Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Module Detail
Pre-requisites
Objectives
to understand the traditional approaches
1
2. Development Teams
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
Introduction
Before the Second World War politics was a study of the State and its various
institutions. Institutions were central to the study of politics along with their rules and
procedures. Traditional approaches included the Historical, Philosophical, Structural, Legal and
Institutional methods. The Historical approach depended upon historic events and deduced
conclusions. The traditional approaches are theoretical ways of studying politics and further help
in identifying the problems, asking questions and then endeavoring to answer them. The subject
2
matter can be examined repeatedly and new answers, might spurt which may not be considered
final. The main goal is to discuss, deliberate and to impart discourse. The Philosophical
approach tries to find ‘what ought to be’ and sets parameters for an ideal society. The Legal
approach talks in terms of law and its technicalities. The Structural approach focuses on the
interactions between the powerful groups in any society. The Institutional approach studies the
various organs of the government which are mandated by the constitution. The focus is on
formal political institutions. The traditional approaches are normative, descriptive and value-
based. The approaches have been criticized for being non-scientific and non-empirical by
nature. Yet, till the Second World War, the traditional approaches contributed a lot to the study
of politics. They helped in understanding the politics in a more balanced manner based on
values and by acute observation of facts.
https://www.google.co.in
Facts were recorded and then generalizations made. Of course, these generalizations
were open to further verification. The traditional approaches including the institutional
approach, right from the Greeks, analysed and investigated various events. Each had its own
perspective and each offered its own recommendations after a detailed study.
3
taken the form of a history of political thought focusing upon collection of ‘major’ thinkers –for
instance from Plato to Marx and a cannon of ‘classic’ texts. As it studies the ends and means of
political action, political theory is clearly concerned with ethical or normative questions, such as
‘Why should I obey the State? How should rewards be distributed? and What should be the
limits of individual liberty?’1
Political theory is basically a search for truth that can lead to wisdom and more
understanding. The traditional approaches try to answer ethical questions. They try to explore the
worlds of morality and answer what is good or bad. They also endeavor to bring forth, in detail,
the existing body of knowledge regarding politics and then, subsequently, adding new
knowledge to it. The traditional approaches explain and then try to predict. The theory tries to
guide actions of the society so that an ideal society/state can become a concrete reality. But the
theory is the subjective viewpoint of the thinker. Research is done by any researcher, keeping a
political vision in mind. It is an effort to be one’s own master and also decide how one is to live
one’s life. ‘Plamenatz says that the political theorists using the traditional approaches are like
honest shopkeepers who display all their goods leaving it on their customers to choose whatever
they think is the best. They tell in detail the principles and try to explain how men should use
them to make their choices. This is how they help to provide them with a practical
philosophy…….. They are not mere purveyors of ideas, they are preachers and propagandists.’2
Traditional approaches tell us how people should interact with each other and what kind
of laws should be passed. In this sense, they are normative but the descriptive part also explains
how people, institutions, laws are in real life. ‘In this way, descriptive thinking can be said to
mirror the world, while normative, thinking aims to change it’.3 They believe in describing and
hoping to set up a State which should be the best one can hope for. The traditional approaches
are concerned with a world that ‘ought to be’ and thus set goals that are achievable. For this, one
has to know the world as it is alongwith the human beings , the people who inhabit it. Taking
https://www.google.co.in
Plato believed that certain are needed in the society. His disciple, Aristotle, also stressed
on values and gave his notion of an ideal state like his master. Though the ideal state was a
utopia, an imaginary state, the approach was normative as the idea was of the thinker. The idea,
however, utopian was something which the political thinker thought could be achieved. So,
principles or external ideas were the foundation of traditional approaches. The concept of
goodness is very important and a balance is tried to be maintained as to, ‘ what should be’.
Every age has its own values and they do change with passing generations. This makes the
traditional approaches give importance to values as they are mirrors of the society. The
traditional approaches were not analytical and were more descriptive. Sometimes the
5
conclusions are said to be prior deductions but a lot of thought and some new perspective with
every researcher goes into giving any conclusion. Traditional approaches were dominated by
history, law and philosophy. They believed in floating new ideas to achieve the best for any
society. This approach believes that the study of politics would be meaningless if the subject
does not try to realize certain values. Thus, there is emphasis on values. It stresses that every
State should have a set of values which it should try to achieve. Thus, we can understand Plato’s
thought of a ‘philosopher-king’, the ‘Guardian class’, ‘the Communism of Property and wives’
Thus, the traditional approaches are value-based and emphasise on some core-values of society.
‘Institutions were defined in a narrow sense overlapping with state powers (legislative,
executive and judiciary), civil administration and the military bureaucracy . The type of analysis
was formal, using as main source of information, constitutional texts, legal documents, and
jurisprudence’.4 Institutions capture total attention in the Institutional approach where the
individual is undermined and the positions that they occupy is more important. The organizations
that are included in the Constitution are the focus of study. It is in these institutions that
decisions are taken and policies are made. A study of any government or politics of a State
would definitely be incomplete without the study of its formal institutions. The institutions to be
studied have legal identity and are recognised both by the Constitution as well as the law of the
land. Institutions are established forms of processes and procedures. They are those
organizations through which human beings come together to perform all those activities that are
essential for a good life. These institutions, like family, school etc. satisfy the various needs of
the people. They are formal institutions and are well-organised. A majority of the political
scientists felt that politics was the study of government, State or other related institutions. The
rules of an institution are important to anlalyse the various political happenings. ‘An institution is
a formal organization, often with public status, whose members interact on the basis of the
specific roles they perform within the organization. In politics, an institution typically refers to
‘In this way, many Institutions thicken naturally over time, developing their internal
procedures also becoming accepted by external actions as part of the governing approaches. In
5
Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, Comparative Govt. and Politics, An Introduction, 2015,
Palgrave Macmillan, p. 77.
6 Ibid, p.78
7
other words, the institution becomes a node in network and in so doing entrenches its position’.7
This process is also called institutionalization. The members of an institute also agree to
conform to certain rules. Politics is a study of people’s interaction with each other and also a
study of conflict and sources of these conflict. The emphasis is to study the various ways in
which people settle their conflicts. ‘Although people do not essentially need institutions to settle
their differences, they do normally tend to create some type of political institution such as
Parliament, court or party in order to help them keep their conflicts under control.’8
Institutions serve several purposes. They resolve conflicts, they frame laws and they help
in maintaining the state and government. Institutional approach analyses the way these
institutions maintain order in the state by framing certain rules and procedures. Political
institutions, thus, become the central concern of institutional approach. Credit goes to Europe
and North America to develop the modern institutions and then pass them on to countries in Asia
and Africa. These countries were colonies of Europe and the institutions were imposed on the
colonies. In some cases, they succeeded, in others they did not and new institutions evolved
with the passage of time. Thus, a study of the various institutions helps us to understand the
society better. This approach studies that how institutions respond to the change in any society.
It also deals as to how the institutions herald in changes or are, sometimes, obstacles to changes.
Institutions are studied because they are expected to perform in a certain way. Politics, this
approach feels, is possible only because of institutions. The study also encompasses as to how
political institutions are captured by various groups and how the institutions are manipulated.
↔ Why they have been created – on some personal whim or demand of special
circumstances?
11 Ibid, p. 89.
12 Ibid.
13 Daniele Caramani, Comparative Politics, 2011, OUP, p. 41.
14 Ibid., p. 41.
15 Ibid.
10
The drawback of this approach is that it emphasizes on the study of institutions, while
totally ignoring the individual who performs the various tasks of policy – making and law-
framing. The individual is sidelined, pushed to the backburner and the Institutions, which of
course, are literal actors get all the attention. Moreover, the institutions in the developed areas
(geographically) are focused upon. The Institutions in Western Europe and North America
capture all the attention of the researchers. The approach is also criticized for being speculative
and normative. Lack of systematic comparison is another point that goes against the Institutional
approach. Thus, the results were not consistent. This much emphasis on ‘Values’ proved to be
the death-knell of the institutional approach as well as the other traditional approaches. They
were phased out to make way for Comparative Politics which promised to predict political
events. The latter tried to prove itself as a more empirical, more systematic and more scientific
way of study of politics. They were blamed for being more idealistic and concerned with ‘what
ought to be’ than ‘what is’. The approach Is not even concerned with the impact of the rules of
institutions on the individuals. The individuals constituting the institutions are not important.
Thus, it ignores the objective reality.
Conclusion
‘The institutional perspective has done most to shape the development of politics as a
discipline and remains an important tradition in comparative politics.’16 This approach has been
criticized for it ignores the individuals who control the institutions. But this approach manages
to give valuable insights into the working of any institution. They try to study the institutions and
give recommendations so that an ideal state can be set up. ‘So, in order to get to the point of
making normative political recommendations, political theorists engage in descriptive thinking,
albeit often by imagining a world that is slightly removed from – and slightly better than – the
one we know. But because political theorists do not (only) theorise to make a difference to how
we live together – they keep an eye on the realism of the assumptions they use. Political theory
is for real, living, human beings, with all of their frailties, greed, kindness and cruelty; it is not
Institutions and their study are considered very educative for political science. Thus, the
institutional approach is important for it endeavors to understand these units i.e. political, formal
structures that add significantly to the whole process of decision-making. The formal political
institutions are analyzed because they are law-making bodies which the population has to adhere
to. The functionalists argue that there are many influences while making laws. ‘They (the
functionalists) believe that the legislative, executive and judicial powers produce outputs of law
or rules. However, between rule making application and adjudication there must be
boundaries’.18 Yet, one cannot undermine the importance of institutions because they aim to
provide a better and disciplined life to the people they govern. The same question is investigated
from different angles. ‘Scholars documented differences in constitutions, laws and formal
structures of government and assumed that, if those structures were understood, then the actual
performance of governments could be predicted’.19 They argued that only by understanding
institutions can we grasp the whole truth. It is important to understand how structures,
institutions and individuals interact to provide ‘collective choices for society’.20.