Structural approach 1

Structural approach
Excerpted from: Hague, R., Harrop, M. & McCormick, J. [2016]. Comparative government and politics: An introduction. 10th
Edition. USA: Palgrave. Retrieved from: Comparative%20government%20and%20politics%20an%20introduction%20by
%20Hague,%20Rod%20Harrop,%20Martin%20McCormick,%20John%20(z-lib.org).pdf

This module introduces you to the structural approach. Three countries experiencing different levels of
poverty were chosen for you to read, understand, and analyze using the principles laid down by the structuralists.
Therefore, after reading the excerpted materials, you should be able to:
a. demonstrate your understanding of the structural approach
b. apply structural approach in explaining political issues

Key Concepts to Understand:

structure structuralism

Structuralism is an approach to political analysis that focuses on relationships among

parts rather than the parts themselves. In other words, it involves examining the ‘networks,
linkages, interdependencies, and interactions among the parts of some system’ (Lichbach and
Zuckerman, 1997: 247). The central tenet here is that ‘groups matter’, in the sense that the
structural approach focuses on powerful groups in society, such as the bureaucracy, political
parties, social classes, churches, and the military. These groups possess and pursue their own
interests, creating a set of relationships which forms the structure underpinning or destabilizing
the institutional politics of parties and government. Each group within the structure works to
sustain its political influence in a society which is always developing in response to economic
change, ideological innovations, international politics and the effects of group conflict itself. It is
this framework which undergirds, and ultimately determines, actual politics, because human
actions are shaped by this bigger structural environment.
Structuralism: An approach to the study of politics that emphasizes the relationships
among groups and networks within larger systems. The interests and positions of these
groups shape the overall configuration of power and provide the dynamic of political
change.
A structure is defined by the relationships between its parts, with the parts themselves –
including their internal organization and the individuals within them – being of little interest. As
Skocpol (1979: 291) put it, structuralists ‘emphasize objective relationships and conflicts among
variously situated groups and nations, rather than the interests, outlooks, or ideologies of
particular actors’. For example, the relationship between labour and capital is more important
than the internal organization or the leaders of trade unions and business organizations. The
assumption is that capital and labour will follow their own real interests, regardless of who
happens to lead the organizations formally representing their concerns. Individuals are
secondary to the grand political drama unfolding around them.
But real interests and social actors are, of course, terms imposed by the researcher.
Who is to say where a group’s true interests lie? How can we refer to the ‘actions’ of a group,
rather than a person? In execution, the structural approach is broad-brush, making large if
plausible assumptions about the nature of conflict in a particular society and using them to
make inferences about causes without always paying great attention to the detailed
historical record.
xxx. xxx, a structural explanation of poverty would emphasize the contrasting
interests and power positions of property-owners and the working class, xxx. For the
structuralist, the important factor is the framework of inequality, not the values that confine
 Structural approach 2

particular families to the bottom of the hierarchy. This point, and the overall thrust of
structuralism, is summarized by Mahoney (2003: 51):
At the core of structuralism is the concern with objective relationships between groups
and societies. Structuralism holds that configurations of social relations shape, constrain
and empower actors in predictable ways. Structuralism generally downplays or rejects
cultural and value-based explanations of social phenomena. Likewise, structuralism
opposes approaches that explain social outcomes solely or primarily in terms of
psychological states, individual decision-making processes, or other individual-level
characteristics.
The best-known structural work in politics has adopted an explicitly historical style,
seeking to understand how competition between powerful groups over time leads to specific
outcomes such as a revolution, democracy, or a multi-party system. The authors of such studies
argue that politics is about struggle rather than equilibrium, and they favour comparative
history, giving us another contrast with xxx the sometimes static descriptions of the
institutionalists.
One of the leading figures in the field – who not only exemplifies the structural approach
but helped to define it – was the American sociologist Barrington Moore. His 1966 book Social
Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World
did more than any other to shape this format of historical analysis of structural forces. In trying
to understand why liberal democracy developed earlier and more easily in France, Britain, and
the United States than in Germany and Japan, he suggested that the strategy of the rising
commercial class was the key. In countries such as Britain, where the bourgeoisie avoided
entanglement with the landowners in their battles with the peasants, the democratic transition
was relatively peaceful. But where landlords engaged the commercial classes in a joint
campaign against the peasantry, as in Germany, the result was an authoritarian regime which
delayed the onset of democracy.
Although later research qualified many of Moore’s judgements, his work showed the
value of studying structural relationships between groups and classes as they evolve over long
periods (Mahoney, 2003). He asked important comparative questions and answered them with an
account of how and when class relationships develop and evolve.
The structural approach asks big questions and, by selecting answers from the past, it
interrogates history without limiting itself to chronology. Many authors working in this tradition
make large claims about the positions adopted by particular classes and groups; specifically,
interests are often treated as if they were actors, leading to ambitious generalizations which
need verification through detailed research. Even so, the structural approach, in the form of
comparative history, has made a distinctive contribution to comparative politics.
 Structural approach 3

Enhancement Activity:
Before you read the country case studies, answer first the following questions
to test your understanding of the arguments of structuralism.

1. Define structuralism

2. What is structuralism’s explanation for “politics is a struggle”? And what is the

relevance of this in their analysis of political issues?

3. What is structuralism’s explanation for “groups matter”? And what is the relevance of
this in their analysis of political issues?