behavior.

• Key Characteristics:

  • Focus on political behavior, processes, and systems, not just formal institutions.
  • Use of empirical data and quantitative methods for analysis.
  • Interest in explaining and predicting political phenomena through scientific theories.
  • Global scope, incorporating both Western and non-Western political systems.

• Behavioral Revolution: The modern approach was heavily influenced by the behavioral revolution in the 1950s and 1960s, which sought to make political science more scientific and relevant by focusing on human behavior rather than abstract norms.

2. Theoretical Underpinnings

The modern approach draws on theories from multiple disciplines, including sociology, economics, and psychology, to explain political phenomena.

• System Theory: David Easton’s system theory conceptualized politics as an interdependent system where inputs (demands and supports) are processed to produce outputs (policies and decisions).
• Structural-Functionalism: This framework, popularized by Gabriel Almond, analyzes political systems based on their functions (e.g., rule-making, rule-application, and rule-adjudication) rather than their formal structures.
• Rational Choice Theory: Focuses on the role of individual actors making decisions based on self-interest and cost-benefit analysis.

3. Methodology

The modern approach employs a variety of rigorous scientific methods:

• Quantitative Methods: Use of statistics, surveys, and comparative datasets to analyze trends and test hypotheses.
• Cross-National Comparisons: Examining multiple countries to identify patterns and generalizable theories.
• Field Research: Ethnographic studies and interviews to understand political culture and behavior.
• Interdisciplinary Approach: Incorporates insights from economics, anthropology, and sociology.

4. Scope and Areas of Study

The modern approach broadens the scope of comparative politics by including:

• Political Behavior: Voting patterns, public opinion, and participation.
• Political Development: Modernization, nation-building, and democratization.
• Political Economy: Interaction between political institutions and economic structures.
• Globalization and Transnational Issues: Effects of international organizations, migration, and global economic trends.

5. Limitations

• Overemphasis on Empiricism: Sometimes neglects normative questions about justice and ethics.
• Data Limitations: Dependence on reliable data can exclude certain regions or historical periods.
• Reductionism: Risk of oversimplifying complex political phenomena into quantifiable variables.

Key Differences Between Traditional and Modern Approaches

Conclusion

The transition from the traditional to the modern approach in comparative politics reflects the discipline’s evolution toward greater scientific rigor, inclusivity, and relevance. While the traditional approach laid the foundation by focusing on institutions and normative ideals, the modern approach provides deeper insights into the dynamic and interconnected nature of political systems. Together, these approaches offer complementary perspectives, enriching the field and enabling scholars to address complex political questions in a rapidly changing world.

The traditional approach to the study of comparative politics is rooted in philosophical, historical, and normative perspectives that dominated the discipline before the advent of modern scientific methodologies. It focuses on understanding political phenomena through descriptive and qualitative analysis, emphasizing values, institutions, and historical contexts.

Philosophical and Normative Orientation

The traditional approach is deeply influenced by philosophical thought and normative considerations, examining what politics ought to be rather than what it empirically is. Thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli used this approach to study governance and statecraft.

• Emphasis on values, morality, and ethics in political systems.
• Focus on determining the ideal forms of government and justice.
• Priority given to normative questions like the nature of power, authority, and legitimacy.

Institution-Centric Analysis

A hallmark of the traditional approach is its emphasis on the formal institutions of government, such as the constitution, legislature, executive, judiciary, and bureaucracy.

• Examination of rules and structures governing political systems.
• Study of institutional roles, powers, and interrelations.
• Lesser focus on the behavior of individuals and groups in politics.

Historical Contextualization

The traditional approach strongly emphasizes the historical evolution of political systems. Political structures and practices are understood in the context of their historical roots and development.

• Analysis of the origins and evolution of political institutions.
• Focus on historical events, such as revolutions, wars, and treaties, shaping political dynamics.
• Understanding how past events influence present governance systems.

Legal-Formal Approach

This approach examines political systems through the legal and constitutional frameworks governing them. It seeks to understand politics within the boundaries of law and order.

• Study of constitutional provisions, laws, and legal interpretations.
• Examination of the structure and functions of government as laid out in legal documents.
• Preference for formal legal codes over informal political behavior.

Descriptive and Qualitative Methods

The traditional approach relies on descriptive methods to provide a qualitative understanding of political systems.

• Detailed description of political institutions, historical events, and normative ideas.
• Limited use of empirical data and statistical tools.
• Focus on depth of analysis rather than breadth or scientific rigor.

Eurocentric Bias

The traditional approach has been criticized for its Eurocentric focus, as it often studies political systems through the lens of Western ideals and experiences.

• Analysis centered on European political history and thought.
• Neglect of non-Western political systems and indigenous political practices.
• Tendency to universalize Western experiences as applicable to all societies.

Lack of Emphasis on Political Behavior

The traditional approach does not prioritize the study of political behavior or the interactions of individuals and groups within political systems.

• Limited focus on voting behavior, political participation, and public opinion.
• Neglect of the dynamics of informal power structures, such as interest groups and social movements.
• Underestimation of the impact of individual motivations on political outcomes.

Normative and Prescriptive Goals

Unlike modern scientific approaches that focus on objective analysis, the traditional approach often seeks to prescribe solutions and identify ideal models of governance.

• Advocacy for specific types of political systems, such as democracy or monarchy.
• Normative judgments about what constitutes a good government.
• Efforts to guide policy-making based on philosophical ideals.

Conclusion

The traditional approach to comparative politics laid the groundwork for understanding political systems through historical, normative, and institutional perspectives. While it has been instrumental in shaping political thought, it has faced criticism for its lack of scientific rigor, Eurocentric bias, and limited focus on empirical analysis. Despite its limitations, the approach remains significant for its emphasis on values, history, and the moral dimensions of governance.

The modern approach to the study of comparative politics emerged in the mid-20th century, marking a significant shift from traditional, descriptive methods to more empirical, analytical, and scientific methodologies. This approach seeks to understand political phenomena through systematic comparison, employing a variety of tools and perspectives to analyze political systems, behaviors, and institutions across different countries.

Empirical and Scientific Orientation

The modern approach emphasizes the use of empirical data and scientific methods to study political systems. Researchers collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data to identify patterns, test hypotheses, and develop theories.

• Data Collection: Gathering measurable data through surveys, experiments, and observations.
• Hypothesis Testing: Formulating and testing hypotheses to explain political phenomena.
• Theory Development: Building and refining theories based on empirical evidence.

This empirical focus allows for more objective and verifiable conclusions about political behavior and institutions.

Behavioral Focus

A central feature of the modern approach is the emphasis on political behavior—the actions and attitudes of individuals and groups within political systems.

• Voting Behavior: Analyzing why and how people vote.
• Political Participation: Studying various forms of citizen engagement, such as protests and lobbying.
• Public Opinion: Assessing the beliefs and attitudes of the populace on political issues.

By focusing on behavior, this approach seeks to understand the underlying motivations and influences that drive political actions.

Systemic Analysis

The modern approach views political entities as systems comprising interrelated parts, influenced by their environment. This perspective is informed by systems theory, which examines how different components of a political system interact.

• Input-Output Analysis: Understanding how demands and supports (inputs) are processed by the political system to produce policies and decisions (outputs).
• Feedback Mechanisms: Studying how outputs affect future inputs, creating a dynamic process.
• Environmental Influence: Considering how external factors, such as economic conditions and international events, impact the political system.

This systemic analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of political dynamics and processes.

Structural-Functional Approach

This approach examines the structures within a political system and the functions they perform to maintain stability and achieve goals.

• Institutional Roles: Identifying the roles of institutions like legislatures, executives, and judiciaries.
• Functional Analysis: Assessing how these institutions fulfill functions such as law-making, enforcement, and adjudication.
• Comparative Functionality: Comparing how different systems perform similar functions through varying structures.

By focusing on functions, this approach highlights the effectiveness and efficiency of political institutions.

Interdisciplinary Integration

The modern approach integrates insights from various disciplines, including sociology, economics, anthropology, and psychology, to enrich the analysis of political phenomena.

• Sociological Insights: Understanding the impact of social structures and norms on politics.
• Economic Factors: Analyzing how economic conditions and policies influence political decisions.
• Psychological Perspectives: Studying the cognitive and emotional factors affecting political behavior.

This interdisciplinary integration allows for a more holistic understanding of complex political issues.

Comparative Methodology

A hallmark of the modern approach is the systematic comparison of different political systems to identify patterns, similarities, and differences.

• Case Studies: In-depth analysis of individual countries or events.
• Cross-National Comparisons: Examining multiple countries to identify generalizable trends.
• Most Similar/Different Systems Design: Comparing cases that are similar in many respects but differ in key variables, or vice versa.

Comparative methodology enables the development of broader theories and the testing of hypotheses across diverse contexts.

Quantitative Techniques

The modern approach extensively employs quantitative methods to analyze political data.

• Statistical Analysis: Using statistical tools to identify correlations and causations.
• Surveys and Polls: Collecting data on public opinion and behavior.
• Mathematical Modeling: Creating models to simulate political processes and predict outcomes.

Quantitative techniques provide precision and allow for the testing of complex hypotheses.

Emphasis on Political Development and Modernization

This approach studies the processes of political development and modernization, focusing on how societies transition from traditional to modern political systems.

• Developmental Stages: Identifying stages of political development, such as democratization and state-building.
• Modernization Theories: Exploring how economic and social changes lead to political transformation.
• Institutional Adaptation: Studying how political institutions evolve in response to modernization pressures.

Understanding these processes is crucial for analyzing the challenges and opportunities faced by developing nations.

Focus on Political Culture

The modern approach examines the political culture—the set of attitudes, beliefs, and values that shape political behavior and institutions.

• Cultural Norms: Understanding how cultural factors influence political participation and governance.
• Identity Politics: Studying the role of ethnicity, religion, and other identities in politics.
• Value Systems: Analyzing how societal values impact policy preferences and political stability.

By focusing on political culture, this approach acknowledges the importance of societal context in shaping political outcomes.

Conclusion

The modern approach to comparative politics represents a paradigm shift towards a more scientific, empirical, and analytical study of political systems. By incorporating behavioral analysis, systemic perspectives, interdisciplinary insights, and quantitative methods, it provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the complexities of political phenomena across different contexts. This approach has significantly advanced the field, offering deeper insights into the functioning of political systems and the behavior of political actors.

MODERN APPROACHES

The modern approach is fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of political phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern approaches include sociological approach, economic approach, psychological approach, quantitative approach, simulation approach, system approach, behavioural approach, Marxian approach etc.

Broadly speaking, modern or contemporary approaches to the study of politics signify a departure from traditional approaches in two respects: (a) they attempt to establish a separate identity of political science by focusing on the real character of politics; and (b) they try to understand politics in totality, transcending its formal aspects and looking for those aspects of social life which influence and are influenced by it.

Normative methods generally refer to the traditional methods of inquiry to the phenomena of politics and are not merely concerned with “what is” but “what aught to be” issues in politics. Its focus is on the analysis of institution as the basic unit of study. However with the advent of industrialisation and behavioural revolution in the field of political science, emphasis shifted from the study “what aught to” to “what is”. Today political scientists are more interested in analysing how people behave in matters related to the state and government.

A new movement was ushered in by a group of political scientists in America who were not satisfied with the traditional approach to the analysis of government and state as they felt that tremendous exploration had occurred in other social sciences like sociology, psychology anthropology etc. which when applied to the political issues could render new insights. They now collect data relating to actual political happenings. Statistical information coupled with the actual behaviours of men, individually and collectively, may help the political scientists in arriving at definite conclusions and predicting things correctly in political matters. The quantitative or statistical method, the systems approach or simulation approach in political science base their inquiry on scientific data and as such are known as modern or empirical method.

System Approach

This approach belongs to the category of modern approach. This approach makes an attempt to explain the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The idea of a system was originally borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first popularized the concept of social system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a political system. According to this approach, a political system operates within the social environment. Accordingly, it is not possible to analyze political events in isolation from other aspects of the society. In other words, influences from the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise, do shape the political process.

The systems approach as developed by David Eason can be analyzed with the help of a diagram as follows:

The political system operates within an environment. The environment generates demands from different sections of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment for certain groups, demand for better working conditions or minimum wages, demand for better transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities, etc.. Different demands have different levels of support. Both ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ constitute what Easton calls ‘inputs.’ The political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After taking various factors into consideration, the government decides to take action on some of theses demands while others are not acted upon. Through the conversion process, the inputs are converted into ‘outputs’ by the decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations and laws. The ‘outputs’ flow back into the environment through a ‘feedback’ mechanism, giving rise to fresh ‘demands.’ Accordingly, it is a cyclical process.

Structural Functional Approach

This approach treats the society as a single inter–related system where each part of the system has a definite and distinct role to play. The structural-functional approach may be regarded as an offshoot of the system analysis. These approaches emphasize the structures and functions. Gabriel Almond is a supporter of this approach. He defines political systems as a special system of interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions. According to him, the main characteristics of a political system are comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and existence of boundaries. Like Easton, Almond also believes that all political systems perform input and output functions. The Input functions of political systems are political socialisation and recruitment, interest-articulation, interest-aggression and political communication. Again, Almond makes three-fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to policy making and implementation. These output functions are-rule making, rule application and rule adjudication. Thus, Almond believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs into outputs.

Communication Theory Approach

This approach tries to investigate how one segment of a system affects another by sending messages or information. It was Robert Weiner who first spoke about this approach. Later on Karl Deutsch developed it and applied it in Political Science. Deutsch believes that the political system is a network of communication channels and it is self regulative. He further believes that the government is responsible for administering different communication channels. This approach treats the government as the decision making system. According to Deutsch, the four factors of analysis in communication theory are – lead, lag, gain and load.

Decision Making Approach

This approach tries to find out the characteristics of decision makers as well as the type of influence the individuals have on the decision makers. Scholars like Richard Synder and Charles Lindblom have developed this approach. A political decision which is taken by a few actors influences a larger society and such a decision is generally shaped by a specific situation. Therefore, it takes into account psychological and social aspects of decision makers also.

The basic unit of Easton’s system analysis is ‘interaction’. Interaction is generated from the behaviour of the members of the system when they play their role as such. When these myriad interactions, in the perception of the scholar, become a ‘set of interrelations’, they are considered as a ‘system’. Easton’s subject matter of analysis is only the set of political interactions.

There are four major premises or broader concepts of his flow-model or input-output analysis:

1. System;
2. Environment;
3. Response; and
4. Feedback.

1. System

His system is a ‘political system’, the basic unit of analysis. It is a ‘system of interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative alloca­tions are made and implemented.’ Easton is interested in studying political life which is seen as a system of behaviour operating within and responding to its social environment while making binding allocations of values. The making of binding and authoritative decisions distinguishes the political system from other systems (existing both within and outside the overall society) that form the environment of that political system.

Within this political system, there are many political groups and organisations, called para-political systems. But he is more concerned with ‘political system’ standing as the most inclusive unit of political life. Political system, as such, is found everywhere. It is the inclusive whole of all political interactions. Easton analyses the nature, conditions, and life processes of political life operating in form of an analytic system.

By adopting the concept of ‘system’, Easton has free Political Science from its traditional, legalistic, institutional, and formal moorings, and proposes to view it as it really is. This ‘system’ is made of interactions of those persons who take part in public life, and are related with making and implementing of public policies.

Easton is not satisfied to see ‘political activity’ merely as ‘direction of man by man’ (de Jouvenel), or as ‘relating to control or will’ (Catlin), or ‘relation between influencer and the influenced’ (Lasswell). It is also not adequate to see politics related to authority, power, government and rule (Dahl). His concept of system is more inclusive.

In a sense, his concept of ‘system’ is integrative involving values, culture, authority, governance, implementation, participation, process, etc. ‘System’ is a very wide term, which includes all forms of formal and informal processes, interactions, functions, structures, values, behaviour, etc. The political system allocates values for the whole society and its decisions stand obligatory. A ‘system’, thus, can be any set of variables, whatever be the form or intensity of interactions or interrelationship operating among them. A political system is a subsystem of the societal system, but it has a binding power of its own. Even within a political system, there are many subsystems.

Easton’s political system is both open and adaptive. Exchanges take place between a political system and its environment which is made of many systems and their subsystems, including even para-political systems. All these, and other various events and influences make up the conditions under which members of a political system act and react.

The latter can find these as favourable or obstructive to its survival. As such, it must have the capacity to face those obstructions, and adapt itself to those conditions. Most often, a political system has a trait or capacity to adapt itself to changing environment. Political systems contrive mechanisms to regulate their own moves, transform internal structures, and even reformulate goals.

A political system, like any other system, has boundaries. These bound­aries relate to the formation of political interactions and go on changing. The political system, somehow, tends to maintain its systemic boundaries, and boundary conditions. In other words, it has to carefully look after and protect its life-processes or capacity to respond effectively to external environment or internal influences. It has to operate as an effective trans­forming process. In case, it is unable to maintain its boundaries, it may lose its identity, even merge into other systems.

It may be reiterated that Eastonian framework of systems theory is conceptual and analytical. His ‘political system’ is born of concepts, and is conceptual or ‘constructivist’, used as a set of variables selected for description, explanation, and research. It is different from, and not, a concrete or natural system. An actual, concrete or natural system, also called as membership-system, consists of human beings or actual individuals. Easton’s analytic system is made of abstractions that focus selected elements of human behaviour.

His system, thus, is a set of particular interactions, which is related to allocation of values that are binding for society and their implementation, within that membership or concrete system, called society. Binding nature of the set of interactions is another quality separating political system from other systems. This abstract analytic system interacts with its environment, converting its inputs into outputs through processes or within puts, and feedback as shown in the following diagram:

2. Environment

Easton’s political system is a complex set of certain processes or interactions which transforms particular inputs into outputs of authoritative policies, decisions, and implementation. This conversion takes place in some environment. As an open system, it must have the resilience to respond to that environment, facing all obstacles, and adjusting itself to conditions.

Only by doing so, it can survive or exist over a period of time.

Analytically, environment can be of two types:

(i) Extra-societal, and

(ii) Intra-societal.

As given in the Diagram above extra-societal environment involves interna­tional political systems, like various political systems, alliances, UNO, etc.; international ecological systems; and, international social systems, as cultural, socio-structural, economic, demographic, and other systems. Intra-societal systems include ecological, biological, personality-oriented, social, cultural, socio-structural, and demographic systems operating within the political system.

Conflicts, strains, and changes emerging out of environment can prove functional or dysfunctional to that political system. Therefore, the latter should have, for its survival, persistent capability to respond to that environment. Easton rightly puts more emphasis on the capacity of the system to cope with the environment. Countries of the Third World can find a lot of useful material in Easton’s concept of ‘environment’, and required ‘capacity’ to deal with it.

Easton has pointed out that system theorists have spoken a lot on the first two concepts – ‘system’ and ‘environment’. As regards the third and fourth concepts of ‘response’ and ‘feedback’, he can be said to have made his own contribution to systems theory. In fact, the latter concepts, instead of being singular ones, are clusters of many concepts. So is the case with the first two concepts also.

3. Response

A political system has to respond to its environment in coping with crises, stresses, and other difficulties. It has also to perform, on its own, some other functions, such as, maintaining order in the society and to uphold its own form and identity amid ever-changing environment. All of them have been put under the generic concept of ‘response’.

Specifically, the political system has to perform three main categories of functions:

(a) Allocation of values for society,

(b) To motivate its members to accept the allocations as binding, and

(c) To cope with stress and challenges coming to the system.

The first two are essential parts of political life. Without them neither can the political system exist nor the society survive without the political system as such. Easton gives the central place to ‘systemic persistence’ which usually remains under ‘stress’ for several factors. The system has to look into the sources of stress and modes or processes of regulating stress. A political system is a set of interacting essential variables which fluctuate within a certain limit or range. It cannot go beyond its ‘critical range’. The system is considered under ‘stress’, if the essential variables push it to cross over the critical range.

The system tries to remain within critical range, but at times, it is compelled to go beyond. For its survival and persistence, it has to respond in many ways – at the level of demands or support, or at output or feedback levels. The political system collapses in case it is unable to cope with coming stresses and crises Therefore, it is always necessary constantly to evaluate the nature of stresses, capacity of the system to cope with, and the means and methods to do so.

The political system is driven by:

(a) ‘Demands’ and challenges made on it, and

(b) ‘Support’, it gets from its members.

It meets the challenge of demands with the help of supports, but it can manipulate and regulate both. It receives them in form of ‘inputs’ from its environment, the society at large. These inputs are converted into ‘outputs’, but the system also keeps a watch over effects and consequences of its outputs through ‘feedback’, which helps it constantly to modify its inputs as well as outputs. Easton’s political system, in a way, is a conversion process in which inputs are transformed into outputs, helped and guided by feedback.

All the systemic responses are broadly divided into two categories:

(a) Inputs, and

(b) Outputs.

(a) Inputs:

Inputs are responses entering into the system.

They consist of:

(1) Demands, and

(2) Supports.

Demands put strain or stress on the system, whereas support provides energy to sustain it. Though the two are of different nature, still they make up one category of ‘inputs’ to be converted into ‘outputs’ through within-puts or the conversion process. Easton does not discuss the nature or form of within-puts. The political system receives both demands and supports from society or environment. It is driven by demands, and sustained by supports.

(1) Demands:

Demand is ‘an expression of opinion that an authoritative allocation with regard to a particular subject matter should or should not be made by those responsible for doing so’. It can take the form of stress, effects, demands, agitations, crises etc. all coming from environment. They all intend to influence, move, modify, or change the political system, and can be undifferentiated wants, articulated recog­nizable demands, or specific issues. Mostly, they are of collective or public nature. Demands are, after their determination, satisfied through ‘allocation of values’.

Demands can take several forms, such as, provision for certain things, services, and conveniences; regulating public behaviour; participating in the political system, for making symbolic expressions, etc. A system may not be in a position to convert all demands into outputs. It looks into quantity, nature of contents, source, kind, volume, intensity, etc. Only a few demands reach the output stage. Excessive demands put stress over the system, and cause ‘overload’. Overload may ‘be due to the volume, intensity, velocity, urgency, and contents of the demand.

In order to deal with the problem of overload or excessive demands, the political system can make use of several ‘regulatory mechanisms’:

(i) Structural mechanism:

It is located at the boundary of the system and regulates the flow of articulation of demands. Unimportant demands are scrutinised and regulated by and through various gate-keeping roles. They may not even be allowed to enter the system.

(ii) Cultural mechanism:

On the basis of prevailing socio-cultural norms, certain demands can be designated as incompatible with them, thus, lessened in considerable manner, if not rejected altogether. Sometimes they become the basis or constraints of political demands.

(iii) Communication channels:

Through the use of TV, radio, corre­spondence, press, etc. demands may be strengthened or weakened or diluted to a considerable extent.

(iv) Reduction processes:

Demands may be reduced to a limited number through a process-selection, scrutiny, grouping, etc. Some criteria, general or restricted, may be added to it.

(2) Support:

A political system also receives support from its environment. After subtracting demands from inputs, we get supports which operate between the system and its environment. They are positive responses towards specific objects or level of a political system. Support can be towards (a) the political community which means the acceptance of political division of labour; (b) the regime which embodies basic values, political structures, and norms underlying the political system; and (c) the political authorities or persons holding power in the given context. Support can be given at some particular or all levels.

Support to political community reflects paying regard to the general form and arrangement of power in the society, and acceptance of the demar­cation between the political and non-political. Support to a regime broadly means legitimacy of the system, its constitutionality, basic structure, and inherent values. The last level invokes holding of respect, loyalty, and obedience to the particular persons wielding political authority. It includes administrators and officials.

The support can be rendered in many ways – by paying taxes, obedience to law, participation in the form of voting, discussion, comments, and constructive suggestions, or deference towards public authorities. The form and style of expressing support can be overt or covert, positive or negative, diffuse or specific, and so on. Often the political system obtains support by and through allocation values and implementation thereof, manipulation of outputs, socialisation, and other political means.

Without support at a certain minimum level, no political system can persist. There can be many causes of failure, as is the case with some Third World countries for not getting support from their populace, such as inadequate use of regulatory mechanism, non-generation of support, and neglect of outputs.

(b) Outputs:

Outputs are the decisions and actions of the authorities. They produce effects and consequences which have direct relation with the members’ attitude and behaviour for the system. Easton calls them as ‘authoritative allocation of values’, ‘binding decisions and actions’, or ‘exchange between the system and its environment’. Output is turnout or production made by the political authorities. It is the flow of those responses which go from the system to environment.

Outputs are converted inputs or finished goods prepared from the raw material of inputs. Even the political authorities themselves can also take initiative in the making of outputs. They are the results of the transformation process of the political system.

Outputs reveal many forms – realisation of taxes, regulation of public behaviour and conduct, distribution of honours, goods, and services, allocation of values, display of symbolic outputs, etc. They are reflected in verbal or written statements from the authorities as well as concrete actions. They can be the effects or results of immediately authorised decisions.

If they relate to decisions taken in distant past, they would be called as ‘outcome’. In case they are not binding, they would be named as co-outputs. Outputs can be inter or intra systemic. In all cases, they release support-stress. They can be regarded as a primary source to get specific support, but a satisfactory flow of output over a period of time tends to produce all-out or diffuse support.

Outputs have several aspects – economic, social, cultural, political, etc. From the viewpoint of political system, political aspects of the outputs are more important. They influence the broader society or environment, and also determine the need and form of each succeeding round of inputs. Even the form, need, and quality of support depends on it.

4. Feedback:

‘Feedback’ is another important concept in Easton’s systems theory. Capacity of a political system to persist over time depends on feedback. It is a dynamic process through which information about the outputs and the environment is communicated to the system which may result in subsequent change or modification of the system. Information about demands and supports may enter the system as inputs in usual manner.

When infor­mation relating to converted inputs, or outputs comes in, then there is a kind of re-communication of information, or re-inputation of inputs already converted into outputs. By doing so, the political system gets an opportunity to modify or transform its behaviour conducive to that feedback. In this manner, it can make it more effective or persist in a better way. In the absence of feedback, it is likely to operate in the usual unresponsive manner, and lose support.

Information about environment reaching as inputs in usual manner may enter the system too late. It may reach there in a distorted form, as it happened with Indira Gandhi Government (1977) and the Shah of Iran (1979)- ‘Loop’ means a curve that rejoins the main line farther on. ‘Feedback Loop’ connotes a process wherein information is obtained; actions, reactions or responses are made on it; then to see the result, and re-collect the same; and, to be benefited by it to achieve the goal.

It includes the arrangement and linking of information channels for the aforesaid purpose. Feedback involves a continuity by linking of obtaining information, reacting, and knowing the effects further to improve upon Systems behaviour and responses. It is a ‘output-information-reinputation- recommunication-reoutputation’ process.

Feedback process, in this way, is concerned with input sequence, demands and support emerging out of environment, conversion processes, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms carry effects and consequences of the outputs into the system again as inputs. They make the system dynamic, purposive, and goal-oriented. Interactions and their various forms within a system confront the problems of stress, maintenance, etc., by counter-balancing, by reducing, or by removal. But their interac­tion-circuits may remain incomplete or breakdown at any point, e.g., stoppage at the level of demands. A demand has to go along with the long conversion process.

Its shape, size and content may considerably change till it reaches the output-stage. Sometimes, the demand dies out by then completely. Similarly, information coming from the environment may not be considered as a ‘demand’ by the authorities. Ultimately, the latter have to decide whether some allocation of values should be made to meet that demand or not. But reaction or response to every such breakdown of the circuit has to be taken into consideration for further action and implemen­tation by the system.

Easton presents the concept of ‘feedback loop’ as the basis of the capacity of the outputs to generate specific support. It connects the conse­quences of the outputs with the inflow of inputs: demands and supports. Thus, it establishes a circulatory relationship between inputs and outputs. There is all-round impact of this dynamic process – on support, stress, survival and persistence. It completes the political circuit through its input – conversion – output – feedback process. In a political system, several feedback processes operate at various levels. But Easton relates the feedback processes pertaining to the whole political system.

For analytical purposes, there are two forms of feedback:

• Negative feedback – it relates to the information regarding the system and the regulation of errors; and
• Goal-transforming feedback – it is concerned with the purposeful redirection of the system.

In all conditions, feedback is a regulatory demand of political systems. However, feedback itself can suffer from many pathologies, regarding accuracy, responsiveness, time-lag, etc. Several mistakes can take place in the process of communication. Even delayed information can cause great harm to the survival of a political system.

The feedback loop can be analysed from several angles. From the view of system-maintenance or gaining specific support, its operation can be divided into four stages:

• There are situations of feedback, which can come out of authorised direction, associate outputs, or outcomes. They all are part of the political system. But its estimation depends on its perception or observation.
• There are feedback-responses which can be in the form of satisfying the demands, or positive or negative support.
• In the third stage feedback-responses are communicated to the political authorities.
• In the last stage, after completion of the feedback-circuit the authorities deliberate, discuss, and arrive at certain decisions. Much depends on variables like responsiveness of authorities, time-lag, availability of infor­mation-resources for decision-making, etc. Here, resources of the system as a whole are involved. The feedback loop, in Easton’s input-output analysis, interlinks authorities and its members in a manner that the former may take steps soon after they get information through the feedback.