NWJLFK, Oa LRR F'K (KK Fohkkx: Fnyyh Fo'Ofo - Ky

Department of Distance and Continuing Education
University of Delhi
nwjLFk ,oa lrr~ f'k{kk foHkkx
fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;
B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

Semester-II
Course Credits-4
Discipline Specific Core Course (DSC-5)
METHODS AND APPROACHES IN
COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS
As per the UGCF - 2022 and National Education Policy 2020
Methods and Approaches in Comparative Political Analysis
Editorial Board
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Dr. Shambhu Nath Dubey
Dr. Mangal Deo
Content Writers
Dr. Abhishek Choudhary, Bhagyanagar Vineeth
Srivatsava, Dr. Kamal Kumar, Yerramadasu
Udaykumar, Shikha Jaiswal, Vaishali Mann,
Garima Sharma, Dr. Latika Bishnoi
Academic Coordinator
Deekshant Awasthi
© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

ISBN: ------------------------
Ist edition: 2022
E-mail: ddceprinting@col.du.ac.in
politicalscience@col.du.ac.in
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education under
the aegis of Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

• Unit-I and unit-II from CBCS, remaining Units have been written afresh.
• Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body, DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self
Learning Material (SLM) will be incorporated in the next edition. However, these
corrections/modifications/suggestions will be uploaded on the website https://sol.du.ac.in. Any
feedback or suggestions can be sent to the email- feedbackslm@col.du.ac.in

Table of Contents
Sl. No. Title Writer Pg. No.

Unit-I Understanding Comparative Politics: Dr. Abhishek 01
(a) Nature and Scope, Choudhary
(b) Why Compare
(c) Understanding Comparative Method:
How to Compare Countries: Large n,
Small n, Single Countries Studies
(d) Going beyond Eurocentrism
Unit-II Approaches to Studying Comparative
Politics
(a) Institutional Approach, System Bhagyanagar 17
Approach, Structural-Functional Vineeth Srivatsava
Approach
(b) Approaches to Studying Comparative Dr. Kamal Kumar 30
Politics Political Culture Approach
(c) New Institutionalism Yerramadasu 42
Udaykumar
Unit-III Traditional and Neo-Institutionalism: Shikha Jaiswal 54
(a) Historical Institutionalism
(b) Rational Choice Theory
(c) Sociological Institutionalism
Unit-IV Political Culture: Approaches to the Study of Vaishali Mann 73
Comparative Politics
(a) Civic Culture, (b) Subculture,
(c) Hegemony, (d) Post Materialism,
(e) Social Capital

Unit-V Approaches to Studying Comparative Dr. Garima 86

Politics: Political Economy– Sharma
(a) Underdevelopment, (b) Dependency
(c) Modernisation, (d) World System Theory
Unit-VI Gendering Comparative Politics: Dr. Latika Bishnoi 102
(a) The Gender Lacuna in Comparative
Politics
(b) Political Representation: Women in
Government and Politics

Unit-I
UNDERSTANDING COMPARATIVE POLITICS:
(a) Nature and Scope, (b) Why Compare
(c) Understanding Comparative Method: How to Compare
Countries: Large n, Small n, Single Countries Studies
(d) Going beyond Eurocentrism
Dr. Abhishek Choudhary
STRUCTURE
1.1 Learning Objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
1.3.1 Nature of Comparative Politics
1.3.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
1.4 Why Compare?
1.5 Methods of Comparison
1.6 Going beyond Eurocentrism
1.7 Conclusion
1.8 Practice Questions
1.9 References
1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• After completing the lesson, the student would know about the nature and scope of
Comparative politics.
• The lesson would make them the reason why we need to compare? The various
methods and approaches to compare.
• They will also understand what is the meaning of Eurocentrism and why we need to
go beyond eurocentrism.
1|Page

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

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

The second tradition seeks to establish rules and standards for comparison. It focusses on
ways in which a better reservoir of comparative information, explanation and prediction can
be created. Understood in this sense, comparative method is a “method of discovering
empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Thus, ‘comparative method’ is one
of the traditions within comparative politics that is different from descriptive and analytical
traditions. By focussing on rules and standards, this tradition provides starting point for
analysis of countries or groups of countries.
The third tradition is analytical and provides a combination of empirical description with
method. Most of the work that nowadays are categorised as ‘works of comparative politics’
falls under this tradition. Comparative studies of political parties, regime types, social
movements, etc. in two or more countries are a few examples of this body of literature. The
works are mainly concerned with identifying and explaining “differences and similarities
between countries” and their “institutions, actors, and processes” by using the method of
“systematic comparison” of common phenomenon (Caramani 2011: 4).
1.3.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
The discipline of comparative politics has been criticised on different levels. It has been
considered as Eurocentric implying that the ‘western model’ is seen as better than the rest of
the world. This sort of parochialism leads to the perpetuation of the hegemonic nature of a
particular system. This further leads to the ‘self’ versus ‘other’ bias. Due to this, the ‘self’
gets defined in relation to the ‘other’. The first tradition mentioned above is subjected to this
criticism. Even the third tradition succumbs to this Eurocentric bias and the ‘non-west’ is
compared in a manner that presents the west as better and superior.
Roy C. Macridis (1955) in his seminal essay identified certain limitations of the
traditional approach. First, it has been called as ‘essentially noncomparative’ implying that
the reference point is the institutional structure of a given country. It has been alleged that
single case study is being passed as a comparative study. He further alleged that the
traditional approach is more descriptive and less analytical. This criticism stems from the fact
that the historical and legalistic approaches have their limitations. The historical approach
focusses on studying the “origins and growth” of certain institutions (Macridis 1955: 17). In
doing so, it does not make any effort towards evolving any analytical scheme. Thus, the focus
stays limited on the chronology of events within a country and the chosen institution of that
country. The legalistic approach focusses primarily on the study of powers of different
branches of the government. It does not try to analyse the factors that shape particular forms
of power in specific ways. Thus, they fail to provide any “general frame of reference” that
can be used in a truly comparative sense (Macridis 1955: 18).
4|Page

Second, Macridis considers the traditional approach as ‘essentially parochial’. This

critique is related to the undue focus on institutions of Western European countries. Such a
focus significantly limited the scope of comparative politics and rendered other regime types
as less important. Third, Macridis called the approach as ‘essentially static’. This implied that
comparative politics ignored the ever changing factors that leads to change and growth.
Finally, he called the approach as ‘essentially monographic’ implying that the study remained
focussed on political institutions of a given system. It meant that focus of comparativists
remained on individual case studies. This critique is close to the critique that considers
comparative politics as descriptive and as lacking systematic formulation.
Neera Chandoke (1996) builds up on Macridis’ critique and traces the crisis of
comparative politics. First, the disciple faced a general attack on grand theorization. It was
questioned for removing issues from contextual specificities. It further was accused of over
generalised regularities. The discipline was considered as reductionist. It was searching for
simple variables for the sake of comparison. It ‘reduced’ complex phenomenon of politics to
simple variables that could be compared with ease. The second indication of crisis stems
from the ethnocentric nature of the discipline and focus on studying the ‘other’ - other
societies, other regime types, other institutions. The third reason for the crisis of comparative
politics is the crisis of nation-state itself. The usual category of comparison, the state, faced
challenges due to external forces as well as internal autonomy movements.
A set of problems faced by comparative analysis relates to the methodological
dimension. There is often a criticism against any case study for having a “selection bias”
(Landman 2008). The choice of countries to do a comparative study might be based on the
bias of the comparativist. Another problem relates to the emphasis on a “behavioural
approach”. The behavioural approach in social science in general and comparative politics in
particular related to tendency to explain social phenomenon using scientific methods. It was
asserted by the behaviouralists that social reality can be observed, quantified and generalised.
Behaviouralists use methods of sampling, survey, interview, and statistical analysis to explain
social realities.
Example of these problems is the criticism levelled against the seminal work by Gabriel
Almond and Sydney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations (1963). The study was called ethnocentric as it favoured consensual democracy as
the most stable form. It is further pointed out that political culture of Mexico was deliberately
pitted against the political culture of the United States to prove that liberal democracies (like
the US) are better than one-party systems (like Mexico during those years). The study was
also called an attempt of behaviouralists to quantify political orientations to categorize
5|Page

countries, ignoring the dynamic nature and contextual specificities of socio-political relations.
1.4 WHY COMPARE?
Comparing two or more things is a natural attribute of human behaviour. Whether one has to
choose the subject to study after schools, whether one has to buy clothes, phones or any other
thing, there are constantly involved in comparison. Politics is an even more important and an
ever-evolving domain that requires comparison to equate, differentiate and assess various
phenomena.
Todd Landman (2008) has identified four reasons for comparison: contextual
description, classification, hypothesis-testing and prediction.
(i) Contextual description
It allows political scientists to know what other countries are like (Landman 2008). This
has been the primary objective of comparative politics wherein the focus is on ‘describing the
political phenomena and events of a particular country, or group of countries’ (Landman
2008: 5). It is important as it provides an outside observer to make sense of a system not
entirely known to him/her. This aspect is closer to the first tradition and provides the
comparativists with detailed information about a political system. While some critics assert
that single-country studies cannot be truly considered comparative, there are benefits of
studying a particular country or a group of countries. For instance, a detailed analysis of
political system of United Kingdom provides us with the information about benefits and
limitations of parliamentary system. This can help us assess other cases where similar - or
opposite - systems exist.
(ii) Classification
It implies simplifying and organizing information so that it can be easily observed and
categorized (Landman 2008: 5-6). Classification allows grouping of categories that are not
same but have some level of similarity. For example, let us assume two countries where one
has a Parliamentary system while the other has a Presidential system. Both have very
different set of rules. But both can be ‘classified’ as democracies. Thus, the world of politics
is made less complex through classification (Landman 2008: 4).
One of the earliest known comparativists, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), used the same logic
while classifying 158 city-states into six categories: monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy. Based on the ‘number of those who rule’ and the forms as good or
corrupt, Aristotle’s classification can be summarised through the following table:
6|Page

Those who rule

One Few Many
Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity
Form of Rule (kingship)
Corrupt Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy (mob rule)
Source: Todd Landman (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, New
York: Routledge.
In similar way, one of the most prominent work on comparative social revolution, Theda
Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and
China (1979) provides a classificatory analysis of role of state structures, international forces,
and class relations. She uses this to explain and analyse the French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution and the Chinese Revolution.
(iii) Hypothesis-testing
After describing and classifying information, the next logical step is to understand the
factors that explains what has been described and classified. This aspect has been called as
‘hypothesis testing’ and implies the search for factors so that better theories could be built.
This aspect is closer to the second tradition of comparative politics which is focussed on
analysis and seeks to establish relation among variables.
Comparative research is a focus on analytical relationships among variables validated by
social science, a focus that is modified by differences in the context in which we observe and
measure those variables. Arend Lijphart claims that comparison helps in testing
“hypothesized empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Comparative
analysis also leads to accumulation of more information that helps in having a better and
more complete explanatory theory. So, when comparing countries and testing hypothesis
allows the accumulation of a larger pool of information and improves ones knowledge about
the world.
(iv) Prediction
Comparison of countries and the generalizations based on such comparison allows one to
‘predict’ likely outcomes. The likely outcomes in other countries that are not included in the
original comparison can be made based on a robust theory. Also, prediction can be made
about outcomes in the future on the basis of certain factors and conditions. Predictability is an
excellent attribute of a good theory and it is asserted that a ‘good theory’ is able to predict
outcomes with better accuracy.
7|Page

Other than these four reasons, comparison provides us perspective to understand the less
known political systems. It also helps to understand differences in outcome in different socio-
political settings. It also helps in understanding as to why countries develop the way they do
and why they are ruled the way they are.
Hague, Harrop and McComrick (2016) identify two major purposes of comparative
politics:
a) it broadens one’s understanding of the political world
b) it helps in predicting political outcomes.
Arguing on similar lines, Newton and Van Deth (2010) provide three important reasons for
studying comparative politics:
a) one cannot understand one’s own country without knowledge of others.
b) one cannot understand other countries without knowing the background,
institutions and history of other countries.
c) one cannot arrive at valid generalisations about government and politics without
the comparative method.
Thus, it can be argued that describing, analysing, predicting and generalizing are four major
attributes of comparative politics that makes it an important aspect of broader political
analysis.
1.5 METHODS OF COMPARISON
Kopstein and Lichbach (2005) have argued that focussing on ‘interests, identities, and
institutions’ are three ways that provide different paths of doing comparison. These variables
have an impact on how political systems operate.
(a) Focus on Interest
Some comparativists focus on interests. For them, the material interest of people is what
matter the most. People decide on the basis of rational calculations and organize politically in
order to maximize their interest. They support a regime type that ‘maximizes their life
chances’ (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). For instance, a group of people may organize
against a regime type or support it purely based on rational calculations. The calculations are
interest based and therefore, it may be possible that a particular regime type is supported in a
particular society but the same may be opposed in another social setting. However, an undue
focus on interest may be misleading. The next two paths downplay the relevance of interests
and consider interest being shaped by identities or institutions.
8|Page

(b) Focus on Identities

Some comparativists consider identity as the most important factor. They argue that there
are no objective interests and one’s interest is defined by one’s identity. Two most common
forms of identities are religion and ethnicity (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). People or groups
of people define their interests in terms of their identity. A simple example could be religious
support to a theocratic regime. Another example could be the rise of caste based or religion
based parties in India where the support to a particular political party is based primarily on
identity. While some identities are based on birth and place, modern societies also generate
newer identities. For example, the organising for issues like gender and environment leads to
creation on newer identities. Recent US elections (2020) showed that how historical identities
and newer identities interact and shape people’s choices.
(c) Focus on Institutions
Yet another group of comparativists argue that neither material interests, nor identities
determine how the politics of a country works. For them, the rules and procedures embedded
in institutions dictate the way power operates and countries work (Kopstein and Lichbach
2005). Institutions shape the working of a country either directly or indirectly. In particular,
Democracies have a diverse and complex set of institutions that define how a country would
shape up. For example, the institutionalised electoral system of the United States is based on
a ‘first-past-the-post’ system. On the other hand, Germany has a ‘proportional representation’
electoral system. Both the countries are democratic but the political life and political culture
of both democracies vary - and one major factor for this variation in the difference in
institutions. Comparativists who tend to focus on institutions, try to explain variation in
outcomes on the basis of variation in institutions. The aspect of ‘functional equivalence’ is
relevant here as same institutions may perform different functions and different institutions
may perform same functions.
Comparativists have proceeded in their task by focussing on one or a mix of the three
ways mentioned above. While one of the ‘ways’ may have its limitation, a mix of more than
one provides a broader understanding of the issues.
A different way to approach the question “how to compare” has been answered by
political philosopher James Stuart Mill. He provides five strategies for undertaking
comparison (Finn 2011):
a) Method of agreement: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they have in common. That commonality is identified as the cause.
b) Method of difference: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they all do not have in common. If they have all but one thing in common,
9|Page

that one thing is identified as the cause.

c) Joint method of agreement and difference: A combination of the methods of
agreement and difference, the joint method looks for a single commonality among
two or more instances of an event, and the joint method looks for a common absence
of that possible cause.
d) Method of residues: all known causes of a complex set of events are subtracted.
What is leftover is said to be the cause.
e) Method of concomitant variations: correlations between varying events are sought,
that is, correspondence in variations between two sets of objects, events, or data.
Of these, the ‘joint method of agreement and difference’ is relevant to comparative politics as
it combines the method of agreement and difference. It seeks to look for a single
commonality among two or more instances of an event and common absence of a possible
cause (Finn 2011). J.S. Mill’s ‘method of difference’ is also known as the “most similar
system design”. It is used in comparing similar cases having dependent variables. His
‘method of similarity’ is also known as the “most different systems design” (Black 1966). It
is employed to compare dissimilar cases having independent variables. However, while
comparing, one should be careful about what to compare and how to compare. There is much
greater value in comparing events and institutions that are in situated in similar time frame
than those that are widely separated in time. The comparison of societies or smaller groups
that are concerned with reasonably similar problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory
conclusions than comparisons between societies existing many centuries apart (Black 1966).
Thus, comparative research designs can either focus on similarities or on differences
(Caramani 2011). Daniel Caramani (2011) argues that it would not be correct to say that
comparative politics relies on a specific method. This is because different methods could be
employed based on the differences in number of cases chosen, type of data analysis used and
time period under study. Thus, the research method would depend on question that the
researcher is asking.
Another reason is that there can be different dimension under comparison. Therefore, a
single method will not be useful. The comparison can be (a) spatial or cross-sectional,
meaning that two political systems are compared as a cross section. For example, comparison
of federal systems of India and Canada. It can be (b) longitudinal, meaning that institutions
and systems could be compared across time. For example, comparison of the phase of
congress system in India with the phase of coalitional politics. It can be (c) functional or
cross-organizational, meaning that the object of study is not territorially different but can be
within a given political system. For example, comparison of government policies relating to
10 | P a g e

expenditure on military and education.
1.6 GOING BEYOND EUROCENTRISM
As discussed in the section 2.2 on ‘scope comparative politics’, the discipline faces the
charge of being parochial and Eurocentric. There are methodological problems, and it has
been alleged that comparative politics focusses on the “how” but ignores the “what” of the
problem (Lijphart 1971). The Eurocentric nature of the discipline limited its focus on Great
Britain, France, Germany and the Soviet Union.
Macridis’s critique of the discipline as parochial and Eurocentric did challenge the
contours but the efforts to redefine the discipline was still based on a deeply entrenched bias.
Thus, by addressing the “first crisis of the discipline”, a “second crisis” was invited
(Chandhoke 1996). The efforts to expand the scope of the discipline led to limiting of the
focus on the American and Western political systems and institutions. It was based on the
same worldview that ignored the worldviews of the ‘others. This was the Eurocentrism of the
discipline which either (a) focussed entirely on the West and ignored the rest of the world, or
(b) even when any part of the rest of the world was studied/compared, it was considered ‘less
civilized’, ‘exotic’, ‘different’ and ‘inferior’ than the European and American models.
Eurocentrism implies this superiority and bias in favour of the civilization, culture and race of
the West.
A “third world perspective” began to emerge during 1940s and 1950s but it remained
limited mostly to the Latin American experience. One of the earliest proponents of this
approach was Paul Baran who spearheaded the critique of modernization theory from a Neo-
Marxist perspective. Broadly called the ‘dependency perspective’, the ideas represented
‘voices from the periphery’ that ‘challenged the intellectual hegemony of the American
modernization school’ (So 1990). Before going into the critique, it would be useful to look at
some major theories of growth and modernization.
Major Theories of Growth and Modernization
Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) gave the theory of ‘big push’. He argued in favour of industrial
sector and advocated moving away from agricultural sector. He favoured the industrial sector as it
would generate greater levels of capital setting a self-perpetuating motion of growth.
Ragnar Nurkse (1953) came up with the notion that is better known as the ‘trickle-down effect’.
He argued that poor do not save and therefore investment in industries was needed to generate
capital. Rich needed to grow, save and invest further and the fruits of capital will eventually trickle-
down to the poor sections as well.
11 | P a g e

Simon Kuznets (1955) argued that capitalist development would in fact lead to economic inequality
in short run. But it would eventually lead to a more equitable and prosperous society. In Indian
context, V.M. Dandekar and N. Rath (1971) argued that a higher rate of growth was better than a
lower rate of growth for all social groups, except for the poorest 10 percent. Thus, they challenged
the effectiveness of the trickle-down effect and argued for a ‘basic needs strategy’. They argued
that from the viewpoint of the poor, fair distribution of growth is more important than general
growth.
W. Arthur Lewis (1954) began his argument by looking at a two-sector model - the capitalist sector
and the subsistence sector. While the capitalist sector has reproducible capital and is more
productive, the subsistence sector has low level of productivity. With low rate of savings, the
subsistence sector lacks accumulation of capital that can be reproduced. Therefore, Lewis argued
for emphasizing the capitalist sector for growth.
W.W. Rostow (1960) provided an ideological challenge to socialist models of development by
presenting his “Stages of Economic Growth”. Rostow divided the process of development into five
stages: (i) the traditional society; (ii) the establishment of the preconditions for take-off; (iii) the
take-off stage; (iv) the drive to maturity; and (v) the epoque of high mass consumption. For the
second stage, he emphasized the need to focus on specific growth sectors that would function as
engines for economic growth and lead to establishment of such political, social and institutional
frameworks that would utilize the potential in modern sector.
For more details on theories of growth and modernization, See John Martinussen (1997), Society,
State and Market: A guide to competing theories of development, London: Zed Books Ltd, chapter
5 and Alvin Y. So (1990), Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and
World System Theories, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Paul Baran (1966) used Marxist theory of surplus and sought to focus on internal
conditions of backward economies. Baran identified four classes that had narrow self-interest
and had no interest in promoting industrialization. These four classes - the feudal aristocracy,
the moneylenders, the merchants and the foreign capitalists appropriated the surplus.
Therefore, it was necessary to have extensive state intervention to promote nationally-
controlled industrialization (Martinussen 1997: 87). It was Baran’s ideas that influenced later
dependency theorists like A.G. Frank, Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel to provide a third
world perspective.
Andre Gunder Frank (1967) provided the idea of “Development of Underdevelopment”.
According to Frank, the Third World could never follow the path taken by the West because
of the differences in experience (So 1990: 96). The West did not experience colonialism
while most of the Third World countries are former colonies of the West. Thus, Frank
dismissed the ‘internal explanation’ of the modernization school and emphasizes the ‘external
12 | P a g e

explanation’. In simple words, the backwardness of the Third World was not due to feudalism
or aristocracy but was an outcome of the colonial experience and foreign domination.
A.G. Frank formulated a “metropolis-satellite model” to explain the underdevelopment
of the Third World. Colonialism created a link between the metropole (or the colonisers) and
the satellites (or the colony) in a way that to an unequal relation of trade. All the surplus was
appropriated by the metropole leaving the satellite poor. The local bourgeoise also
contributed to this underdevelopment by draining the surplus outside the satellite, not using it
for investment and development internally and keeping the international inequality in place.
Thus, what occurred was the development of underdevelopment due to the link with world
market. Only way out of this vicious cycle was to delink from the world market (So 1990).
Samir Amin (1976) provided the concept of ‘Centre and Periphery’. Unlike Frank, who
focussed on trade and exchange relations, Amin was more concerned with “conditions and
relations of production” (Martinussen 1997). Amin provided two ideal-type societal models -
the autocentric economy and the peripheral economy. The autocentric economy is self-reliant
but lack self-sufficiency. It relies on extensive international trade. The peripheral economy,
on the other hand, has an “overdeveloped export sector” producing goods for luxury
consumption (Martinussen 1997). One can see capitalism in circulation of capital but modes
of production remain pre-capitalist. The Centre is therefore able to extract resources and
cheap labour from the Periphery earning high profit. This relation of dependency is based on
unequal exchange and this asymmetric relationship leads to the continuation of dependency.
Dos Santos (1971) discussed three historical forms of dependency: (i) colonial
dependence, (ii) financial-industrial dependence, and (iii) technological-industrial
dependence (So 1990: 99). Santos identifies some limitations on the industrial development
of underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries have to rely on foreign capital
leading to political dependence. They are in a monopolized market where raw materials are
cheap and industrial products are high. Therefore, the amount of capital leaving the
dependent country is much more than the amount entering. Also, the monopoly of imperial
centres over the technology makes the relation even more asymmetrical. The context of cheap
labour in combination with the presence of capital-intensive technology leads to differences
in the level of domestic wages. Thus, there is a “high rate of exploitation or
‘superexploitation’ of labour power” (So 1990). Thus the monopolistic control over foreign
capital, foreign finance and foreign technology leads to the economic backwardness and
internal social marginalization in the underdeveloped countries.
Other scholars like Arghiri Emmanuel (1972) and Geoffrey Kay (1975) also provided
somewhat similar theoretical understanding by looking at the unequal exchange and
13 | P a g e

exploitation of the peripheral economies. F.H. Cardoso (1974) posited the idea of
‘development in dependency’ and rejected the tendency of treating the peripheral countries as
single group of dependent economies. He focussed more on the internal conditions and
argued that external factors would have different results based “dissimilar internal
conditions” (Martinussen 1997). Due to such diagnosis, Cardoso was also against
recommending general set of strategies for all peripheral countries.
In general, the Third World perspective attempts at dismantling the Eurocentric bias of
comparative politics. It highlights the limitations of the ‘grand narratives’ and focuses on two
important aspects: the impact of colonialism and the cultural specificity of the non-West. It is
through such challenge that the discipline has been able to move beyond its Eurocentric
bubble.
1.7 CONCLUSION
Comparative politics is a broad sub-discipline that involves various traditions, methods and
approaches. It includes description, analysis, prediction and generalization of political
activity. Comparative politics has been accused of being Eurocentric, parochial, formalistic,
and excessively descriptive. Despite these limitations and problems, scholars have sought to
find solution and enhance the ambit of comparative politics. It is important to break the
ethnocentric nature and situate the political processes in context. In this regards, it is asserted
that one needs to situate analysis in historical, cultural and geographic contexts. It is
important to note that over-generalization is a problematic aspect of any theory. If one seeks
to explain a political activity in complete abstraction, it would be away from reality. If the
study is only looking at specific situations, it loses its relevance for broader context.
Therefore, a shift towards middle-level of grounded theory was advocated by scholars
(Blondel 1981). The narrowing of the scope of comparative political analysis also led to a
focus on case-oriented studies. Against the criticism that comparativists tend to universalize
concepts, there was a renewed focus on development of methods based on few cases.
However, this approach was also considered problematic as the hypothesis is not testable
when there are several factors at play. Despite these problems and narrowing of focus,
comparative political analysis remains a very important sub-discipline of political science. It
provides insight into contemporary national, regional and international politics by providing
descriptive, analytical and methodological frames of reference.
14 | P a g e

1.8 PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. What do you understand by Eurocentrism? Highlight its impact on study of

Comparative Politics.
2. The classification of Political System provides an important tool to understand
comparative politics. Evaluate.
1.9 REFERENCES
• Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History,

New York: Harper and Row.
• Blondel, Jean (1981), The Discipline of Politics, Butterworths: London.
• Blondel, Jean (1999), “Then and Now: Comparative Politics”, Political Studies,
XLVII, pp. 152-160.
• Caramani, Daniele (2011), “Introduction to comparative politics”, in Daniele
Caramani (ed.) Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chandhoke, Neera (1996), “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis”, Economic and
Political Weekly, 31 (4): 2-8.
• Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy (1990) How to Compare Nations: Strategies in
Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
• Finn, V.K. (2011), “J.S. Mill’s inductive methods in artificial intelligence systems.
Part I”, Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38: 385-402.
• Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and John McComrick (2016), Comparative Government
and Politics: An Introduction, 10th edition, London: Palgrave.
• Kopstein, J. and M. Lichbach, (eds.) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests,
Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.1-5; 16-36; 253-290.
• Landman, Todd (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An
Introduction, New York: Routledge.
• Lijphart, Arend (1971), “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”, The
American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.
15 | P a g e

• Macridis, Roy C. (1955), “Major Characteristics of the Traditional Approach”, in The

Study of Comparative Politics, New York: Random House, pp. 7-14.
• Martinussen, John (1997), Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories
of development, London: Zed Books Ltd.
• Mohanty, Manoranjan (1975), “Comparative Political Theory and Third World
Sensitivity”, Teaching Politics, 1&2.
• Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010), Foundations of Comparative Politics,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• So, Alvin Y. (1990), Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency
and World System Theories, London: Sage Publications.
16 | P a g e

Unit-II: Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

(a) INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH, SYSTEM APPROACH,
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
Bhagyanagar Vineeth Srivatsava
STRUCTURE
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Institutional Approach
1.3.1 Characteristics of Institutional Approach
1.3.2 Criticisms
1.3.3 Concluding Remarks
1.4 Systems Approach
1.4.1 Characteristics of the Systems
1.4.2 David Easton’s Systems Analysis
1.4.3 Criticism
1.5 Structural Functionalism
1.5.1 Criticism
1.6 Conclusion
1.8 References
• After completing this lesson the student would understand about various approaches-
Institutional approach, Systems approach and structural-functional approach and their
relevance in comparative politics.
• The student would understand the utility of system approach. Main impact of system
theory in comparative politics.
17 | P a g e

1.2 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier unit, the scope and nature of comparative politics have been familiarized to the
readers. This chapter focuses on the various approaches that are dominant in comparative
political theory. In particular, we limit ourselves to three crucial approaches- Institutional
approach, Systems approach and structural-functional approach. This chapter aims not only
to engage in debates on approaches used in comparative politics but also to understand and
reflect the merits and demerits of each approach, its role in the development of the discipline
and its relevance for the researcher in their study. Before we move forward with the
discussion, it is essential to step back and ask what approaches are? In a narrow sense, if we
say that comparative politics is essentially comparing various forms of political life,
approaches are various ways to compare. For example, suppose we want to compare two
objects–A and B. In that case, we should have prior rules established on how they should be
compared, what characteristics of A and B are to be taken into consideration in comparison.
In comparing political systems, political culture and institutions approaches serve as ways of
comparison. Each approach evolved out of complex intellectual history and shaped by the
events of that particular time. It is therefore essential to keep in mind that every approach has
its particular relevance in the discipline.
The approaches used in the theory of comparative politics can broadly be categorized
into two–the traditional approaches and modern approaches. Without emphasizing too much
on contrasting traditional and the modern approach, it suffices to hold that the traditional
approaches are concerned with a normative perspective of politics supplemented by the study
of formal structures, institutions etc. Some of the key proponents of this approach include
Aristotle, James Bryce, Harold Laski, Walter Bagehot, etc. The behavioural revolution in
social sciences attacked the traditional methods in political science and emphasized the need
for scientific criteria in comparative research. The modern approaches utilise these scientific
methods to study various political systems by understanding measurable aspects of the
system.
1.3 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
Before we begin with the discussion on the institutional approach, it is important to

emphasise what institutions mean. A consistent and organised pattern of behaviour or
activities established by custom or law can broadly be called an institution. Therefore, an
institution means not only bodies like Parliament and Judiciary but also customs and or any
other patterned behaviour of the society. You might be aware of the fact that marriage is an
18 | P a g e

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

specific characteristics that help us to understand the approach in details. Guy Peters (1999)
lists the characteristics of the institutional approach as follows
1.3.1 Characteristics of Institutional Approach
1.3.1.1 Legalism: The institutional approach gave law central place in a comparison of
various institutions. Even in the example of Wilson mentioned above, we can notice the
prominence of law through his emphasis on types of government. The prominence of law can
broadly be attributed to the fact that the law constitutes the basis of political life and affect
the behaviour of citizens in a significant way. Despite its centrality in the approach, scholars
differ in their explanation of the relationship between law and society. Guy Peters (1999)
holds that the study of law as the basis of political knowledge achieved its height in the
Prussian State and thereafter in Germany.
1.3.1.2 Structuralism: For the scholars of the institutional approach, the structure
determined the behaviour. Therefore, major institutional features, the ideal types of
government- Parliamentary or Presidential, various models of parliamentary government, and
presidential governments were extensively researched. The structures studied in this approach
tended to be formal and constitutional. The assumption made by the researcher by the study
of structures is that one could predict the behaviour of the system by identifying the salient
aspects of the structure.
1.3.1.3 Holism: The researcher using the institutional approach tended to compare whole
systems. Although it is tougher to make generalisations as the researcher has to study large
systems, it equipped them with the complex nature of political life and the interplay of
various aspects in affecting political behaviour.
1.3.1.4 Historicism: The contemporary political institutions are undoubtedly embedded in
their historical conditions. The institutional approach consisted of a historical analysis of the
institutions that the researcher is set to understand and analyse. The understanding of
historical conditions helps the researcher to understand the pattern of development for
appropriate prediction. The historical conditions also consider the role of the complex
relationship between society and politics that offers a rich perspective of the political system.
1.3.1.5 Normativity: The institutional approach was normative in nature. It was concerned
with the questions like what life ought to be and the role of good government in achieving it.
The normative analysis of the institutionalists came under attack by the behaviourist scholars,
which we will be dealt in the later sections.
20 | P a g e

1.3.2 Criticisms
The institutional approach, although was dominant in the discipline, has drawbacks that were
pointed out mainly by behavioural scholars. The scientific revolution in the Political Science
discipline meant that the speculative nature of approaches was dismissed for fact-based
theories. We shall try to point few drawbacks that the institutional approach faces. As
mentioned earlier, the institutional approach gave the structure a prominent role in the
explanation of the political system. However, this structural nature of the approach did not
consider the role of the individuals or groups in nurturing the system except for few ‘great
men’. It is very evident from today’s globalised world that non-structural aspects of the state
like corporates and other non-state actors hold a strong influence on the system as well.
Further, Roy Macridis (1955) argued that the tendency of institutionalism to study formal
institutions led the approach to be very euro-centric and parochial in nature. Almond and
Coleman (1960) also pointed out that the institutional approach faced a crisis as it could not
comprehend the political systems of the third world countries where the institutions were less
or not developed like that of European counterparts.
The historicism and normative analysis of the institutional approach came under attack
with the behavioural revolution in the discipline. Behavioural scholars emphasised more on
the facts to understand the political system and predict future behaviour, rallied for separation
of fact from the norm, and engaged in understanding what is instead of the normative
question of what ought to be. Further, holistic research of the approach, which has many
advantages, makes it difficult not only to generalise but also compare. Macridis (1960) was
right in this regard when he pointed out that comparative politics is more descriptive than
comparative. To elaborate a little more on this, if we suppose research on the political system
of India and England, we try to understand the political system through a holistic approach
and study the formal institutions. This method describes the respective political systems
rather than comparing them.
Despite its shortcomings, it can be argued that the institutional approach forms one of the
pillars of political science research. The vast amount of research done even today on formal
institutions and their relationship with society is a testament to the prominence of this
approach. The behavioural revolution sure did point out the lacunae that approach has, but
some of the shortcomings are addressed by the rise of the new institutional approach, which
you will learn more about in the next chapter.
21 | P a g e

1.4 SYSTEMS APPROACH
The systems approach in political science has its origins in the critique of traditional
approaches of comparative politics. Proponents of modern approaches, including the systems
approach, rejected strict compartmentalisation of discipline, which was the result of
traditional approaches. They championed the cause of the unification of various disciplinary
methods. In particular, they argued the need to draw from natural sciences to understand
social phenomena objectively and make predictions more consistent through such objective
analysis. The origins of the systems approach, in general, can be traced to German Biologist
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy who pioneered the movement of unification of all the natural
sciences. It came to political science through its application in disciplines like anthropology
and sociology through the works of Emile Durkheim, Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons,
respectively. Although the definition of the word ‘system’ varies in different disciplines,
Bertalanffy (1956) described it as “a set of elements standing in interaction”. Mortan Kaplan
(1967), on the other hand, defines the object of system analysis as “a study of a set of
interrelated variables, as distinguished from the environment of the set, and of the ways in
which this set is maintained under the impact of environmental disturbances.”
1.4.1 Characteristics of the Systems
David Apter (1978) characterised systems in the following way:
1. Systems are composed of functional inter-relationships among the elements based on
some sort of communication within its specified boundaries or environment. The
elements in such a system are not random aggregation, but their inter-dependence
allows the existence of the system.
2. There are sub-systems within a system.
3. Systems take inputs in the form of demands and supports. The system translates those
inputs into outputs in the form of laws and policies.
As explained above, the systems approach draws heavily from the other disciplines and
rejects the strict compartmentalisation of the disciplines. The concept of the system allowed
the approach to replace the excessive focus on the State, formal institutions and historicism
and allow us to understand extra-legal matters, including social and cultural institutions. It
thus forms a multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary approach to understand political systems.
This approach is extremely helpful in sorting out large data and understanding patterns of the
systems. It also enables the researcher to understand the direction of development of the
political system without emphasising too much on history or normative questions by
objectively studying said variables. However, the use of systems theory in social sciences has
22 | P a g e

to be done with utmost diligence keeping social realities in mind. Unlike natural objects,
which are stable in nature, social objects are much volatile, and this needs to be taken into
consideration while applying systems theory in understanding social phenomena. Kaplan
rightly pointed out in this regard that the social researcher should act as a ‘balancer’ between
natural science methods and the complexities of social reality.
Environment
Demands Political System Laws
Supports Policies
Feedback
A simple diagrammatic description of the Political System

1.4.2 David Easton’s Systems Analysis
David Easton pioneered the movement of systems analysis in the political science discipline.
His celebrated work, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965), provided “an original set of
concepts for arranging at the level of theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new
and helpful way” (Davis and Lewis 1971). Easton stood for a political theory that is capable
of explaining both national and international political systems that helps us more in
comparison. He rejected scholars of the traditional approach who were obsessed with
normative analysis and championed the cause of the need for scientific methods in
understanding the political system. Easton has extensively written on systems analysis in his
various works, and let us try to summarise his theory in a brief way.
David Easton coined new definitions for the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’
instead of using existing definitions that were prevalent in political theory. For Easton,
politics is “the authoritative allocation of values”. A Political system, therefore, is a “set of
interactions abstracted from the totality of social behaviour, through which values are
allocated for society” (Easton 1956). It should be kept in mind that the term values for Easton
are not similar to value-laden politics. Johari (2011) argues that the term value was probably
23 | P a g e

used in the economic sense meaning price or worth. Easton believes that those in power
determine the values, and politics becomes the allocation of values.
Natural and social systems have certain common properties, like a coping mechanism
that enables them to cope with disturbances that may be caused. Easton argued that the
political system has a ‘responding ’and ‘self-regulating’ mechanism to correct, change and re-
adjust its process. The political system is therefore not simply static but a dynamic affair,
although each system tries to maintain its identity intact. This happens through a ‘feedback’
mechanism that transmits information from the environment to the political system.
However, Easton argues that a political system still may face challenges from the
environment, which he calls as stresses. There are two kinds of stresses- demand stress and
support stress. Demand stress may arise either if the systems fail to take feedback into
consideration or fails to meet certain demands. This is termed as “demand-input overload”.
Support stress arises when the members of the political system do not support the system
resulting in failure of the system. Therefore, there needs to be a proper balance between
inputs and outputs. Further, the political system also requires certain structural bases like that
of elections, political parties and political beliefs and attitudes of people for the survival of
the system. In short, the political system for David Easton, as Davies and Lewis (1971)
rightly pointed out, is an “input-output mechanism dealing with political decisions and the
activities associated with these conditions”.
1.4.3 Criticism
We have seen from the above discussion that the systems analysis in political science has
come from natural sciences. But general systems theory and the systems theory in political
science are not completely similar. We have also seen characteristics of the system and David
Easton’s, one of the prominent proponents of systems theory, contribution to the field.
However, David Easton’s systems theory has been criticised by many scholars for the
limitations of the approach in understanding political systems. We will briefly mention some
of the criticisms.
David Easton’s definition of the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’ is very broad and
abstract in nature that it either, on the one hand, “forces all phenomena into the framework of
a system” (Young 1968) or on the other hand it is too abstract to formulate any hypothesis
and propositions. Secondly, there is not much description of the political system, making it
very ambiguous in nature. The distinction between open and closed systems are too blurry as
well. Thirdly, systems theory takes only the present into account and ignores the historical
and social conditions that are necessary to predict the future of the political system. Fourthly,
Systems theory still does not overcome the problem of the parochial nature of traditional
24 | P a g e

approaches and views world and politics from only the western lenses. Lastly, Easton
criticised the traditional approaches for too much emphasis on formal institutions, and he
tried to understand the behaviour of the political system through the individual as an actor.
But it is evident from his analysis that Easton was only interested in the individual only when
they are part of the process of preserving the system. Although the word nation or the state
from traditional approaches have been avoided and replaced with the term system, the
emphasis is only on the system. In this regard, Varma (1975) rightly pointed out that Easton,
in his serious efforts to move away from the traditional approaches to the behavioural
approach, finds himself somewhere in the middle. Paul F. Kress (1969) argues that the
theory, like Easton’s systems analysis, so respectful of facts, lacks any substance and presents
to us as an ‘empty vision of politics’.
Despite the above critical remarks by various scholars, it cannot be denied that systems
theory in political science has had a considerable impact on the discipline. It provided a
macro analysis of the political system that could be studied objectively. It also broadened the
scope of the discipline by studying the political systems of the non-western world. Though
Easton was hanging in the middle between traditional approaches and behavioural
approaches, his emphasis on facts led to the scientific revolution in the discipline as we
witness it today.
1.5 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
Structural functionalism is the third approach in comparative politics that we discuss in this
chapter after outlining the institutional and systems approach. In a nutshell, structural-
functionalism means explaining the functions of political structures as a tool of investigation.
For example, if a researcher wants to compare the institution of the Prime Minister in India
and the United Kingdom, one could do so by understanding the functions performed by the
respective Prime Ministers of India and the United Kingdom and find out the similarities and
differences. But before we go on to a detailed discussion of the approach, we need a basic
understanding of what a structure and function are. It need not be emphasised here again that
the definitions for structure and function vary not only based on the discipline but also among
the scholars within the discipline. Arrangements within a political system that perform a
function or certain functions are broadly called as structures. These functions can be either
simple or complex. Further, it can be a case that a single structure can perform a function, or
a group of structures together perform a complex function. It should be clear from the above
discussion what a function is, but it is essential to define it in precise terms. Robert K. Merton
25 | P a g e

(1959) defines functions as “those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or
readjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions those observed consequences which lessen
the adaptation or adjustment of the system”. If system analysis considers the political system
as a cybernetic machine with inputs and outputs, functionalism gives space to the
‘organismic’ analogy.
The structural-functional approach in social science marked its moment in social science
by the mid-1960s. It became one of the dominant modes of explanation in political science.
Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski are two prominent scholars known for the introduction of
structural functionalism in social anthropology. Structural-functional approaches of Marion
Levy Jr., Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons in Political Sociology has a deep impact on
the political science discipline, after which there has been systematic development of the
structural-functional approach. It is not our purpose here to engage with Brown, Malinowski,
Levy, Merton and Parsons in detail. Instead, we focus specifically on structural functionalism
in the political science discipline.
We shall very briefly mention some of the scholars in the discipline to whom structural-
functionalism owes its conceptual framework. Since the focus of the chapter is only to
introduce the students to the structural-functional approach, we avoid an in-depth discussion
of each of the scholars mentioned below. David Easton can be regarded as one of the
prominent scholars in functionalist thought in political science. He was concerned with the
stability of a given political system. Much of his analysis was described in the earlier
sections. Another prominent scholar in this approach is William C. Mitchell. Mitchell, unlike
Easton, does not make the mistake of confusing the political system with the social system
and regards it as a sub-system of the social system which performs the function of mobilising
resources for meeting the goals of the social system. David Apter focused on the political
systems of African countries such as Uganda and Ghana and argued that the ‘imported
systems ’in Third World countries imposed by the colonial masters and therefore do not
function properly as western scholars predicted. He sought to understand the political systems
in Third World by understanding the functions of the government. Thus, structural
functionalism gave a conceptual framework to understand political systems belonging to
Third World.
Gabriel A. Almond is another political scientist who sought to understand the change in
political systems from traditional polities to modern. In the classification of the political
system, the efficiency of the political system was the key factor in Almond’s classificatory
model. He categorised that traditional polities are less effective and move toward a modern
political system which is most effective. He believed that a researcher who seeks to
26 | P a g e

understand the political change in developing societies has to understand the political systems
of western societies for a proper analysis. For Almond, western modern political systems
form an ideal political system. He argued that a political system has four characteristics-
every political system has structures with varied specialisation; despite structural
differentiation, every political system performs some similar political functions; many
structures perform multiple functions, and; political systems have a culture of their own. You
will learn more about political culture in the next chapter. Almond shifted the focus of
comparison from observable institutional mechanisms to functions of the system.
1.5.1 Criticism
Structural functionalism became one of the dominant explanations in political science after
the behavioural revolution within the discipline. However, it has some severe limitations. We
will try to look at few shortcomings of the approach. As it can be noticed from the above
discussion on the structural-functional approach, like the systems approach, it focuses much
on the static relationships. It fails to take into account the dynamic relationships and historical
account of the political system. In their search for quantifiable methods to compare, political
science was reduced to static relationships instead of answering rich normative questions.
Secondly, the theories of Easton, Mitchell, Apter, Almond and other functionalist theorists
were broadly concerned with questions of survival of the system and sought to answer the
method of stable adaptation in the event of any change. In other words, structural-
functionalism tended to be status quo-ist and against any sudden change. This excessive
concern to maintain the status quo raised eyebrows among scholars of Marxist and critical
tradition. For example, Gouldner (1971) criticised functionalists as “sociological
conservation corps of industrial society”, and Bhambhri (1973) accused functionalists of
being “defenders of bourgeoise at home and of imperialism abroad”. Marxists emphasised the
need for a revolutionary change in the system where the masses are exploited by the
bourgeoisie with the help of political leaders. The functional approach, therefore, is seen as a
threat that hampers the revolutionary consciousness of the masses.
In the previous section, we saw how functionalism gave impetus to a conceptual
framework to study the political systems of countries belonging to the Third World.
However, this is not prone to criticism. Many pointed out the irony that scholars of the
functional approach developed frameworks to understand the developing societies in their
comfortable libraries and office rooms in Harvard and Chicago Universities that lacked
political reality. The extravagant concern for the quantitative methods led to validating
exploitative western society and accusing Third World societies of not being modern enough.
The parochial nature of theory could be seen in Almond’s theory, as well as he believed that
the ideal society was modern western society and change can only be traditional to modern.
27 | P a g e

Despite the above-mentioned criticisms, it is no doubt that the structural-functional

approach has certain advantages in studying western democracies, but application in the case
of Third World countries has to be done with a certain caution. A researcher has to give
priority to political and societal realities instead of depending on an approach that might not
completely understand the political system.
1.6 CONCLUSION
This chapter introduced the reader to dominant approaches used in comparative politics. The
characteristics, merits and criticisms of the institutional approach were discussed in the first
section of this chapter. The development of approaches like systems analysis and structural
functionalism was introduced in the context of the behavioural revolution in social sciences
and the determination of scholars to do away with strict disciplinary boundaries that inhibited
knowledge about social and natural phenomena. We argued that each of the approaches
discussed in this particular chapter has their own merits and shortcomings. A researcher who
seeks to do comparative research should carefully plan which approach can possibly suit the
field of their research instead of fixating on a particular approach.
1. Write an essay on various approaches in Comparative politics.

2. Explain how system approach work in apolitical environment. Discuss David
Easton’s theory on system.
3. Write an elaborate explanation on Structural -functional theory on system approach.
1.8 REFERENCES
• Almond, G and Coleman, J. S. (1960), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton:

Princeton University Press.
• Apter, David (1978), Introduction to Political Analysis, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
• Bertalanffy, Von Ludwig (1956), General systems theory, General systems, vol. 1, pp.
1-10.
• Bhambhri, C. P. (1973), “Functionalism in Politics”, Indian Journal of Political
Science, vol. XXXIV, No. 4, October-December.
• Bryce, James (1888), The American Commonwealth, London: MacMillan and Co.
28 | P a g e

• Bryce, James (1888), Modern Democracies, New York: MacMillan.

• Davies, Morton R. and Lewis, Vaughan A. (1971), Models of Political System, New
Delhi: Vikas Publications.
• Doig, J. (1983), ‘if I see a Murderous Fellow Sharpening a Knife Cleverly…’: The
Wilsonian Dichotomy and Public Authority, Public Administration Review, vol. 43,
pp. 292-304.
• Easton, David (1956), A Framework for Political Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Easton, David (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
• Gouldner, A. G. (1971), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, New Delhi: Hiene-
mann.
• Hobbes, Thomas (2009), Leviathan, Oxford: Oxford University Publications.
• Johari, J. C. (2011), Comparative Politics, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
• Kaplan, Morton A. (1967), “Systems Theory”, in James C. Charlesworth (eds.),
Contemporary Political Analysis, New York: Free Press.
• Kress, Paul F. (1969), “A Critique of Easton’s Systems Analysis”, in James A Gould
and Vincent V Thursby (eds.), Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in Scope,
Value, and Direction, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
• Lowell, A. Lawrence (1896), Government and Parties in Continental Europe,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Lowell, A. Lawrence (1913), Public Opinion and Popular Government, New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
• Macridis, Roy (1955), The Study of Comparative Government, New York: Random
House.
• Merton, Robert K. (1959), Social Theory and Social Structure, Illinois: Free Press of
Glancoe.
• Peters, B. Guy (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New
Institutionalism’, London: Pinter.
• Varma, S. P. (1975), Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas Publications.
• Young, O. R. (1968), Systems of Political Science, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
29 | P a g e

(b) APPROACHES TO STUDYING COMPARATIVE POLITICS

POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
Dr. Kamal Kumar
STRUCTURE

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Political Culture Approach
2.4 Almond and Verba’s Conception of Political Culture
2.5 Civic Culture
2.6 Other Major Conceptions on Political Culture
2.7 Limitation of Political Culture Approach
2.8 Conclusion
2.10 References

• After completing this lesson, the student would understand the importance of culture
in politics and Almond and Verba’s conception of civic culture.
• It has enabled the political scientists and researchers to empirically analyse the
interactions between the individual behaviours and political system.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
The present chapter attempts to analyse the political culture approach in the field of
comparative politics. Approaches and methods are significant, especially in the context of
social sciences including political science, not just in developing an understanding about the
socio-political phenomena, but also in enabling the researchers and political scientists to offer
a solution to certain complex problems in any given time and context. In particular,
approaches hold a very important place in the field of comparative politics as they help us to
systematically explain the different political processes, political events and institutional
activities as well as social behaviours in a comparative manner. At the same time, they
30 | P a g e

encourage the scholars (of comparative politics) to predict the social and political outcomes.
In the preceding chapters, the analysis on different key traditional and modern approaches has
been offered. This chapter seeks to evaluate one of the significant modern approaches, that is,
political culture to the study of comparative politics. It begins with the discussion on the
meaning of the term ‘political culture’ and overview of key conceptions offered by its
principal proponents, especially the conception of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. It will
be followed by its key limitations and criticisms.
2.3 POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
Society is an integral part of a political system including democratic system, and the study of
continuous interactions between the society and political system is the key concern of the
political culture approach. Scholarly interest in this modern approach is associated with the
emergence of behavioural science. As Andrew Bove (2002: 3) noted that “political culture
was brought in as ally of, and soon became a crucial term within, a behaviouralist science
whose basic mode is strict causal explanation, not interpretative description.” Instead of
emphasising upon the study of formal political institutions and processes, the behaviourist
political science—unlike the traditional approaches such as traditional institutional approach,
historical approach and philosophical approach among others—places the study of human
behaviour and interaction with natural world (political institutions and society in the context
of social sciences) at the centre of its analysis. With the increasing popularity of
behaviouralist methods and tools in social sciences, scholars began to attach more
significance to the sociological (cultural) aspects—in comparison to the structural and
historical aspects—in the studies of political science. Furthermore, it is observed that the
“political culture literature helped to provide political science itself with a sense of legitimacy
and authority after World War II” (Formisano, 2001: 397). In that sense, the political culture
marked the emergence of a new epoch in political science where sociological and behavioural
aspects gained the significance in the scholarly investigations.
The political culture approach attracted the attention of political scientists and researches
in the mid of twentieth century. Scholars though attribute its genesis to the writings of Johann
G. Herder, Alexis de Tocqueville and Montesquieu among others, but it was Gabriel Almond
whose ground-breaking work, entitled “Comparative Political Systems” (1956) credited to
popularise the concept in the field of political science during the modern times. For Almond,
“every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to political action”,
and he defined this pattern as “political culture” (cited in Formisano, 2001: 396). In that
sense, the latter concept is imperative to understand the people’s orientations (in terms of the
31 | P a g e

political actions) in any given political system.

The term political culture, in general, refers to the people’s behaviours, beliefs, attitudes,
opinions, and orientations towards the political system and its varied institutions as well
political processes and activities. In fact, in order to understand the “political tendencies in a
nation, one place to begin is with public attitudes toward politics and the citizen’s role in the
political system—what we call a nation’s political culture” (Powell, et al. 2015: 63). In this
regard, Alan A. Ball argues that the concept of “political culture is composed of the attitudes,
beliefs, emotions and values of society that relates to the political system and to apolitical
issues” (Ball, 1971: 56). In a similar vein, Almond and Verba (1963: 14) state that this term
denotes the “political orientations—attitudes towards the political system and its various
parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system.” Furthermore, Roy C. Macridis
interestingly offers a slightly different understanding of the concept of political culture, he
asserts that it “constitutes commonly shared goals and commonly accepted rules of individual
and groups interaction in terms of which authoritative decision and choice will be made by all
the ‘actors’ within a political system” (cited in Kim, 1964: 331). In other words, the study of
human interaction with the government and its different formal political institutions is the
central objective of the political culture approach.
It is important to note here that the different communities, groups and members of the
society may have their own individual political culture indicating their peculiar political
understanding and orientations. However, it does not refer to the people’s opinions and
viewpoints towards individual political actors like head of the government (president in the
context of US and the Prime Minster of India) and political party leader. While evaluating the
key components of the political culture, Samuel H. Beer argues that “values, beliefs and
emotional attitudes” are the principal components (Kim, 1964: 324). In other words, people’s
values, beliefs and attitudes, for Beer, toward the political system and governance is what that
implies their political culture. Moreover, the nature of political culture varies according to the
degree of civic engagement in the political system. Owing to different socio-political and
economic contexts, citizens in some political system or some part of the country are likely to
be more active in the politics than the other. For an example; the voter turnout in 2019 Kerala
assembly elections (77.68%) is considerably higher than 2020 Delhi assembly elections
(62.82%) according to the Election Commission of India. Hence, the political culture of
distinct groups and communities in a society can be varied according to the context and
socio-political milieu.
32 | P a g e

2.4 ALMOND AND VERBA’S CONCEPTION OF POLITICAL

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

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

influence the political outcomes but can also shape the governmental policies and
decisions. In this regard, Almond and Verba (1963: 18) argue that the citizens “tend to
be oriented toward an ‘active’ role of the self in the polity…” Moreover, citizens as the
keen observers of politics have a very strong political opinion and view about the
politics and as a result, they do not hesitate to raise their voice against the government
while find any governmental decision and policy not in tune with the peoples’ demands.
Participant cultures are seemingly most compatible to the democratic regimes because
of its vibrant nature.
While classifying the political cultures in above three categories, Almond and Verba
(1963: 19) state that their classification “does not imply homogeneity or uniformity of
political cultures. Thus political system with predominately participant cultures will, even in
the limiting case, include both subjects and parochial.” In that sense, all three political
cultures can be found coexisting in any given political system including democracy.
2.5 CIVIC CULTURE
In comparison to parochial and subject cultures, the participant culture undoubtedly appears
as the best suitable political culture for the stable liberal democracy where citizens are
encouraged to play an active and constructive role at the different levels of the government.
However, Almond and Verba rejected any of such propositions because, according to them,
the democracy would “prove most stable in societies blending different cultures in a
particular mix”, and they termed this mixture as the “civic culture” as illustrated in the figure
4.1 (Rod and Martin, 2004, 89). In other words, the mixed culture consisting of the elements
of all three major cultures—parochial, subject and participant cultures—appears ideal for the
stability of a democratic political system.
Figure 4.1 – Almond and Verba’s Analysis of the Civic Culture
35 | P a g e

In the civil culture, majority of the citizens are informed about the political system and
their political responsibilities, but it is “the passive minority, whether parochials, subjects or
both, [who] provide stability to the system” (Rod and Martin, 2004, 90). Furthermore, the
citizens (the participants) are not engaged in the politics to the extent that they refrain to
follow those governmental decisions and orders with which they do not agree and become the
source of chaos in a society. In other words, citizens in the civil culture are capable of
participating in the political activities and influencing political outcomes and decisions (like
they are in the participant political culture), but they often do not do so (like parochial and
subject political cultures). Therefore, the civil culture plays a significant role in maintaining a
balance “between popular control and effective governance” in a democratic system (Ibid). In
other words, the citizens have access to many platforms to influence the government’s
decisions and policy-making process on the one hand, and the political elites have flexibilities
to sometime take tough decisions on sensitive issues against the popular opinions on the other
hand. In their cross-national study of five democratic countries, Almond and Verba
concluded that the political culture in Britain and the United States—unlike of the Mexico,
Italy and West Germany—was in sync with norms of the civil culture, and thus, found best
suitable for stable democracy. Because in the both United States and Britain, the members of
the nation “felt they could influence the government but often chose not to do so, thus giving
the government its required agility” (Ibid).
2.6 OTHER MAJOR CONCEPTIONS ON POLITICAL CULTURE
Ronald Inglehart is one of principal proponents of the political culture approach. In his
popular work entitled “The Renaissance of Political Culture” (1988), he states that citizens in
different societies “are characterised by durable cultural orientations that have major political
and economic consequences” (Inglehart, 1988: 1203). In that sense, Inglehart—in contrast to
Almond and Verba—links the cultural factors (civic culture) with political stability as well as
economic development. He offers a somewhat fresh and interesting explanation of the term
‘civic culture’ and defines it as “a coherent syndrome of personal life satisfaction, political
satisfaction, interpersonal trust and support for the existing social order” (Ibid). For Inglehart,
the societies with a high degree of this syndrome have more probabilities than those with a
low, to be stable democracies. In other words, his cross-national analysis suggests that there
is a positive co-relation between personal and political satisfaction as well as interpersonal
trust and the stable democracy since these all factors constitute “a syndrome of positive
attitudes toward” the democratic institutions (Ibid., 1215). Hence, societies with a high
degree of such syndrome are to be expected to promote democratic ethos as well as
strengthen democratic institutions than those characterising by a low degree of such attitudes.
36 | P a g e

By the late 1980s, political culture approach had gained the prominence amongst the
historians. Most notably, two historians such as John L Brooke in his award-winning work
entitled “Society and Political Culture on Worcester County Massachusetts, 1773-1861”
(1989) and Daniel Walker Howe in “The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the
North during the Second Party System” (1991) followed this approach in their historical
inquiries. In fact, Howe extended the conceptual arena of political culture by including the
social movements and their struggle for political power. He emphasised that one had “to
define political culture to include all struggles over power, not just those decided by
elections” (Formisano, 2001: 416). For Howe, the people’s campaigns for gender justice,
environmental protection, racial justice and the rights of working class among others were
significant in the US politics, and their appropriate analysis was essential to develop a
comprehensive understanding about the locals’ political culture. In his way, Howe credited to
broaden the definition of ‘political culture’ as well as ‘politics’ by bringing the social
movements under its theoretical ambit.
Social Capital and Political Culture
In the latter decade of twentieth century, the political culture approach attracted more
popularity with the works of scholars like Robert Putnam. In his most prominent work
entitled “Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy” (1993), Putnam
studied the working of Italian regional governments by employing varied approaches and
empirical tools. David D. Laitin (1995) credited the latter work to mark a “stunning new
beginning for political culture research” (Formisano, 2001: 406). However, Putnam
employed the term ‘social capital’ to analyse the roots of people’s engagement in politics.
The term refers to “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (Keeley, 2007: 103). According to Putnam,
social capital “may possibly be more important than physical or human capital” for stable
democracies and administrative efficiencies (Rotberg, 1999: 339). Since he hypothesised that
societies with a high degree of social capital encouraged people to participate in political
activities and processes that was considered significant for political stability and effective
governance. While analysing the interrelation between civic culture (Almond and Verba) and
social capital (Putnam), Robert I. Rotberg (1999: 341) argues that a “civic culture exists
because citizens have accumulated large amount of social capital… [In other words, the] high
levels of social capital contribute to the creation of political culture that is open, pluralistic,
deliberative, tolerant and democratic.” In this way, Putnam’s classic work encouraged the
researchers to further develop the concept of political culture approach. The positive co-
relation between the social capital and political culture is observed as the high degree of the
former is linked with the latter’s development. The next section sheds light on the major
37 | P a g e

criticisms and deficiencies of the political culture approach.

Political Culture and Ideology
During the 1960s and 1970s, scholarly work on political culture was primarily confined to the
behavioural aspects. However, neo-Marxist scholars like Louis Althusser offered an
alternative perspective (with emphasise on the concept of ‘ideology’) to analyse the role of
culture in politics. According to Althusser, the “state has two key components: repressive and
ideological state apparatuses” (Rosamond, 1997: 66). The repressive apparatuses include the
armed and law enforcement agencies like police and paramilitary forces (function via
coercion) while the latter include the family, educational institutions, religion, and culture
among others (operates ideologically). Interestingly, ideological apparatus becomes
significant to rule at times when the coercive ones could not function. From this standpoint,
“political culture becomes the prevailing value system and knowledge structure which is
dispersed throughout society by the dominant classes at any given time” (Ibid., 65). In other
words, political culture is not linked with the political attitude and orientation of the members
of the society, but it is a value system of dominant classes that favours the governing class to
maintain their political dominance (hegemony), thus stabilizing the political order.
Subcultures
Some of the scholarly writings on political culture highlighted the fact that the existence of
one political culture across the nation was nothing more than an idealistic assumption. It is
very likely that many “political cultures may co-exist within any given political system”
rather than a single national political culture (Rosamond, 1997: 67). To develop a
comprehensive understanding about the interconnection between the culture and political
system, it is important to investigate “the interaction of different subcultures and the impact
of that interaction upon the political system as a whole” (Ibid). The term ‘subculture’ refers to
distinctive identity of diverse social groups and communities in any given society. In the
context of political culture, it refers to the existence of different range of behaviours,
opinions, orientations and attitudes possess by the different communities and social groups
toward the political system. Dennis Kavanagh in his work entitled “Political Culture” (1972),
identifies “four distinct bases on which subcultures develop: elite versus mass culture,
cultural divisions within elites, generational subcultures and social structure” (Ibid). In this
way, these four bases produce different sets of sub-culture in a society that have different
social and political implications.
2.7 LIMITATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
The political culture approach like any other approach of comparative politics has attracted a
38 | P a g e

stark criticism from the different political scientists. First and foremost, critics argue that the
proponents of this approach tend to depict a national political culture of a communities and
social groups in a given society. Rather, the scholars “should have focused more on
subcultures of race and class within the societies examined” (Rod and Martin, 2004: 90). For
an example, it may be possible that peoples within a community (based on race, class, caste,
religion and so on) may portray different political culture owing to their personal satisfactions
and way of lives. Furthermore, scholarly works on the political culture approach did not offer
a comprehensive account of its origin and evolution in social science, which in turn created
obstacles in a way of developing a historical understanding of the concept (Ibid). On the other
side, political culture as an analytical method and tool employed principally in the western
democracies, for many years, to study the individuals’ political beliefs and orientations
towards politics (Bove, 2002: 1). It did not only limit the scope of the political culture
studies, but also made its analysis western dominated.
Edward W. Lehman alleges that the political culture approach has a “tendency to
‘reduce’ cultural factors either to social system characteristics (especially to structure) or to
treat them as merely the statistical aggregation of the intrapsychic orientations of the
individual members of society” (Lehman, 1972: 362). This reductionist approach offers a
very narrow understanding of the cultural factors that shapes the national and local politics.
Furthermore, Lehman states that the cross-national survey method—employed by Almond
and Verba in their study of political culture in the five major liberal democracies as discussed
above—has inaccurately led us believe that “all the members of society have equal ‘leverage’
in determining the dominant cultural patterns or that all groups equally subscribe to them”
(Ibid). Studies like M. Mann (1970) have proven that people in a society act differently in a
political domain and at the same time, their individual capability to access the politics and its
different institutions varies.
On the other side, critics claim that political culture approach intended to maintain the
status-quo and thus favouring the interests of the ruling elites. Lowell Dittmer noted that “the
concept of political culture was too fixated on systemic stability, as if the absence of change
required explanation” (Dittmer, 1974: 577). In other words, critics found the approach
conservative in term of its political consequences and thus, rejecting the possibilities to bring
change in a society. At times, the change in social as well as political order is imperative to
promote democracy and its basic values like justice, fairness and equality etc. Nonetheless,
these critics do not undermine the significance of political culture approach in the study of
comparative politics. In recent years, scholars like Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel
(2003) have attempted to address these deficiencies and called for retaining this approach as a
significant comparative analytical tool in political science.
39 | P a g e

2.8 CONCLUSION
Political culture is one of the key modern approaches in field of comparative politics. It has
enabled the political scientists and researchers to empirically analyse the interactions between
the individual behaviours and political system on the one hand, and facilitated them in
exploring the significance of civic engagement in political stability and governmental
effectiveness on the other. It is also observed that the emergence of political culture approach
in modern comparative politics has supplemented the “behaviouralist analysis of individual
political decisions,” and thus offering realistic explanations about the political phenomenon
(Bove, 2002: 3). However, scholarly efforts are required to revise the components and scope
of political culture approach so that it stays relevant with time.
1. Write a short essay on modern approaches in the field of comparative approaches.

2. Explain various limitations on structure functional approaches of Almond and Powell.
2.10 REFERENCES
• Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sydney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Ball, Alan R. 1971. Modern Politics and Government. London: Macmillan.
• Bove, Andrew. 2002. The Limits of Political Cultures: An Introduction to G.W.F. Hegel’s
Notion of Bildung. In: A Bove. eds. Questionable Returns. Vienna: IWM Junior Visiting
Fellows Conference, Vol. 12.
• Dittmer, Lowell. 1974. Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical
Synthesis. World Politics, XXIX, accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2577258
• Formisano, Ronald P. 2001. The Concept of Political Culture. The Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 31 (3), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. 2004. Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction. 6th Ed. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. The Renaissance of Political Culture. The American Political
Science Review, 82 (4), accessed on 18 November 2020, online available at:
40 | P a g e

• Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian. eds. 2003. Political Culture and Democracy:
Analysing Cross-Level Linkage. Comparative Politics. 63 (1), accessed on 21 November
2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150160
• Keeley, Brian. 2007. Human Capital: How What You Know Shapes Your Life. 1st Ed.,
OECD: Paris.
• Kim, Young C. 1964. The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics. The
Journal of Politics, 26 (2), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
• Lehman, Edward W. 1972. On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical
Reassessment. Social Forces, 50 (3), accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
• Powell, G. Bingham, Dalton, Russell J. and Strøm, Kaare W. 2015. Comparative Politics
Today: A World View. 11 Ed. Harlow: Pearson.
• Pye, Lucien W. and Sydney, Verba. eds. 1965. Political Culture and Political
Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rosamond, Ben. 1997. Political Culture. In: Barrie Axford. et al. Politics: An
Introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 57-81.
• Rotberg, Robert I. 1999. Social Capital and Political Culture in Africa, America,
Australasia and Europe. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 29 (3), accessed on 18
November 2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/207132
41 | P a g e

(c) NEW INSTITUTIONALISM

Yerramadasu Udaykumar
STRUCTURE

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Historical Institutionalism
3.3.1 The Calculus Approach
3.3.2 The Cultural Approach
3.3.3 Criticism
3.4 Rational Choice Institutionalism
3.4.1 Criticism
3.5 Sociological Institutionalism
3.5.1 Criticism
3.6 Conclusion
3.8 References
The lesson would make student to:

• Understand about Structuring Politics and Historical Institutionalism in Comparative
Analysis.
• Know about how political science is the study of New Institutionalism.
• Understand the difference between new institutionalism and the developing world.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
In the book they edited, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative

Analysis, Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo remarked, “‘Political science is the study of
institutions,’ a senior colleague once remarked. ‘So what's new about the New
42 | P a g e

Institutionalism?’ he asked. This question reveals a scepticism toward the so-called new
institutionalism that deserves attention. Political scientists, sociologists, and economists have
studied institutions for a very long time. So what is all the fuss about?” (Thelen and Steinmo
1992) In its essence, the new institutionalism is a contradiction and a paradox. The concern of
the study of politics is, always has been and will remain institutions. Institutions are the heart
and soul of politics. It is not an exaggeration; if there are no institutions, there are no politics
either. Institutionalism is not an approach among the multiple approaches to politics. Instead,
the other approaches proceed from taking for granted the rule governing institutions. If we
take politics seriously, with the seriousness that politics deserve, the new institutionalism
attempts not to go back to institutions; to be fair, It attempts to go back to politics itself.
However, it is crucial not to overlook; not all institutions are political. Institutions,
sometimes, are resistant to what we conventionally call politics. Family, marriage, religion,
and numerous other institutions do not neatly subsume under politics. On the contrary, they
often seek to situate themselves outside the interference of politics. The passionate feminist
slogan, personal is political, in a way, is the rejection of the desire of the family to stay
outside the interference of politics. It might be helpful to reflect on what we mean when we
say something as politics or someone is doing politics. The prevalent use of the term made it
obscure. Politics is often used either as synonymous with power or interest. While this view
is widespread and has many supporters, it is also the most impoverished notion of what
constitutes politics.
For the sake of illustration, take a look at the slogan mentioned above for another time;
the personal is political. When politics are taken as interest and power, the slogan seems
contradictory. The slogan seems to suggest, the family and the personal are outside power
and interests, while that is absolutely untrue. Both the family and the personal are deeply
entrenched in power. The filial, the paternal, the fraternal and even the maternal, none of
them are outside the power. Instead, they are outside what Hegel defined and later, Derrida
reconceptualised the politics; it is neither interest nor power; it is the ethical difference
(Sittliche Differenz). Thus, politics is the contestation over ethics. The family and the
personal, if they are outside politics or if they seek to be outside the politics, they do not seek
to be outside power relations. Instead, they seek to live outside the ethical contestation, and
they seek to resist the ethical contestation over the power relation intrinsic to them. With this,
we made the concepts complex instead of simplifying. However, that is, unfortunately, the
only way to get to the bottom of things. The institutions are all entrenching and possibly
extend beyond politics, then what is new about this new institutionalism within political
science? Or, So what is all the fuss about?
43 | P a g e

Any meaningful account of the New Institutionalism is possible only on the condition
that we elucidate what is institutionalism in the first place and second what is new to the
extent that it is distinct and yet is prefixed to the institutionalism. Thus, it is unavoidable to
give at least preliminary remarks on institutionalism. There are two distinct ways in which
institutionalism or every political category is to be analysed. While not utterly dissociable
from one other, at least based on emphasis, every political category can be analysed
philosophically or historically. A philosophical approach or the conceptual approach
considers the essential meaning of the concept, in this case, the institution. It tries to
differentiate the institution from other categories, such as the opposing category, the
individual.
On the other hand, the historical approach considers the evolution or consecutive
changes that the institutions underwent. The historical approach privileges context over the
concept. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the historical approach can not dispense with
a preliminary understanding of the question, what is an institution? Thus, a preliminary
definition is indispensable. So, what is an institution? We know of the educational
institutions, military institutions, medical institutions, and the list is almost inexhaustible. An
institution is an aggregate of individuals. While the aggregate of individuals is the necessary
condition for an institution, it is not sufficient. An institution requires much more than a
collection of individuals. Mobs and masses are a collection of individuals, but they are not
institutions.
James March and Johan Olsen define the institution as, “An institution is a relatively
enduring collection of rules and organised practices, embedded in structures of meaning and
resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively
resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing
external circumstances.” (March and Olsen 1984) It is visible from the above definition that
individuals and the idiosyncratic preferences of the individuals are exactly posed as opposing
one another. However, unlike the individual, an institution is resilient, enduring and resistant
to change. Maybe we might take a look at another well-known definition. Peter Hall and
Rosemary Taylor define institutions as “the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms
and conventions embedded in the organisational structure of the polity or political economy.
They can range from the rules of the constitutional order or the standard operating procedures
of a bureaucracy to the conventions governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.”
(Hall and Rosemary 1996)
So far, we defined what an institution is, defined politics, and gave preliminary remarks
about the interdependency of politics and institutions. Next, we will look at the specific
conditions under which the new institutionalism emerged. Institutionalism as an approach to
44 | P a g e

politics faded into the background with the outburst of behaviouralism and rational choice
approaches that dominated social sciences in the 1960s and '70s. Institutionalism suddenly
started appearing outdated and metaphysical with the forceful entry of behaviouralism and
the rational choice approach. Though, both behaviouralism and rational choice approaches
disrupted the possibility of institutionalism to survive. They wanted to analyse observable
facts and predictable patterns. While institutions survive, they are seen as nothing but the
agents within which the self-seeking individuals participate rather than institutions
determining the individuals. The huge aversion of the behaviouralism and rational choice
approaches towards any theory based not on observable facts is self-evident.
However, to sustain their claims, both theories need metaphysical assertions to be the
foundation. Thus, both theories propagated and based on the metaphysics of the individual.
According to these theories, the individual is self-seeking, utility maximising, goal-oriented,
calculative, atomised, and, to be precise, narcissistic. Rather than a stable human attribute, the
atomised and narcissistic individual is a characteristic trait of the modern individual. Suppose
Foucault painstakingly presents that the army and the prisons with its investments in the
microphysics of power produce the free subject or what he calls the docile bodies. Thus, the
narcissistic individual is not a stable human condition. Instead, it is institutionally
constructed. This construal is the post-structuralist catchphrase, ‘the subject formation.’
“Institutions are not simply equilibrium contracts among self-seeking, calculating individual
actors or arenas for contending social forces. They are collections of structures, rules, and
standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in political life.” (March
and Olsen 1984)
The new institutionalism is the escape from this outburst of behaviouralism and rational
choice approaches. Though the new institutionalism emerged from the theoretical impasse of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it also deviated from old institutionalism.
More importantly, the new institutionalism is not one set of unified approaches. Instead, it
has multiple proponents and viewpoints. Considering the vast body of literature that emerged
from the rejection of behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it is not advisable to
restrict them to a single body of literature. Despite the accepted redundancy of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, there is considerable disagreement among
the different strands of new institutionalism on the significance and insignificance of both
approaches. Thus, Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor differentiate the new institutionalism into
three broad subgroups. According to them, these three subgroups within the new
institutionalism comprise Historical Institutionalism, Rational Choice Institutionalism and
Sociological Institutionalism. We will individually look at these three approaches to see both
the convergences and divergences. However, both Hall and Taylor remark that despite their
45 | P a g e

overlapping interests and goals, it is surprising that they seldom come together for a fruitful
collaboration.
3.3 HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM
To give a simple demonstration of historical institutionalism, we might look at Judith

Goldstein's article, Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy (1988). In this work, she
tried to explain protectionism in the United States. Unlike the common perception, she
noticed that rather than replacing one form of ideas with another, the contradictory ideas
about state policy such as Laissez-faire, protectionism and interventionism simultaneously
co-habit in the US. It is safe to suggest that this phenomenon might be true of other regions as
well. Based on this layering of ideas, she concludes, ‘a society embalmed in the “rule of law,”
legal constraints encourage the layering, rather than the replacing, of government
institutions.’ (Goldstein 1988) Instead of the efficient and rational approach replacing the less
efficient counterpart, her research suggests, the contradictory ideas tend to persist. Such an
analysis is made possible only by historical institutionalism. It evaluates the institutions over
a long period to observe the changes and continuities.
Before proceeding, it might be helpful to mention some of the significant contributors
and works that laid the foundations and continue to inspire historical institutionalism. A few
prominent figures include Suzanne Berger, Theda Skocpol, Douglas Ashford, Peter Hall,
Rosemary Taylor, John Ikenberry, Stephen Skowrone,k and Peter Katzenstein. These are
some prominent scholars who shaped historical institutionalism and gave new impetus to the
new institutionalism in political science. However, the list is not exhaustive. Historical
institutionalism is too broad to restrict it to a handful of academics. It might be helpful to note
a few notable works in the field as well. Peasants Against Politics: Rural Organization in
Brittany, 1911-1967(1972) and The French Political System(1974) by Suzanne Berger
deserves special mention. Small states in world markets (1985) and Cultural Norms and
National Security (1996) by Katzenstein, States and Social Revolutions (1979) and Social
policy in the United States (1995) by Skocpol, Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the
State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain (1990) by Peter A. Hall, Reasons of
State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (1988) by John Ikenberry and
Building a new American state (1982) by Stephen Skowronek are some of the critical and
unavoidable works on historical institutionalism.
What is historical institutionalism? Historical institutionalism emerged from the rejection
of behaviouralism and rational choice approaches. However, what is not clear is from where
46 | P a g e

historical institutionalism took inspiration? From where does the impetus come? “The idea of
socially and politically constructed preferences that figures prominently in the work of many
contemporary historical institutionalists echoes the writings of an earlier generation of
economic institutionalist-historians.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996) Peter Hall and Rosemary
Taylor mention two approaches that gave impetus to historical institutionalism. Among them,
one is group theories and the second, structural-functionalism. The group theories of politics
articulated the politics based on conflict, and such a conflict, in their view, is always based on
scarce resources. Thus, for the group theories, politics is essentially based on the contestation
over scarce resources. This mode of analysis made the group theories proximate to Marxism
and class analysis. However, historical institutionalism seeks to distance itself from both
Marxism and group theories on the grounds that while both theories deal with broad
contestations, they fail to explain the intermediate level conflicts. They tend to ignore the
national and institutional differences that affect both policy outcomes and space for
contestation.
Suppose, in her work, States and Social Revolutions (1979), Skocpol demonstrates the
inadequacy of the class analysis to explain the political dynamics of the states and social
revolutions. In her book, she tried to compare social revolutions in France, China and South
Africa. She notes, “Working strictly in terms of class analysis, it was difficult to
conceptualise, let alone adequately explain, the structure of the South African state and the
political role of the Afrikaners.” (Skocpol 1979) There is a remarkable distinction among
countries and how the working class in specific countries articulate their demands. Broad
theoretical generalisation, though it guides the analysis, the permutations and combinations of
the interest articulation and ‘the mobilisation of biases’ are outside the scope of Marxism.
“Criticising the ahistorical approach of traditional interest-group theories and Marxist
analysis alike, these theorists wanted to know why interest groups demanded different
policies in different countries and why class interests were manifested differently cross-
nationally.” (Thelen and Steinmo 1992) While the echo of Marxism is alive in the historical
institutionalism as a tool kit and a compass, the methods, micro-level tactics and 'the logics of
appropriateness' are incorporated anew. Marxism remained to inform the theoretical outlook,
while historical institutionalism made headway into the analysis of historical and regional
specificities. The influence of Marxism is evident in the vocabulary of the historical
institutionalists. For example, they emphasise the changes in institutions in terms of ‘critical
junctures,’ which cause disruption in the existing institutional structure by enabling a
‘branching point’ and pave the way for new institutional structures.
Apart from the Marxist class analysis, the emergence of historical institutionalism is
attributable to another legacy, structural-functionalism. However, unlike the class analysis,
47 | P a g e

structural-functionalism does not base the analysis on a conflicting class or group interest.
Instead, for structural-functionalism, the system is an aggregate of interacting parts or groups,
which brings it closer to the aims and goals of historical institutionalism. However, one
crucial qualificatory remark is necessary before comparing both. Historical institutionalism is
akin or proximate to structuralism rather than the functionalism of structural-functionalism.
Central to the approach is the question; it is well established that institutions mould, structure,
and to some extent, determine the individual behaviour, but how do institutions perform such
a role? To this question, Rosemary and Hall respond with two approaches within historical
institutionalism; one is the calculus approach and the other, the cultural approach.
3.3.1 The Calculus Approach
Between the two, the calculus approach takes into account individuals as strategic, calculative
and instrumental. However, these traits do not operate independently of the institutions.
Individuals are strategic but that strategy is confined within the parameters set by the
institutions. They calculate their actions in accordance with other actors and rules, codes and
persistent notions of the institutions. Moreover, the instrumentality is institutionally
mandated. Even though individuals and political actors are instrumental, they “organise
themselves and act in accordance with rules and practices which are socially constructed,
publicly known, anticipated, and accepted.” (March and Olsen 1984) One can even argue, the
instrumentality of an individual is socially constructed and publicly accepted. However, the
calculus approach is careful not to entertain such an opinion. Unlike the cultural approach, it
still emphasises individual calculation at the centre of analysis.
3.3.2 The Cultural Approach
Contrary to the calculus approach, the cultural approach characterises the individual as a
satisficer instead of a utility maximiser. “Taking preference formation as problematic rather
than given, it then also follows that alliance formation is more than a lining up of groups with
compatible (pre-existing and unambiguous) self-interests.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996)
According to the cultural approach, an individual follows ‘the established routine’ instead of
constantly seeking to maximise utility. It is not to say that individuals are not rational and
utility maximising. But such traits are part of the established routine rather than the conscious
goal-oriented activity of the individual. In other words, the institution demands the individual
through the established routine to be purposive and goal-oriented. Utility maximising is
demanded and enforced by the individual to be a part of an institution.
3.3.3 Criticism
The strength of historical institutionalism is its eclectic character. However, the eclectic
48 | P a g e

character is the source of its significant criticism as well. While eclecticism is its strength, it
is also its greatest weakness. Because of its ability to take and incorporate the new horizons
to understand institutions, it never developed a reliable model for interpreting the
interrelation between the individual and the institution as elaborately as the other
institutionalists.
3.4 RATIONAL CHOICE INSTITUTIONALISM
In the 1970s, scholars deeply engaged in the rational choice approach began to raise some
doubts and concerns pertaining to the efficacy of their approach. These doubts are specific to
congressional behaviour. The strict adherence to the notions of rational choice such as utility
maximising and strategic calculations are expected to result in the constant formation and
dissolution of the majorities in policymaking. If individuals in Congress are strategic, they
have no reason to participate in majorities where their interest is not placed. According to the
expectations, this pattern should cause a ‘cycling effect’ in which the possibility of any
observable majority is impossible. However, contrary to the expectations, the majorities in
the congressional legislature are reasonably stable. Rational choice institutionalism emerged
out of this impasse to account for the evident discrepancy in their articulation. Thus, these
theorists looked for explanations in institutionalism while simultaneously adhering to the
foundational notions of rational choice.
Control of choices and agenda setting are two essential components of institutions that
rational choice institutionalism considers along with the assumptions of the rational choice
approaches. Individuals are still strategic, calculative and utility maximisers. However, those
aspects of the individuals are either enhanced or diminished nonetheless, certainly structured
by institutions. Thus, institutions control the choices and set an agenda for the individual to
try and maximise their utility. In this direction, it took inspiration and tools from ‘the new
economics of organisation.’ By taking inspiration from these approaches, the rational choice
institutionalism postulates, the institution reduces transaction costs and uncertainties. Thus,
the utility maximising individuals is still operative, but in an institution in which the choices
are controlled, agendas are already set, transaction costs are immensely reduced, and
uncertainties are mitigated. However, a critical distinction with the other approaches to
institutionalism deserves mention here. Unlike the other approaches, rational choice
institutionalism still adheres to the notion that the individuals are driven not by impersonal
and unmeasurable forces of history or society. They are driven purely on rational and
personal motivation. Even when the individual is forced to collaborate and act according to
the institutionalist paradigm, the reasons are personal and strategic calculations. They are not
49 | P a g e

collective in essence. Thus, for rational choice institutionalism, institutions' formation and
continued existence are based on benefits that the institutions offer to the individuals. In this
sense, the institution is the voluntary formation of individuals.
In recent years, rational choice institutionalism expanded from congressional structure
analysis into more broad research areas. These areas include deliberations among the political
parties, the relationship between Congress and courts, the relationship between Congress and
regulatory agencies. It also expanded influence into the discipline of international relations.
This approach has been applied to international institutions, cross-national competitions and
negotiations.
3.4.1 Criticism
It is self-evident by now that rational choice institutionalism is akin to rational choice
theories, which suffer from the criticism of the characterisation of the individual. While its
theories are often applicable in broader frames, they tend to obscure when applied to smaller
samples.
3.5 SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONALISM
Unlike both historical institutionalism and rational choice institutionalism, to some extent,
sociological institutionalism is counterintuitive. It emerged as a countermeasure to destabilise
the notion that while bureaucratic institutions are rational and operate on efficiency, the other
aspects of society are mere culture. Sociological institutionalism problematises this
distinction. Bureaucracy indeed operates on the principle of rationality and efficiency, but
such an operation is cultural rather than rational. Rationality is as much part of the culture as
myth and ceremonies. While the premodern forms of organisation are based on myth and
ceremonies, the modern culture operates on rationality and efficiency. Thus, it argues that the
bureaucratic institutions' self-evident rationality ought to be elaborated and theorised in
cultural terms. Since the interpretations of bureaucracy by Weber, at least within sociology,
the bureaucratic rationality is not something that emerged from nowhere but deeply
entrenched inside the cultural forms that predated it. The bureaucratic rationality has its roots
in the western religious life where the rationality is already embedded. The practices of the
bureaucracy are neither formed nor sustained because they are either rational or efficient.
They are both formed and sustained because they have been culturally embedded in the
western cultural forms.
Sociological institutionalism emphasises, there are apparent symbolic and ritualistic
forms even the rational bureaucracy adheres to, and these forms ought to be considered for
50 | P a g e

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

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

1. What is the relationship between Institutionalism and Neo-Institutionalism.

2. Write an explanation on Neo-Institutionalism and its different types of it.
3.8 REFERENCES
• Collier, D and Collier, R. B. (1991), Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures,
the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• Downing, Brian. (1992), The Military Revolution and Political Change, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
• Goldstein, Judith. (1988), Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy,
International Organization, Winter, 1988, Vol. 42, No. 1, The State and American
Foreign Economic Policy (Winter, 1988), pp. 179-217: The MIT Press.
• Hall, A.P and Taylor, C.R.R. (1996), Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms.
• March, G. J and Olsen, P. J. (1984), The New Institutionalism: Organisational Factors
in Political Life, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 734-749.
• Orren, K and Skowronek, S. (2004), The Search for American Political Development,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skocpol, Theda. (1979), States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of
France, Russia, and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skocpol, Theda. (1996), Social policy in the United States: Future Possibilities in
Historical Perspective, New York: Princeton University Press.
• Thelen, K and Steinmo, S. (1992), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in
Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53 | P a g e

Unit-III
TRADITIONAL AND NEO-INSTITUTIONALISM:
(a) HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM
(b) RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
(c) SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONALISM
Shikha Jaiswal
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Traditional Approaches to Comparative Politics
1.3.1 Philosophical Approach
1.3.2 Historical Approach
1.3.3 Formal and Legal Approach
1.3.4 Problematic Approach
1.3.5 Configurative Approach
1.3.6 Regional/ Area Approach
1.3.7 Structural-functional Approach
1.4 Criticism of Traditional Comparative Politics
1.5 Emergence of the New Institutional Approach
1.5.1 What is the New Institutionalism Approach?
1.6 Three Models of New institutionalism
1.6.1 Historical Institutionalism
1.6.2 Rational-Choice Institutionalism
1.6.3 Sociological Institutionalism
1.7 Old and New Historical Institutionalism: A Comparison
1.8 New Institutionalism and the Developing World
1.9 Various Thinkers
54 | P a g e

1.10 Conclusion
1.12 References
After reading this unit, we will be able:

• To comprehend the concept of Comparative Politics.
• To distinguish between historical, rational-choice and sociological institutionalism.
• To understand the difference between new institutionalism and the developing world.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The political world is extremely complex, involving two range of institutions, actors, and
ideas that interact on a non-stop ground to give governance to society. The complexity of
politics and government is compounded when we say to understand several different political
systems and compare the ways in which these systems function. As comparative politics has
moved further simple descriptions of individual countries or many institutions, scholars have
needed substantial guidance to sort through the huge measure of testimony available, and to
concentrate on the most applicable information. Therefore, we need to develop necessary
approaches in politics and particularly to develop approaches that are useful across a range of
political systems.
Political theories are the source of these approaches for comparison, at the broadest
position, there is a difference between positivist and constructivist approaches to politics, and
to social life more considerably. At lower general levels, a number of different theories
enable the relative political scientist to put some logical meanings on the political phenomena
being observed and to relate that evidence back to a further comprehensive understanding of
politics. Each of the approaches discussed provides some important information about
politics, but many are sufficient to capture the complexity.
All governments struggle with complex global issues i.e. the need to accommodate
different racial and religious self-identities, the struggle to make better profitable security and
growth, the search to give a strong ground for public citizenship, and the trouble to managing
demands for democracy and participation. There are varieties of similar cases with many
different forms of culture, political democracy, state administration, and public programs.
55 | P a g e

1.3 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE POLITICS
The study of comparative politics is often done in formal institutions, if we compare it with
modern approaches, we will find methodology and emphasis is on the importance of politics.
However, on emphasized scope of approaches largely, the initiatives of comparative studies
were done in this tradition only, therefore, comparative studies cannot be considered less than
traditional approaches. According to the approach of Harry Extin, the major traditional ways
are:
Traditional Approaches to Comparative Politics
Philosophical approach Configurative approach
Historical approach Sturctural-functional

approach
Formal & Legal Approach
Regional approach
Problematic approach
1.3.1 Philosophical Approach

Comparative politics has been used since the study of the philosophical approach, from Plato
to Hegel various thinkers have adopted and used the philosophical approach. This approach
used the deductive method. In this method, first, the conclusions are drawn, then the scientific
basis is tried and an attempt is made to check them.
The biggest drawback of this method was that it had no relation with the facts, in addition to
this it was seen that it is very difficult to adopt the ideals propounded by philosophers in
practice. This is the reason that Plato's ideal state and Sir Thomas Moore's Atopia cannot be
established on the earth, so the philosophical approach has come to its limits, but it has been
very limited in time and its use.
1.3.2 Historical Approach
It also has special importance in the traditional approaches to the study of comparative
politics. The historical approach has also been widely used in western thought, in these
thoughts, Aristotle, Mastrosque, Hegel, Henry Man Jacques, and MacIver are the main
56 | P a g e

names. These thoughts gave birth to political theories based on historical analysis. For
example,
Aristotle has explained the production and survival of the state on the basis of history.
On the other hand, Karl Marx gave an economic interpretation of history. According to him,
along with the change in history, there is also a change in religion, morality, and the political
system.
MacIver also considered history as the basis of the origin and development of the
state, in this way we can see that various thinkers adopted the historical method in a wide
way.
Later on, the historical political evolutionary approach was taken only. These
evolutionary political theories have been an important contribution to the development of the
comparative approach. A comparative study, in fact, the historical approach has only
enriched the living.
Contrary to the above-mentioned contributions of approaches such as governance,
there are many problems associated with it, and only one additional approach can be used in
the study of politics to the extent that it is historical. Historical events are different by their
different authors while studying politics.
Another problem with the historical method is that past events and experiences should
not be given more importance than necessary because history does not always repeat itself. It
is often seen that the historical method gives birth to more questions than it solves. History
exposes only one side, whereas the field of comparative politics is very vast.
1.3.3 Formal and Legal Approach
Many independent countries have created their own constitutions and comparative political
analysis has made the basis of its study on the constitution, law, administration, policy-
making, and bureaucracy. The names of Theodore Bullseye, Budrow Wilson, Diuti, etc. are
particularly notable among the thinkers who adopted formal and legal approaches. Even after
the rise of modern approaches, their importance remained, which is why writers like Carter,
Herz, Newman, etc. adopted it.
Legal and formal approach arrival is criticized on many grounds because under these
approaches formal institutions, laws, and constitutions are over-emphasized and other socio-
economic psychological factors are not given much attention.
It is often seen that the statements, which are true from the legal point of view, do not
come true from the political point of view also. For example, in Britain the Parliament is
57 | P a g e

supreme, but in practice, it is not like that. The study done on the basis of the formal and legal
approach is more descriptive and less analytical.
1.3.4 Problematic Approach
Analysts of the comparative study identified various problematic areas and adopted
traditional approaches to solving them. Democracy and economic planning, Panchayati Raj
and women's representation, administrative development, degradation of a binary system,
division of power, decentralization of power, etc. were their main subjects. Such studies were
mainly concerned with formal institutions and structures.
Some thinkers also suggested reforms in these formal institutions after this type of
study, such as – reorganization of the House of Lords, development of functional
representative assemblies, the establishment of economic unions, handing over of power to
the executive, and allowing business groups to participate in policy-making. Providing an
opportunity for integration of organs involved in policymaking and finding ways to prevent
the development of anti-democratic parties in democratic systems etc.
The biggest advantage of the contemporary approach was that it made a significant
contribution to solving the problems of traditional formal sectors as well as paved a way for
the coming times as to how the problematic approach can be applied to the behavior of more
human beings and political institutions and other social economic institutions.
1.3.5 Configurative Approach
The drafting method was developed after the historical and legal approaches. Under this
method, considering each state's governance, law, and constitution as unique, the political
system of that country is studied in the context of that particular country and not in
comparison. It thus proved to be a simple approach. Under this method, data and facts are
first collected and then a comparative study is done. This approach was used by many
political thinkers, in which the names of Newman, Carter, Herz, Rocher, Finte, etc. are
prominent.
In contrast to being very simple, many defects are found in it, so it was also criticized.
A group of thinkers believes that this approach is too regionally descriptive and comparative.
Although one of its features that cannot be denied and it is often the best way to do a
comparative study, is by first studying the political system of a country, a comparative
analysis is provided with a solid base, sufficient material, and then a different political
Comparative study of systems becomes possible. If social and economic factors are also
included in the study of different political systems, this approach can be made more
scientific.
58 | P a g e

1.3.6 Regional/Area Approach

The native approach to the study of relative politics can be useful after the Second world war
a new trend is seen in the study of arbitration of politics. Thinkers made the politics of
developing and underdeveloped countries the focal point of their study and therefore the
native approach began to be used vastly. According to Macridis, the study of such an area is
done in this approach where all the countries have the same socio-economic and political
uniformity so that no disagreement can be set up in this relative study with unity. Using this
indigenous form, of we can firm the opinion of why the self-government is safe or secure in a
country.
The conclusions that are drawn after analyzing the different conditions of different
countries, can be useful for the analysis of the world system established after the Second
World War in a true sense.
Despite all these advantages, the Regional approach isn't truly good for comparative
study because it isn't necessary that the countries which have social-economic and political
uniformity may be geographically close to each other.
Various thinkers have followed the regional approach and written numerous books.
Some of the books are; “Democracy and party movement in pre-war Japan” by Robert
Scalapino, “Soviet politics: the dilemma of power” by Barrington Moore, and “How Russia is
ruled” by Merle Fainsod. In modern times, when the interdisciplinary approach is becoming
truly popular, the study based on the regional or geographical approach is not fruitful. The
authors gave a new direction to comparative study based on Economics, Sociology,
Anthropology, Linguistics, and political science.
1.3.7 Structural-Functional Approach
In modern times, the structural-functional approach is broadly used to study comparative
politics. Under this approach, the study of institutions is equally important to their
functionality. If we focus only on the study of institutions and organizations rather than on
functionality, then our study is not complete. Therefore, equal emphasis should be given to
the organizational and functional parts of political institutions. Under this approach, the study
was done in totality. The whole political system was brought into the field of study and that
whole system was seen as a unit. Herman Finer, Karl Fredrich, Maurice Duverger, K.C.
Wheare, etc. are the main proponents of this approach.
The structural-functional approach has provided a modern insight into the comparative study
to a large extent. Although along with being modern, this approach also took totality, but
numerous defects are also seen in this approach, which are as follows-
59 | P a g e

I. There is a special quality of political studies- mobility. We can use any approach in
comparative studies, but indeed, in that approach, the ability to study the dimensions
related to this mobility is necessary but the institutional functional approach does not
give a sufficient basis for understanding the dynamics, because under this approach
only stable relations of different political systems are considered.
II. Any institution performs different functions in different situations. It is not necessary
that any institution perform the same functions in all countries. Therefore, the
conclusions deduced by the structural-functional approach cannot always be a universal
truth. For example, the functioning democracy, parliament, political parties, Election
Commission, etc. differ from each other to a great extent, in all the countries.
1.4 CRITICISM OF TRADITIONAL COMPARATIVE POLITICS
While using any approach in the study of comparative politics, it is necessary to be careful
and aware beforehand, so that our conclusions and theories are correct. It is often seen that
despite the prevailing political situation, diversity is found in the political scenario in the
countries. Therefore, for a comprehensive study of comparative politics, it is necessary to
study the cultural, social, economic and ethical dimensions as well.
There is a need to deepen the analysis beyond the formal study of traditional approaches. In
addition to formal studies, the study of informal sectors of political behavior, interdisciplinary
method, functioning of institutions etc. has also become necessary. In this context, Macridis
has pointed out some drawbacks of the study of traditional comparative politics as follows: -
1. The study of traditional comparative politics, was limited to western countries.
Democratic governance system is often found in western countries, so all the
governance systems other than democracy could not become a part of this
comparative study. The result of this was that the developing countries, the less
developed countries and their governance systems and political system remained in
the comparative study. Therefore, on this basis, the traditional approach cannot be
called comparative and if it is called, its basis has been very limited and narrow.
2. The Comparative studies done under traditional approaches have been very formal.
The whole comparative study of democracy, parliament, administration, citizen,
legislature, executive etc. has been around the formal word which is real but mostly
not proved to be so beneficial for study.
3. In traditional approach, more emphasis was given on the method of description
whereas under comparative study, analysis, verification, the study of political
60 | P a g e

behavior, fact collection, etc. have special importance. Therefore, we can say that the
study of comparative study through traditional approach has been one sided. The
study done by traditional approaches was neither systematic nor scientific.
4. The traditional approach centered around the descriptive side and did not give more
attention to the problem side resultantly, when the problem side was not recognized
the solution side was also not taken care of. Political science is related to humans so
that its nature should be like that which finds the solutions to the problems that comes
in human life but the traditional approach does not seem to be successful on the
ground of solution side.
The implication of the above criticisms is not that these approaches are of no
importance. When the comparative politics was started, the form of institutions and
political system was very simple, as a result the traditional approach is very effective
for comparative study, but in further course of time institutions and form of politics
becomes more difficult and traditional approach was not effective in comparative
analysis and modern approaches were required. Although traditional approaches gives
‘input’ to the analysis done by modern approaches.
1.5 EMERGENCE OF THE NEW INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
The new institutionalist approach has its roots in the early to mid-1980s. In late 20th century,
many factors contributed for emergence of new institutional approach.
Old Institutionalism
Behaviorism
Study of behavior by Study of Institutions by

scientific method traditional and formal method
Coordination
New Institutionalism
1. Traditional studies were rejected by the behaviorists. Whereas objective studies were
61 | P a g e

emphasized and neo-institutionalists tried to establish coordination and harmony

between scientific method of study and traditional approach of behaviorists and in
traditional approach institutions were studied through constitution. While the neo-
institutionalists studied the institutions in a scientific way and tried to see it in the
social context as well. In order to understand better, it is necessary to study human
behavior (1984, James G. By March and John Olson).
2. In comparative politics, after the traditional approach, the institutions were completely
neglected and the main emphasis was given on the function and environment of the
political system. But the importance of institutions was re-accepted by the neo-
institutionalists.
3. Provisional factors: Decolonization and emerging of new states in old colonies have
shown that the role of the state is very necessary for shaping political behavior. In the
developing world also, broadcasting of the 'welfare state' in some western and modern
countries has changed the focusing way in studies. There are many effective and new
ways through which democracy of new political institutions came into light, which
threw a good image in understanding and studying them. Today, states and
institutions played a very important role which somehow threw an image that the
study of politics cannot be complete if the proper and appropriate focus is not given to
it.
4. Debates within the discipline: In the discipline of political science, state has always
been in a mysterious place. When the study of the state and the study of politics
began, an upcoming generation of scientists like Easton and Almond said that the
state is still not clear in concept to understand the real political reasons of the society.
We have to study the state to understand how it is affected and influenced by different
operations of society. With this change and concept towards the state can lead to
increased interest in institutions to understand the detailed version of the political
process into it.
1.5.1 What is the New Institutional Approach?
New Institutional Approach is a methodological approach in the study of political science,
started in the United States that explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and
cultures constrain the choices and actions of individuals when they are part of a political
institution. This Approach became dominant around 1980s in US.
New institutionalism tries to combine the interests of traditionalist scholars, who
focused on studying formal institutional rules and structures, with behavioralist scholars, who
62 | P a g e

examined the actions of individual political actors.

It believes that studying individual political behavior without examining institutional
constraints on that behavior gives a skewed understanding of political reality. New-
Institutionalism is a Post-Behavioral Approach.
Institutions have special importance in political life. The fact that political behavior of
the workers is also inspired by the organizations to which they belong. Under political
science, 'power' and 'institutions' have been studied from the beginning. The importance of
institutions cannot be denied even in the modern governance system. The importance of
institutions is also because it is through them that the political leaders exercise power and use
the resources of organizations. On the basis of institutions, the student of political science
tries to understand political parties, election system, bureaucracy, parliament, constitution,
and judicial system and sees them as 'state'. Apart from this, he also studies some
supranational such as United Nations, International Monetary Fund, European Union, and
also studies some non-governmental organizations such as trade unions, etc.
Determining the boundary of any one entity is not a simple task as it is not just the
name of a 'thing' it is also a 'process' which plays an important role in determining individual
behavior. An institution is actually a set of established laws, customs or practices. Therefore,
while studying the institutions, it is not only necessary to understand the formal rules and
regulations, but it is also necessary to understand the informal methods. There are many ways
in the institutions in which people imbibe and they become included in their habits and
behavior. These cannot be seen directly.
Normally a distinction is not made between an 'institution' and an 'organization' but
there is a difference between them. Often organizations work within different organizations
and are also inspired by them. Institutions are in a way the form of some organizational
relations based on which the role, rules, or behavior of individuals are determined.
Institutions are of special importance in political life because they are driven by
interdependent rules and day-to-day activities. What a person will do depends on what the
situation is and what his role is. Such requirements may be voluntary and may also be valid
on the basis of law or regulations (North, 1990: 384-85).
Some political analysts also believe that institutions are important because they help
determine the powers and preferences of political actors (Levi, 1990: 407). For example,
people who work in the government treasury are more powerful than other government
employees because they have control over government expenditure (Hall, 1986: 19). Often
institutions are seen 'above' the actors but 'below' the various structural forces. 'Structural
forces' may include the domestic or international economy or politics. In addition, we should
63 | P a g e

not forget that many other factors influence our behavior such as class relations. Apart from
this, one's interest in institutions can be less or more. Yes, it does not always remain the
same. That is why it is necessary to understand 'new institutionalism'.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the comparative study of
political science often gave more importance to the formal institutions of the government and
the state, the laws, and the systems of public administration politics. In political science, it is
now known as 'classical institutionalism' and 'legal formal historical study'. In this type of
study, special attention was not given to finding general principles, unlike modern studies. In
this, attention was often paid to the description of events, not their analysis. At that time, it
was often believed that the political behavior of the individual is inspired by the formal rules
and laws, which are created by various institutions.
After the Second World War, the practice of behavioral studies started in the United
States of America and to understand the political behavior of the person, an attempt was
made to understand the informal behavior also, for which the study of non-governmental
organizations also became necessary. Now, in place of 'State' and 'Government', attention was
also started towards the institutions related to 'Society'. Politics is now seen as a struggle for
power.
Political scholars such as March and Olson believed that political events can be
understood at the level of private behavior of individuals and 'behavioralist' can be combined
with 'utilitarianism' because in practice human behavior is self-interested. He is motivated by
reason and not by his duties or responsibilities (March and Olsen 1984: 735).
Due to 'neo-institutionalism', since the 1980s, the importance of institutions in the
study of political science has again been given. There were many reasons for this. From the
1980s onwards, the influence of socio-political and economic institutions began to grow
(March and Olsen, 1984: 734). Secondly, political scholars were again interested in the 'state'
as its role and dominance increased during the welfare states. Third, political science
researchers wanted to know why different countries were following different political and
institutional paths in the 1970s and 1980s despite similar economic difficulties. Fourth, they
also wanted to know why there was a rapid emphasis on reforming public enterprises and
changing the role of the state during this period (Bell, 1997).
The importance of the study of institutions was increasing not only in political science
but also in economics and sociology. In order to understand various political or economic
phenomena of all humanities and social sciences, emphasis was laid on understanding social
processes and an interdisciplinary study method was adopted so that the overall truth could be
understood. In political science, new institutionalism was adopted again in place of
64 | P a g e

'behavioralist'. Where in behaviorism the emphasis was on the individual nature of the
individual, under new institutionalism, the individual's behavior is the basis of an institution.
An attempt was made to understand the context. Neo-institutionalist thinkers held that
institutions are not independent like 'atoms' they are from social conventions.
This political world is not individual. Atoms are associated with stable molecules and
compounds. The preferences of government officials are bound by administrative structures,
legal systems, and abiding beliefs.
1.6 THREE MODELS OF NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
Political science gave us historical institutionalism, economics gave us rational choice

institutionalism, and sociology gave us sociological institutionalism (sec Godin 1996, 2-20;
Hall and Taylor 1996, 936). The new institutionalism is little more than a dock with which
Whigs and modernist-empiricists can pursue the kinds of work they long have done unruffled
by the pretensions of behavioralist and rational choice.
Political Historical
science institutionalis
m
Economic Rational-
choice
institutionalis
m
Sociology
Sociological
Institutionalis
m
Origin of three modals
1.6.1 Historical Institutionalism

It is an approach that focuses on how timing, sequence, and path dependence affect the
institution as a whole and also helps in shaping political, and economic behavior.
Historical Institutionalism as an approach developed in response to the group of
supporters like pluralists on the one hand and the structural- functionalist interpreters on the
other. Historical Institutionalism was more impacted by the structural functionalists. The
65 | P a g e

structural functionalist idea of the polity, as an overall system of interacting zone is accepted
by the structural functionalists.
Nonfictional Institutionalists emphasize on the uneven distribution and operation of
power, impacted by the operation and development of institutions. The Historical
Institutionalists also explain how institutions produce specific paths, i.e., how the institutions
shape or structure a nation’s response to coming up challenges. Nonfictional institutionalism
as an approach is truly attentive to the relation between institutions and ideas or beliefs.
1.6.2 Rational – Choice Institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism or RCI is totally a theory-based approach to the study of
institution to maximize their usage and how that institutions affect rational individual
behavior.
a) The Rational- Choice Institutionalism was primarily inspired by the observation of a
sensation in the atmosphere of American Congressional conduct, which could not be
explained by the assumptions of conventional rational- choice academic.
b) Rational- choice Institutionalism employs a characteristic set of behavioral
assumptions likely as, that actors have a fixed set of preferences or tasks.
c) Rational- choice Institutionalism views politics as a series of combined action
dilemmas.
d) Rational - choice Institutionalism views actors as a maximizer of their personality-
interest.
e) The Rational- choice drew fruitful reasonable tools from the ‘new economics of
fellowship’ that emphasize the consequence of property experts, rent seeking
transactional costs.
1.6.3 Sociological Institutionalism
a) It defines institutions are anything that provides ‘frames of meaning’ guiding natural
action is considered an institution. It breaks down the ideal rise between ‘institutions
and society’.
b) The authorized structures were seen as the most rational and fruitful, and the apparent
similarity in form of distant institutions is said to be performed by this need to be
rational efficient in working.
c) The sociological institutionalists argue that fellowship continually adopts new
institutional practices, not because corresponding practices are more fruitful in terms
66 | P a g e

of leading to asked ends, but because like new practice enhances the acceptance or the
legitimacy of the institutions or its participants in the eyes of the public.
d) The sociological institutionalists have a distinctive understanding of the relations
between institutions and individual’s action.
e) Sociological Institutionalism has a distinctive way of understanding this. The
sociological institutionalists argue that brotherhood constantly adopts new
institutional practices, not because of journalist practices are more fruitful in terms of
leading to asked ends, but because corresponding new practice enhances the
acceptance or legitimacy of the associations or its participants in the eyes of the
public.
Outcomes of three models
The challenge before us is not to figure out which one is the most applicable model in the
studies of politics. Despite the relative isolation from each other and lack of scholarly
interchanges, if we give lower importance to the extreme assumptions, we find that they
partake in many common grounds and the insights derived using a model can round or
strengthen the logical carefulness of other models. In this way, literal Institutionalism is
extremely important. Numerous of its findings can be easily paraphrased into rational choice
terms, while at the same time some of its other findings can also speak of social
institutionalism. One of the major challenges that are leveled against the institutionalism and
new institutions approach to politics is that it tends to overemphasize the role of institutions–
formal or informal, and give lower importance to the conflicts and interests that are in
numerous ways.
Still, new institutionalism and its three models taken together can give insights into
the functioning of politics in any society.
1.7 OLD AND NEW HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM: A

COMPARISON
“New” institutionalists find common ground with at least three features of the “old”
institutionalism.
First, both give institutions a central role in political analysis, in “treating political
institutions as determining, ordering, or modifying individual motives, and as acting
67 | P a g e

autonomously in terms of institutional interests” (March and Olsen 1989 4).

Second, both the old and the new institutionalisms partake the given that the historical
development of political institutions values particular attention. As James Bryce put it in his
presidential address to the American Political Science Association (1909), “political
institutions. are the top subjects with which our knowledge deals (and) every institution must
be studied through its growth and its environment.”
Third, both new and old institutionalism assume an unnaturally coercive state that could be
described as an autonomous actor. Woodrow Wilson's definition of the state as a
“systematized force” whose “essential affection is authority”, which may be dominated by
either a “autonomous minority, or the autonomous majority,” and which may regulate
property “much as it pleases” (1898 572, 623), is nicely close to recent definitions by
scholars who seek to “bring the state back in” to social knowledge.
On the other hand “New” institutionalists find some different ground with following features
of the “old” institutionalism.
First, The focus of Old Institutional Approach was on parliament, executive, judiciary etc.
and New Institutional Approach takes informal institutions like Trade Unions, pressure
groups etc.
Second, We can see Old Institutional Approach can be explained more as while New
Institutional Approach is purely into theory.
Third, Old Institutional Approach is more static while New Institutional Approach is more
interested in analyzing the dynamic process of institutional change.
Fourth, Old institutional approach is based on other human science methods such as law,
history, sociology etc. whereas the new institutional approach focuses on the theory of games.
1.8 NEW INSTITUTIONALISM AND THE DEVELOPING WORLD
The new Institutionalism is also applied in understanding the politics in this developing
world. We have seen that international bodies like World Bank have focused on the
institutions in the developing world while allocating the funds for development purposes. The
major problems in such understanding of institutions were that it ignored the uncomfortable
relationship between externally assisted and designed formal institutions on the one side and
deeply embedded local institutions on the other side.
Development theory has many changes with time in ideology and on international
68 | P a g e

means, changing conception of government have emerged since World War II and since then
it is represented in terms of growth theory or modernization theory.
We can say that new institutionalism offers insightful examination of how some
institutions function and guide political behavior in the developing world while others do so.
It could also help us answer questions like why and under what situations informal norms are
powerful in terms of the practices of formal institutions.
1.9 VARIOUS THINKERS
James March (1928-2018) & Johan Olsen (1939): May be called founders of New
Institutionalism. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life” (1984),
followed by a book, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (1989).
Democratic Governance (1995). They gave 'Garbage Can model of decision-making theory.
Douglas C North (1920-2015) American Economist; Rational Choice Institutionalism
“Institutions are created by utility maximizing individuals with clear intention”; how institute
transaction costs in market economy.
William Scott (1932) American sociologist, relation between organizations and their
institutional environments.
Paul DiMaggio (1951) and Walter W. Powell (1951): Both American Sociologists; Cultural
or sociological Institutionalism; “belief systems and cultural frames are imposed on and
adapted by individual actors and organizations.
Thus, roles are for a large part determined by larger structures gave the theory of Institutional
isomorphism.
1.10 CONCLUSION
Institutions are rules, norms, conventions, traditions, practices that structure mortal
organization shape individual behavior and affect political process and outcomes
Institutionalism is understanding politics from institutional perspectives.
Institutionalism has been the most important approach to comparative politics since
the beginning–Aristotle's comparison of constitutions of 150 states; Plato's theory of the ideal
state still, the old legal, formal, normative, descriptive Institutionalism came nearly dead in
the wake of the Behavioral Movement in the 1950s and. 1960s Institutionalism was a
response to Behavioral is to bring back the state and Institutions back into focus in the1980s.
New Institutionalism stick Institutions. Structure of socio economic superstructure and
69 | P a g e

Individual political actor whose behaviors and actions are shaped by the institutions in which
individuals are involved.
New Institutionalism, in comparison to the ‘Old’, is more logical, explicatory, and
empirical. It's lower ethnocentric further relative, and contextual.
Understanding politics in a relative perspective is far from easy, but having some
form of theoretical or logical guidance is pivotal to that understanding. The discussion in this
chapter has spent little time on grand theory and concentrated on logical perspectives that
give the investigator with a set of variables that can be used to approach comparative
examination questions.
Comparative politics should be at the center of theory- structure in political
knowledge, but that central position has to some extent been lost through the emphasis on
individual- standing actions. Further, the domination of American political scientists in the
demand place of ideas has tend to produce a somewhat unstable generality of the connection
of comparative research in contemporary political knowledge. I would continue to argue that
the world provides a natural laboratory for understanding political phenomena. We cannot, as
investigators, manipulate the basics in that atmosphere but we can use the proof available
from natural tests to test theory and to make theory.
Essay Type Questions:

• What do you understand by comparative politics?
• State and define what are the three types of new institutionalism?
• Difference between new institutionalism and a developing world?
Multiple-Choice Questions:
1) Whose study is included in the institutional approach of comparative politics?
a) Legislature b) Executive c) Judiciary d) All these
2) The proponents of the institutional approach to comparative politics are:
a) Finer b) Aristotle c) Bryce d) All these
3) Which concepts are included under neo-institutionalism?
a) Institutionalism b) Pragmatism c) both 'a' and 'b' d) None of these
70 | P a g e

4) Contributed the most to the development of neo-institutionalism:

a) Johan P. Olsson b) James G. Mark c) Both 'a' and 'b' d) None of these
5) The concept of neo-institutionalism is related.
(a) Political Science (b) economics (c) Sociology (d) all of these
6) Which of the following is not a feature of the comparative method?
(a) It is a scientific method.
(b) It is a search for empirical relationships
(c) It is a narrow and specific technique
(d) It is a method of comparative analysis
7) When did the comparative method become useful in the world?
(a) After the First World War
(b) After the Second World War
(c) After the Cold War
(d) All of the above
8) Which countries' systems are studied in comparative political systems?
(a) systems of developed countries
(b) systems of a developing country
(c) Socialist systems
(d) All of the above
9) In which of the following years did the emphasis on culture become prominent in
comparative politics?
(a) in the 1950s
(b) in the 1960s
(c) in the early 1970s
(d) in the late 1970s
10) What is the study of comparative politics?
(a) institutions and functions.
71 | P a g e

(b) All types of political activities, governmental and non-governmental and all political
organizations.
(c) political processes.
(d) techniques and methods of comparative political inquiry.
1.12 REFERENCES
• Blondel, J. (1996) 'Then and Now: Comparative Politics', in Political Studies. Vol. 47
(1), pp. 152-160.
• Pennington, M. (2009) 'Theory, Institutional and Comparative Politics', in J. Bara and
M. Pennington (eds.) Comparative Politics: Explaining Democratic System. Sage
Publications, New Delhi, pp. 13-40.
• Hague, R. and M. Harrop and McCormick, J. (2016) Theoretical Approaches
Comparative
• Government and Politics: An Introduction. (Tenth Edition). London: Palgrave
McMillan.
• Hall, P., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor (1996) 'Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalism', Political Studies. XLIV, pp. 936-957.
72 | P a g e

Unit-IV
POLITICAL CULTURE: APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
(a) Civic Culture, (b) Subculture, (c) Hegemony
(d) Post Materialism, (e) Social Capital
Vaishali Mann
STRUCTURE
1.2 Introduction
1.2.1 Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
1.2.2 Traditional Comparative Politics
1.2.3 Modern Comparative Politics
1.3 Political Culture Approach
1.3.1 Ronald Inglehart-Post Materialism
1.3.2 Subculture–Dennis Kavanagh
1.3.3 Hegemony by Antonio Gramsci
1.4 Social Capital–Putman
1.5 Conclusion
1.7 References
• Students would understand about Political Culture and its approaches.

• They would comprehend about Ronald Inglehart’s Post Materialism, Subculture of
Dennis Kavanagh, Hegemony by Antonio Gramsci
• Student would learn about Social Capital of Putman.
73 | P a g e

1.2 INTRODUCTION
1.2.1 Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
Comparative politics means comparing the political systems of different kinds. Comparative
politics is regarded to be a discipline as old as political theory. Aristotle is widely held to be
the father of comparative politics because he was the first political thinker to conduct a
comparative study of 158 constitutions of the world. He provided an elaborate classification
of constitutions.
The nature and the scope of comparative can be divided into two phases-
i. Up to World War 1– traditional comparative politics
ii. Up to World War 2 – modern comparative politics
TRADITIONAL
SCOPE/DEVELOPMEN
T OF COMPARATIVE
POLITICS
MODERN
1.2.2 Traditional Comparative Politics

Traditional comparative politics is generally regarded to be very narrow in scope. It included
just the study of the constitutions of the western world. The reason behind this one was that
the countries that were colonies had no political systems of their own. Since all the western
countries were at similar levels of development, their societies, way of life, culture did not
differ much from one another. So, the basis of comparison was very narrow and limited. The
maximum comparison could only be made on forms of government.
Hence, the traditional comparative politics only focused upon the study of
government rather than the study of politics. Since the study of constitution and forms of
government was the focus area of traditional comparative politics, the method that was used
was LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL method.
However, the traditional method suffered from certain limitations like it was narrow
74 | P a g e

in scope because it excluded the study of political systems of the non-western countries. It
was static as it focused upon the study of constitutions only, not the study of politics. It was
also essentially non comparative as the only point of comparison was the constitution. Hence
it was called ETHNO-CENTRIC and PAROCHIAL.
1.2.3 Modern Comparative Politics
It began after the Second World War. The main reason for development of this was the
process of decolonization and the emergence of third world countries. This now became a
widely accepted view that there was a lot of difference between theory and practice, text and
context. Hence, it was realized that it is not sufficient if we just go for the study of
constitution. It was equally important to understand the socio-cultural factors in these
societies.
Also, the need for study of developing areas coincided with behavioral movements which
made the study of modern comparative politics possible. The need to study new areas itself
motivated scholars to make innovations for new approaches.
There are different types of modern comparative methods such as-
• Systems approach
• Structural functional approach
• Political development approach
• Political modernization approach
• Political culture approach
• Political sociology approach
• Political economy approach
But we are, through this lesson plan focused on one approach out of these- POLITICAL
CULTURE APPROACH
1.3 POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
First let us understand what is meant by political culture. Political culture refers to a set of
norms, values, and political orientation of people. Political culture is a subset of culture. It
denotes people’s norms, values, orientations with respect to the political systems.
Different thinkers have described political culture in different ways-
75 | P a g e

• According to Pye, Political culture describes the overall pattern in society of beliefs,
attitudes and values towards the political system, or ‘the sum of the fundamental
values, sentiments and knowledge that give form to political science.
• The Civic Culture’ is the classic 1963 study by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba.
Their investigation is called the first systematic study of political culture approach.
• Daniel J. Elzar talks of three dimensions of political culture based on the
involvement of people in the public sphere- individualistic, moralistic and
traditionalist. Political culture is not only a national or a local phenomenon but can
also be understood at the global level.
• A key example of global-scale analysis is offered by Samuel Huntington in his ‘The
Clash of Civilizations’. Huntington saw seven or eight of them in all: Western,
Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic–Orthodox, Latin American, Chinese, and (possibly)
African.
1.3.1 Ronald Inglehart – Post Materialism
Now let us look into the approach within political culture provided by political thinker
Ronald Inglehart. Let us analyze it.
Ronal Inglehart was an American political scientist who specialized into the field of
comparative politics. His core theory about political culture was that political culture always
dictates political systems. He tried to establish a correlation between Protestantism and
western democratization.
If we first look at the term POST MODERNISM, we need to understand its meaning
first. The term post modernism was popularized by Ronald Inglehart. It basically means a
change in individual values. This change basically happens when there is a change in
materialist, economic and physical outlook to a whole different set of individualistic values
based upon autonomy and self-expression. He carried out this study in his book The Silent
Revolution. And analysis was based upon the changes in western societies. He stated in his
work that as western societies progressed and became prosper, the post materialist values
gradually increased in these societies. This is what he termed as intergenerational
replacement. This change to welcome and embrace new post materialist values was visible in
the younger generation.
According to him, for this change to happen that is, the change from materialist to
post materialist values, it is very crucial that the material needs of the human beings are
satisfied first. Because when these needs are satisfied then only a person is willing to move
76 | P a g e

towards the post materialist values like peace, prosperity, growth and self-esteem.
In order to make his point clearer he used two models–
i. Scarcity hypothesis
ii. Socialization hypothesis
1.3.1.1 The Scarcity Hypothesis
Ronald Inglehart assumed that individuals pursue certain goals in life but in a hierarchical
order. This means that first individuals pursue materialist goals in life and only when these
goals are fulfilled then an individual moves from materialist to post materialist goals in life.
When people inspire for freedom and autonomy, they try to satisfy their basic needs first.
They try to fulfill their needs like hunger, thirst, physical security. These materialistic goals
always have a priority over post materialistic goals. It is only when materialistic goals are
satisfied then post materialistic goals like belonging, esteem, and aesthetic and intellectual
satisfaction come into the picture. When material goals are fulfilled, it is then the focus is
shifted towards other goals.
1.3.1.2 The Socialization Hypothesis
Ronald claims that this relationship between material conditions and values is not an
immediate relationship. Many surveys have indicated that this shift usually takes place when
one reaches adulthood. People who have suffered economic scarcity will continue to place
material needs at a higher level whereas people who are materialistically affluent or
prosperous will start moving from these materialist needs towards values like individual
improvement, empowerment, personal freedom, humanism, emphasis on sustainability.
These two hypotheses given by Ronald suggest us that when people experience long
periods of materialist affluence, only then they are willing to move in the direction of post
materialist values. According to Inhasart, these hypotheses together reflect that prosperity and
the absence of war that has prevailed in the western countries, the young people place less
emphasis on values like economic security and physical security as compared to the older
generation who have faced the periods of economic distress and insecurity and thereby place
greater value on the concept like security. The young population seeks to embrace
nonmaterial needs or values like quality of one’s life, freedom etc.
Ronald Inglehart was heavily influenced by another American psychologist
ABRAHAM MASLOW, while formulating his hypothesis. In 1973, Maslow wrote a book
titled ‘A theory of human motivation’. In this book, he proposed an idea that humans have a
hierarchy of needs. He depicted this in the form of a pyramid. At the bottom were the most
77 | P a g e

basic psychological needs like food, water. On the next level were needs like safety, security,
stability, health, employment. The level in the pyramid keeps on increasing till it reaches the
last level where goals or needs like self-actualization, freedom, creativity, and morality
emerge.
Inglehart through his concept of post materialism supported Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs. Till the time scarcity existed in people’s lives, needs like health, employment, security
would always take precedence over needs like freedom and creativity. As soon as scarcity
disappeared or we can also say that as soon as the most basic needs of humans were fulfilled,
individuals would start shifting their needs to non-materials values like creativity, freedom
and self-actualization.
1.3.1.3 Materialism Versus Post Materialism
If we look at the entire world from the perspective of materialism, money/wealth is regarded
to be a positive value and is associated with high social status and happiness. These
materialist values often tend to ignore other people’s happiness and also place less
importance on one’s own spiritual growth. Many studies that have been conducted before
show that people who give more importance to materialist values tend to have lower levels of
physical and mental health. However, this is not the case with post materialism. Ronald
Inglehart in his recently conducted research stated that at the end of 20th century, younger
generations in the global north are now moving towards post materialist values. According to
him, post materialism has also led to an increase in political activism, radicalism and now
politics is being seen from an ideological perspective rather than just material perspective.
1.3.2 Subculture – Dennis Kavanagh
Now let us look at another dimension to understanding political culture provided by another
thinker Dennis Kavanagh. Dennis Kavanagh is a British political analyst who has written
extensively on post war British politics. Dennis Kavanagh defines a political culture as a set
of values, beliefs and attitudes within which a political system operates. His biggest
contribution to the field of political science has been the concept of subculture. Some of the
scholarly works on political culture suggested that this very assumption that there exists only
a single type of political culture across a nation was a complete myth. It was a huge
possibility that many political cultures co-existed together within any given political systems,
rather than a single national political culture. To clearly understand the relationship between
political culture and political system, it was very crucial to first understand the interactions
that took place between different subcultures and the impact of this interaction ion the
political system as a whole. The term subculture here becomes very important. Let us
understand first, what it means. The term subculture refers to the distinctive identity of
78 | P a g e

diverse social groups and communities in any given society at a particular time. In the context
of political culture, it refers to the existence of different types of behaviors, opinions,
orientations and attitudes possessed by different communities and social groups towards a
particular political system.
Dennis Kavanagh in his very popular work ‘political culture’ has identified four bases on
which subcultures develop–
i. Elite versus mass subculture
ii. Cultural division within elites
iii. Generational subcultures
iv. Social structure
These four bases provide us with different sets of subcultures in a society that have different
social and political implications. Each of these ways of thinking about the different
subcultures divisions introduces us to new forms of investigations. Now let us look at them in
detail–
1.3.2.1 Elite Versus Mass Culture
The elite versus mass culture tend to reflect us the differences especially the attitudinal
differences that exist between political or the elite class and the remainder population. The
separation of the elite and the masses is useful. A number of classic studies argue that the
elites tend to be well versed in self recruitment, socializing the political elites in a manner
that they develop certain attitudinal patterns. For example- American political elites tend to
develop a consensus upon unspoken norm and rules.
1.3.2.2 Cultural Divisions within Elites
This model focuses upon the differences that exist between different elites within the same or
different political cultures. This emphasis on elites is based upon the idea that the important
venue of politics is the zone populated by elites. The nature of elite behavior is differently
functioning in the democratic politics.
1.3.2.3 Generational Model
This model is based upon political dynamism. The argument here is that distinct political
cultures belong to different generations. Political culture changes over time as particular
generations become socialized into distinct value sets, reach political maturity in possession
of those value sets and eventually die out to be replaced by a new generational political
culture. The agenda in a political system keeps on changing in accordance with the priorities
79 | P a g e

derived from underlying values and the political parties and political institutions have to
adapt to them accordingly.
This model can be linked to the post modernism model provided by Ronald Inglehart
who stated that the underlying values tend to experience generational shift in western
societies, especially in 1970’s.
1.3.3 Hegemony by Antonio Gramsci
On the basis of the concept of ideology, many Marxists and neo-Marxist thinkers have
thought differently on the way politics works. Marx and Engels regarded the dominant ideas
of any historical epoch as the ideas that have been declared legitimate. It is believed that all
political and cultural ideas are rooted in the prevailing power relationship. Gramsci
developed the notion of hegemony to make his readers understand how actually power
relations operate in capitalist societies.
But first let us understand who Antonio Gramsci was. Antonio Gramsci was an Italian
Marxist intellectual and politician. He is credited with refining Marxist thought. He was a
very vocal critique of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. He was imprisoned in 1926 where he
remained until his death in 1937.
His work is titled ‘prison notebooks’ and is regarded to be one of the finest and most
important contributions to political theory. This work covers wide range of topics like
religion, fascism, Italian history, nationalism, civil society, popular culture. Gramsci is best
known for his theory of cultural hegemony. This theory basically tends to describe how the
elite class, also called Bourgeoisie class use cultural institutions and symbols to maintain
power in the capitalist societies. According to Gramsci, the Bourgeoisie class develops a
hegemonic culture using a tool called IDEOLOGY. Instead of using violence, economic
coercion, and force to maintain their dominance, they use ideology as their most potent tool.
They create an illusion of certain values which are of their own interest. This illusion slowly
seems like a COMMOM SENSE prevailing among the masses. And this is the process by
which the entire status quo is maintained. Thus, according to Gramsci, the concept of cultural
hegemony is used to maintain the consent to the capitalist order. This cultural hegemony is
produced and reproduced by the dominant class through the institutions that form the
superstructure that is the religious, social and political institutions.
Gramsci’s contribution is regarded to be one of the major contributions to Marxist
thought. He critically examined Marx’s explanation of history. He looked for many other
explanations of history and he got really impressed by another Italian scholar BENEDETTO
CROCE. Croce has emphasized the role of cultural factors in history. He stood apart from
80 | P a g e

other Marxist thinkers. The reason being his rejection of economic determinism of Marx and
Engels. Economic determinism means that economic relationships are the only foundation
upon which all the other societal and political arrangements in society are based. This theory
claims that all the societies in the world are divided into different economic classes whose
relative political power is determined by the nature of the political system.
Gramsci had felt that maybe Marx has ignored the role of cultural factors in history.
1.3.3.1 Gramsci’s Contribution to Marxist Theory of History
Marx theory of history has been criticized as CRUDE ECONOMIC DTERMINISM. This
means it was not refined or updated. Because of Gramsci’s contribution, his theory is no
longer economic determinism.
Let us understand Gramsci’s contribution by comparing it to Marx model-
Marx model of society consisted of two structures-
i. Base
ii. Superstructure
Based is the economic structure and state; media and educational institutions are part of
superstructures. For Marx, superstructure is not a structure in itself but a reflection of the
base. It means that if economic structure changes, super structure will change automatically.
It means only one revolution is required- change in basic structure or the mode of the
production.
Gramsci presented a different point of view here- for Gramsci; it is not enough to
fight at the level of economic structure. We must fight at two levels- basic structure and super
structure. It is more challenging to change the superstructure. Basic structure can change in a
day, but superstructure may take centuries because change in culture, values, beliefs take a lot
of time. Like all Marxists, Gramsci also considers economic structure as the basic structure
i.e., the ultimate determinant is economic structure. However, unlike Marx, Gramsci suggests
that superstructure is also a structure. He has divided the superstructure in two layers-
i. Civil society
ii. State
Together both civil society and the state forms INTERGRAL STATE.
PURPOSE OF THE STATE is to act as an instrument of capitalism. It helps in
perpetuation or continuation of rule of capitalist class. According to Gramsci, the state
represents the coercive force used against those who want to challenge capitalism.
PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY is also to perpetuate the domination of
81 | P a g e

capitalist class. It is much closer to the base and acts as the first layer of protection. It acts as
cushion or shock absorber. If the state uses coercion, civil society uses the power of
attraction. Civil society according to Gramsci, works to create attraction for bourgeoisie way
of life or values. Gramsci uses the term HEGEMONY for this POWER OF ATTRACTION.
1.3.3.2 Understanding Hegemony
Hegemony in the literal sense means leadership. Leaders also use force. They also compel
others to work according to their will. However, leaders also rely upon the power of
attraction to generate consent. Thus, hegemony represents SOFT POWER as opposed to
military power/force called HARD POWER. The difference between both is that if hard
power is exercised on the body, soft power is exercised on mind. If hard power is concrete,
soft power is invisible. If hard power is based on coercion, soft power is based on consent.
Thus, capitalism continues because of its ability to generate consent in its favor. That
idea becomes a hegemonic idea which is regarded to be as common sense by all. It ends up
becoming a way of life. Gramsci says that the major force behind generation of consent is the
intellectuals.
1.3.3.3 Role of Intellectuals
Gramsci has given a very different interpretation of intellectuals. In every society,
intellectuals receive the greatest amount of respect. They are seen as those who could tell the
truth. In the general sense, people who are acknowledged and have done accomplishments in
the field of art, literature, science, religion and other disciplines. It is also assumed that
intellectuals are NEUTRAL people engaged in understanding the truth.
According to Gramsci- “every person is an intellectual, but every person does not
perform the role of intellectual.” Every person is intellectual because every person performs
some work. Every work requires manual as well as intellectual labor. But not every work is
recognized as intellectual work. Only that work is recognized as intellectual work, according
to Gramsci, that has unique importance in the system of production. The main role of
intellectuals is maintenance of a particular system by generating such values, lifestyle that
help in perpetuation of the system.
Gramsci classifies intellectuals into two types-
i. Organic intellectuals
ii. Traditional intellectual
• ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS – when a new dominant class emerges, it brings into
existence a class of intellectuals who will play the role of maintaining the system. For
82 | P a g e

e.g.- when the capitalist class emerges, it also brings into existence a class of
intellectuals like engineers, bankers, managers, supervisors, civil servants who play a
role in maintaining the system. They are called organic because they are organically
linked with the dominant class i.e., their wellbeing is dependent on the dominant
class. According to Gramsci, their major role is the creation of the CULUTRE OF
CAPITALISM. They help in maintaining the hegemony of the dominant class. They
are also called DEPUTEES of the dominant class.
• TRADITIONAL INTELLECTUALS- these include those persons who have been
recognized as intellectuals before the emergence of new dominant class. For eg- in
western societies, church fathers were traditional intellectuals. Since they are not
organically originated with the new dominant class, they appear autonomous.
Gramsci here suggests a very interesting point. He says that the working class should try to
establish nexus with the intellectual class. There is NO REVOLUTION WITOUT
INTELLECTUALS. So far, workers have produced intellectuals like technicians and
supervisors. Now these workers should work for their own class. They should provide
leadership to the working class. Supervisors and technicians can act as organic intellectuals
for working classes.
We need to understand that the political and practical implications of Gramsci’s ideas
were far reaching because he warned of the limited possibilities of direct revolutionary
struggle for control of the means of production. Gramsci’s ideas have influenced popular
education practices and research methods as well. The idea of hegemony has also influenced
debates about civil society.
1.4 SOCIAL CAPITAL – PUTMAN
Social capital by Putman is one of the most important contributions given by him in
comparative politics. Let us understand what this concept is. The term social capital was
originally coined by American theorist Judson Hanifan. Social capital can be defined as the
networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling
that society to function effectively. It basically includes effective functioning of various
social groups through interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, understanding,
norms, values, trust and cooperation. It includes both the tangible and non-tangible resources
including public spaces, private property, actors, human capital etc.
Putman’s concept of social capital has three components-
i. Moral obligations and norms
83 | P a g e

ii. Social values

iii. Social networks
Putman’s main idea is that if a region has a well-functioning economic system and a high
level of political integration, these are the direct result of successful accumulation of social
capital. In the United States, many social problems have been caused due to decline of social
capital. He talks about his concept of social capital in his book ‘bowling alone’. It is in this
book Putman has laid down a convincing case that community involvement had declined
very much in American societies since 1960’s.
To Putman, the theory of social capital is that “social networks have value” and the
externalities produced from these factors have implications for the wider community. The
dense networks which exist among people – within their families or organizations or even
within their religion contribute to positive forms of behavior. These interpersonal connections
allow people to trust each other and also help in the creation of healthy community bonds.
People this way can work together in pursuing shared goals. That is there always an
important element of RECIPROCATION.
Now Putman does not stop here. He further elaborates the differences between kinds
of social capital like – bonding social capital and bridging social capital. The former one
means the elements which create links between those who share something in common. And
the latter means the elements which create link between quite different things. Putman says
that it is the second one i.e., bridging social capital that becomes the most important factor in
connecting people in a diverse society.
In his book ‘BOWLING ALONE’ Putman has given certain examples on how
Americans have deviated from social engagement -there has been a reduction in average
member rate in associations. The average Americans attending the club meetings have also
declined drastically. Membership in church related groups also declined in 1960’s. Going out
to see friends have become less common, socialization in the American societies has reduced
drastically. Fewer families were eating together now. Participation in league bowling had also
fallen very sharply. So according to Putman, people were still bowling but now they were
bowling alone. On a larger level, this means that people were still conducting their basic
activities but now were participating in those activities alone as social participation had
suffered a setback in the American societies.
Putman work has been largely hailed in American society as one of the finest
contributions in the study of political culture. His insights on social capital have very broad
implications. In European countries too, a similar decline in civic participation has taken
84 | P a g e

place. There has been a decrease in the number of people who read newspapers, and who
participate in political parties. If we try to understand the criticism that Putman has faced, it is
not clear whether active participation has made positive contribution in civic regions.
1.5 CONCLUSION
The lesson summarized the importance of political culture in a political system. It has
discussed about the meaning and definition of subculture and about the idea of base and
super structure given by Gramsci Putnam and Dennis Kavanagh .
1. What do you understand by subculture? Write an essay on Dennis Kavanagh’s

concept on subculture.
2. Illustrate on Gramsci’s Contribution to Marxist Theory of History and political
culture.
1.7 REFERENCES
• Johari J.C, Comparative Politics, sterling publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1892(1972)

• Mercator net: navigating modern complexities, article title- Robert Putman insights on
social capital. (2022)
• Article title- Introducing the civic perspective on social capital.
• Power cube: article title- Gramsci and Hegemony
• Article title- Five alternative approaches to comparative politics.
• Article title- Note on civic culture
• Vitte de Hnas, Article title- Post Materialism: ideological orientation and values.
(2004)
85 | P a g e

Unit-V
APPROACHES TO STUDYING COMPARATIVE POLITICS:
POLITICAL ECONOMY
(a) Underdevelopment, (b) Dependency
(c) Modernisation, (d) World System Theory
Dr. Garima Sharma
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Historical Overview of Political Economy
1.4 Modernization Theory of Development
1.5 Dependency
1.6 Underdevelopment
1.7 World System Theory
1.8 Conclusion
1.10 References
• Students will be able to get knowledge about the Political Economy Approach.
• Students will be able to analyze the relations between politics and the Economy.
• Students will be able to get the knowledge of modernization theory of development.
• Students will be able to find the reason behind the rise of dependency theory.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The era between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries is a period of an economic shift in
the western world when the market started to supersede all aspects of societies. The Clutches
86 | P a g e

of the church began to shatter after the beginning of liberalism in academia and the arrival of
the Scientific revolution with notables like Galileo, Newton and Voltaire seeking to subject
all aspects of human existence under the scrutiny of reason. Although the markets were still
in their initial developing stage and due to this the responsibilities of societies also shifted
from church to state. The Political Economy approach in Comparative study is an approach to
studying the relationship between institution and market.
1.3 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
The Historical Lineage of political economy could be seen from the early fourteenth century
to the late seventeenth century in the western world. From then to now these historical
transformations in the political economy approach could be categorized into four phases that
are above below–
• Classical Liberal Economy
This phase of the political economy approach could be seen between the 17th to mid-
18th centuries. In this phase liberal scholars like Adam Smith (1723-1790), Thomas
Malthus (1766-1834), David Ricardo (1772-1823), Nassau Senior (1790-1864) and
Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) put emphasis on the potential of the market. Classical
political economists were famous for their combination of optimism and pessimism
toward the market. For example, the stalwart of political economy Adam smith in his
classical work The Wealth of Nations (1776) presented the commitment towards
laissez-faire or free market by the idea of the ‘invisible hand’, where he advocated the
idea of individual freedom and the other hand, he suggested that the market could not
work its magic forever. Similarly, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo emphasize the
role of the market over the state and church and were also skeptical towards the
distribution of resources.
• Radical Marxist Economy
In response to classical political economy, there was an emergence of a radical
perspective in the history of political economy. The main shift from a classical liberal
economy to a radical perspective is that they literally wanted to adopt the values of
enlightenment. Although classical political economists tried to challenge the power of
the state still there was a lack of critical thinking. Radicals demanded that every
aspect of society should be subjected to criticism to check the test of reason. Early
radical thinkers include William Godwin (1756-1836), Thomas Paine (1737-1809),
Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier
87 | P a g e

(1772-1837), Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825). These thinkers started the journey of

radical perspective in the history of political economy by criticizing the view of
private property. The popularity of radical thinking has increased with Karl Marx,
who is also known as a proponent of Marxist ideology. This German philosopher took
his ideas on capitalism from the German philosopher G.W.F Hegel. Marx presents
capitalism as a necessary evil for the establishment of a new and better organization
of society. After the death of Marx, many thinkers were inspired by his philosophy,
which includes thinkers like Georgi Plekhanov (1854-1938), Karl Kautsky (1854-
1938), and V. L. Lenin (1870-1940). However, later, many radical thinkers shifted
from Marxian philosophy to socialism. These new thinkers’ emphasis on the
evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism through the democratic political
process.
• Neo Classical Economics
All the previous dominant perspectives are seemingly flawed and create an
ideological vacuum. To fill this vacuum, a new perspective started to emerge in the
history of political economic studies. This shift in political economy is always goes to
three theorists; Carl Menger (1840-1921), W. Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) and Leon
Walras, emphasize the focus of political economy on the behavior of individual
consumers and competitive markets. Although Neo classical economists also divided
into trends. The first one was those who opposed any intervention of government and
on second trend supporters were those who emphasized on the positive role of the
government. After some time, the supporter of government become more famous with
the work of Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). He claims that
laissez-faire capitalism is inherently prone to depression and unemployment, so there
is a dire need for active government policies to stimulate the market.
1.4 MODERNIZATION THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
The modernization theory of development presents the process of transformation of

traditional societies into modern societies. Modernization theory was starting to be dominant
in social sciences after the second world war and in 1991 the end of the cold war with the
declaration of Francis Fukuyama once again situated this theory in the dominant position.
According to modernization theory, traditional societies would be developed as they adopt
modern practices. For example, Coleman presents the three main features of modern
societies: a) Differentiation of political structure, b) Secularization of political culture – with
the ethos of equality, and c) enhances the capacity of a society’s political system.
88 | P a g e

The work of Max Weber and Talcott Parson has had a significant influence on
modernization theory. Where Max Weber describes modernization theory in terms of the
transformation of traditional, rural, and agrarian societies into a secular, urban, and industrial
society. Similarly, Walt Rostow is considered as the most influential thinker in the
formalization of the modernization theory. In his book, The Stages of Economic growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto (1960), he described the concept of ‘Stages of development. He
presented the different phases of societies to reach at the final stage of modernization.
According to Rostow, each society can be classified into five stages of growth as follows-
1. Traditional Societies
This stage is described as a subsistent, agriculture-based economy with intensive labor
and population without any scientific temperament. According to Rostow “a
traditional society is one whose structure is developed within limited production
functions, based on pre-Newtonian science and technology, and pre -Newtonian
attitudes towards the physical world. These societies primarily rely on agriculture due
to the technological and infrastructural constraints, and their value system is
dominated by “long run fatalism”, in which one has a very limited range of
occupational options.” Rostow considered Chinese dynasties, Middle Eastern
Civilization and medieval Europe under this traditional society category.
2. Pre-condition to takeoff
The second stage of development is also known as the transitional stage, where these
pre-Newtonian societies moved from agriculture to manufacturing. The Second stage
of growth encompasses societies in transition: this is the time when preconditions for
take-off are developed; for it takes time to transform a traditional society in the ways
necessary for it to exploit the fruits of modern science in order to avoid diminishing
returns, and thus enjoy the blessings and choices opened up by compound interest’s
march” (Rostow 1959).
3. Take-off
It is the take-off stage that marks a short period of intensive growth. “During the take-
off, new industries expand rapidly, yielding profits, a large portion of which is
reinvested in the new plant; and these new industries, in turn, stimulate further
expansion in the urban areas and in the other modern industrial plant, through their
rapidly expanding requirements for factory workers, support services and other
manufactured goods.” The entire process of modern sector expansion results in an
increase in income for those who not only save at high rates but also put their savings
89 | P a g e

at the disposal of those working in the modern sector. The new class of entrepreneurs
grows, and it directs the growing flow of private-sector investment. The economy
makes use of previously untapped natural resources and production methods”
(Rostow 1959).
4. Drive to maturity
According to Rostow, reaching this stage takes place over a long period of time. At
this stage, we can observe the rise in standards of living, the use of technology
increase, and the overall growth of the national economy. “Formally we can define
maturity as the stage in which an economy demonstrates the capacity to move beyond
the industries that powered its take-off and to absorb and apply efficiently across a
wide range of its resources – if not the entire range- the most advanced fruits of
modern technology” (Rostow 1959).
5. Age of high mass consumption
This is the last stage of development according to Rostow. States like the United
States are able to reach this stage. After reaching this stage societies are shifting
towards stable economic growth and governance. At this stage, economic growth also
leads toward social welfare and security. The emergence of the welfare state can be
located at this stage.
According to Rostow, the process of change is simpler and self-sustaining. Economic growth
could be achieved by following a five-stage model of growth. He suggested that “all societies
can be placed in one of five categories or stages of economic growth”.
In 1958 one more thinker, Daniel Lerner presents the idea of modernization through
his major work ‘The Passing of Traditional Societies’. Lerner’s premise of modernization
was based on the degree of literacy, Urbanization, Media participation, etc. In summary, we
can conclude that modernization is a high degree of structural differentiation and
specialization. This could be reflected in various ways like the mode of production,
rationalization of society and the role of citizens in various activities of democracy. “The
Traditional society is variously understood as having a predominance of ascriptive,
particularistic, diffuse, and affective patterns of action, an extended kinship structure with a
multiplicity of functions, little spatial and social mobility, a deferential stratification system,
mostly primary economic activities, a tendency toward autarchy of social units, an
undifferentiated political structure, with traditional elitist and hierarchical sources of
authority, etc. By contrast, modern society is characterized by a predominance of
achievement; universalistic, specific, and neutral orientations and patterns of action; a nuclear
90 | P a g e

family structure serving limited functions; a complex and highly differentiated occupational
system; high rates of spatial and social mobility; a predominance of change and self-sustained
growth; highly differentiated political structure with rational-legal sources of authority and so
on” Although the theory of development from the lens of modernization is not welcomed all
over the world. Many thinkers from developing countries.
Criticism of Modernization Theory
• This theory was created with the intention of justifying the position of western
capitalist countries.
• Modernization theory was trying to establish the superiority of the western world.
• Dependency theory criticizes it for exploiting the resources of underdeveloped
countries.
• This theory ignores the effect of external factors on a state’s underdevelopment
position.
• Modernization theory was seen as a danger to the indigenous culture of a society.
1.5 DEPENDENCY
As modernization school explained development from the perspective of the western world,
similarly dependency school is about presenting the view of development from a third-world
perspective. Dependency schools first arose in Latin America and later on it was moved
toward North America. Andre Gunder Frank, who happened to be in Latin America in the
early 1960s was instrumental in establishing the idea of the dependency school in the western
world. If we analyze the reason for the emergence of the dependency school, then it could be
concluded by three reasons. First could be seen as a response to the failure of the ECLA
program, the second was the crisis of orthodox Marxism, and last, the decline of the
modernization school in the United States.
The ECLA (UN- Economic Commission for Latin America)
The ECLA program was initially set up in Latin America under the headship of Prebisch
(1960) with the hope of establishing industrialization. According to Prebisch, the main reason
for Latin America’s underdevelopment is due to the one-sided international division of labor.
Under this scheme, Latin America had to produce food and raw materials for the great
industrial centers and in return, Latin America received industrial goods from these industrial
countries. For the sake of the development of Latin America, Prebisch emphasizes stopping
this one-sided international division of labor and urges for industrialization. In reality, this
91 | P a g e

ECLA program did not succeed and led to economic stagnation and political problems in
Latin America.
Neo-Marxism
In this era, the old orthodox Marxist ideology was shifted towards neo-Marxism in Latin
America with the success of the Chinese and Cuban revolutions. This ideology of Neo-
Marxism has provided the base for the dependency school by criticizing both, The ECLA
program and the modernization school. Neo-Marxist see imperialism from the perspective of
Third world development. They have described the need for socialist revolution in these
third-world countries, according to their contextual needs.
Criticism of the Modernization School
In the 1960s, many thinkers started criticizing the basic premises of the modernization theory.
According to Frank, the modernization theory of development provides the ‘internal
explanation’ for the backwardness of third-world countries. Modernization thinkers believe
that traditional culture, overpopulation, little investment, and lack of achievement motivation
were the reasons for the stagnant societies of the third-world countries. To counter this
explanation, frank provides an external explanation from the side of third-world countries.
According to him, “it is wrong to characterize third world countries as primitive, feudal and
traditional. Because many countries such as China and India- were quite advanced before
they encountered colonialism in the eighteenth century”. In other words, “the development of
underdevelopment” is not a natural condition but an artifact created by the long history of
colonial domination in third-world countries.
The Dependency School
There were many thinkers, who have worked on this school of thought ‘dependency’. These
thinkers try to expose the basic premises of modernization theory, which worked under the
structure of imperialism. Dos Santos is the most prominent thinker who explained the whole
structure of dependency worldwide. He argued that all countries are interconnected but in a
different manner. In other words, the world is divided into two parts; dominant and dependent
and the relationship between dominant and dependent countries is unequal because the
development of the former takes place at the expense of the latter. A Brazilian economist Dos
Santos has the most notable contribution in the field of political economy for his formulation
of the concept of dependency. He has coined the concept of ‘New Dependency’. His theory
of dependency become famous during the 1960s, when many Latin- American countries were
struggling for economic stability. Dos Santos tries to explain this dependence by
distinguishing it into three historical forms: Colonial Dependence, Financial-Industrial
92 | P a g e

Dependence and Technological-Industrial Dependence.

• Colonial Dependence – The first historical form of dependency could be seen
through the relations between colonies and colonizers. Colonizers always try to
drain all resources of the colonies in the name of modernization and
westernization. In Dos Santos’s words, ‘The commercial and financial capital of
the dominant country, in alliance with the colonial state, monopolized the control
of Land, mines and Human Resources and the export of gold, silver and tropical
products of the country.’
• Financial-Industrial Dependence – After the end of colonization, the shift of
dependence of third-world countries moved towards financial-industrial
dependence. The economies of dependent countries were centered upon the export
of raw materials and agricultural products for consumption in European countries.
• Technological-Industrial Dependence - According to Dos Santos, the third
historical form of dependence could be seen in the form of technological-
industrial dependence. In this form developing countries have to depend on
developed countries for their technological advancement. This form emerged after
the World War II era, when industrial development began to take place in many
undeveloped countries.
Dos Santos concludes that ‘the economic backwardness of underdeveloped countries is not
due to a lack of integration with capitalism. Those studies that support this conclusion are
nothing more than ‘ideology disguised as science’. Instead, this underdeveloped is due to the
monopolistic control of developed countries over foreign capital, finance, and technology.
Basic Premises of the Dependency School
• The aim of the dependency school is to present the general pattern of dependency in
the third world throughout the history of capitalism from the sixteenth century to the
present.
• Dependency schools try to explain the underdevelopment from the vantage point of
external factors. Modernization theory claims that internal factors of society like
unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy are the reasons for the underdevelopment,
whereas dependency school argues that it’s the external dependency factor of the third
world that makes them an underdeveloped section of the world.
• Dependency schools try to explain the lack of development through an economic
perspective.
93 | P a g e

• Dependency theory is seen as incompatible with development, as the development of

one section is always at the cost of exploitation of the other section of the world.
1.6 UNDERDEVELOPMENT
Development is a process that indicates overall progressive changes in all spheres of society.
Mostly the theories were propounded by political economists and evolutionary sociologists in
the context of the western world. After the second world war, the notion of development
become famous in the context of underdeveloped countries, but soon it was realized that the
prevalent concepts related to development were still not proving successful in solving the
problem like poverty alleviation in developing countries. With this result from development
theories, the theory of underdevelopment was propounded from the theoretical debate
between Marxism and the experiences of development in Latin America.
In his book “Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America” the famous
political scientist Andre Gunder Frank explains that development and underdevelopment are
the results of internal contradictions in the world capitalist system. He was influenced by the
work of Paul Baran’s The political economy of growth (1957), where he described the
relationship between western Europe and the other part of the world based on conflict and
exploitation. Although economic development and underdevelopment can be seen differently
both are relative to each other in nature. One side’s development always leads to the
underdevelopment of the other section of the world, but that doesn’t mean that development
is the opposite of underdevelopment. In other words, frank “Argues that before there was any
development there was no underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are
related through the common historical process both have shared during the past several
centuries and the mutual or reciprocal influences that they have had, still have, and will
continue to have on each other through history.” For frank, the main reason behind the
underdevelopment of developing could be traced to their colonial history.
In his famous article, ‘The development of underdevelopment, Frank argues that
‘Underdevelopment is not due to the survival of archaic institutions and the existence of
capital shortage in regions that have remained isolated from the stream of world history. On
the contrary, underdevelopment was and still is generated by the very same historical process
which also generated economic development: the development of capitalism itself.’ He
further (1967,1969) includes that ‘most of the theoretical categories and development policies
in the modernization school have been distilled exclusively from the historical experience of
European and North American capitalist nation. To this extent, these western theoretical
categories are unable to guide our understanding of the problems facing Third World nations.
94 | P a g e

The Development of Underdevelopment: Satellites and Metropoles

Frank formulated his ideas of underdevelopment by analyzing the system of capitalism.
Capitalist nations always present external explanations for the underdevelopment of third-
world nations. According to modernization theorists, the reasons for underdevelopment could
be found in these nations- Such as traditional culture, overpopulation, little investment, lack
of motivation, etc. To counter this argument frank proposed an external explanation.
According to him, ‘modernization theory generalizes this whole concept of
underdevelopment by presenting this cause from an internal point of view. He argues that
Third-World countries could never follow a similar path as followed by western countries
because they have experienced exploitation under colonization. ‘The backwardness of Third
world countries cannot be explained by feudalism or traditionalism. In fact, it is wrong to
characterize third-world countries as “primitive”, “feudal” or “traditional”, because many
countries- such as China and India- were quite advanced before they encountered colonialism
in the eighteenth century. Instead, the historical experience of colonialism and foreign
domination has reversed the development of many “advanced” Third World countries and
forced them to move along the path of economic backwardness.’ In simple words, the
concept of “The development of underdevelopment” is to explain the causes of
underdevelopment through historical colonial domination in Third-World Countries. To
explain the relationship between developed and underdeveloped countries, frank has
formulated a “metropolis-satellite” model. Here metropolis denoted the developed countries,
on the other hand, the satellite was used for underdeveloped countries. This relation between
metropolis and satellite could be seen from the colonization era. These metropolis countries
try to transfer the economic surplus from satellite to their respective countries. Due to this
draining of resources, these satellite countries are not able to strengthen their economy, even
after the decolonization. In other words, the historical process that generates development in
western metropolises causes simultaneous underdevelopment in satellite countries. In his
metropolis-satellite model, Frank has proposed several interesting hypotheses concerning
Third-World development:
• Hypothesis 1: In contrast to the development of the world metropolis, which is no
one’s satellite, the development of national and other subordinate metropolises is
limited by their satellite statuses. For example, frank argues that third-world countries
would not go through a similar path of development by industrialization as followed
by the western world.
• Hypothesis 2: The satellites experience their greatest economic development when
their ties to the metropolis are weakest. For example, Frank observed through their
95 | P a g e

experience of Latin America that during its isolation period in world war I, Latin
America experienced a great level of industrialization.
• Hypothesis 3: When the metropolis recovers from its crisis and re-establishes the
trade and investment ties that then fully reincorporate the satellites into the system,
the previous industrialization of these regions is choked off.
• Hypothesis 4: The regions that are the most underdeveloped and feudal today are
those that had the closest ties to the metropolises in the past.
Basic Premises of the theory of Underdevelopment
• Underdevelopment theory tries to explain the reason for underdevelopment through
the historical perspective of the political economy.
• Underdevelopment theory is the extension of the dependency theory of development.
• The level of ties between metropolis and satellite countries could be reflected through
the degree of underdevelopment in satellite countries.
• The drainage of resources from satellite countries to metropolises is the main reason
behind the underdevelopment.
Criticism of the theory of Underdevelopment
• Underdevelopment theory of development focuses only on the economic perspective
and neglected the other social, political, and cultural aspects of underdevelopment.
• This theory is criticized for its extensive pessimistic attitude towards capitalism.
• In the globalized world, it is not possible for any country to develop its industrialized
system in isolation.
1.7 WORLD SYSTEM THEORY
World System Theory has been closely associated with the renowned thinker Immanuel
Wallerstein and his breathtaking work in the 1970s in the field of sociology. Wallerstein’s
work developed as an alternative explanation regarding the prevalent approaches of
modernization and development at that time. There are three major intellectual building
blocks that inspired Wallerstein to formalize world system theory: The Annales School, Marx
and the dependency school.
According to Wallerstein, “a world system is a social system, one that has boundaries,
structures, member groups, rule of legitimation and coherence. Its life is made up of
96 | P a g e

conflicting forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks
eternally to remold to its advantage. It has the characteristics change in some respects and
remain stable in other…. life within it is largely self-contained and the dynamics of its
development are largely internal’ (Wallerstein, p.347). A world system is what Wallerstein
terms a “world economy”, integrated through the market rather than a political center, in
which two or more regions are interdependent with respect to necessities like food, fuel and
protection and two or more polities compete for domination without the emergence of one
single center forever (Goldfrank,2000) In other words Wallerstein describes world system
theory as a division of labor. This division of labor could be understood as a relationship
between the forces and relation of production of the world economy as a whole and it leads to
the existence of two interdependent regions: Core and Periphery.
World system theory as an extension and critique of the Modernization theory of
development
World system theory represents an extension of dependency theory, which was formulated as
a critique of the modernization theory of development. Like dependency theory, Wallerstein
challenged the universal path of development offered by the modernization theory. However,
in contrast to dependency theory, this theory recognizes the minimal benefits enjoyed by the
low-status countries in the world system.
Core, Periphery and Semi-Periphery
According to Wallerstein the origin and expansion of capitalism created the international
division of labor that divided the world into four economic zones; Core, Periphery, Semi-
Periphery and External Areas.
• Core
➢ Core countries are the most economically and militarily powerful countries in
the world.
➢ These countries are known for their highly skilled and industrialization. They
are the owners of the means of production.
➢ Core countries are the producers of manufactured goods.
➢ They get significant advantages by dominating and exploiting periphery
countries.
➢ They increase their profit in the periphery countries by selling their
manufactured goods in the periphery countries’ domestic market.
97 | P a g e

• Periphery
➢ These countries are economically and militarily marginalized countries of the
world.
➢ They have a very little portion of the world’s means of production with a pool
of unskilled labor.
➢ They are the primary exporters of raw materials to the core nations.
➢ Existence of a high degree of social inequalities.
➢ They are exploited by multinational and transnational corporations from core
countries.
• Semi-Periphery
➢ They are known as intermediate countries between core and periphery
countries.
➢ These countries try their best to prevent them from falling into periphery
countries and attempt to transform their position into core countries.
➢ These are industrialized and developing countries in the world.
➢ They have relations of export and import from both core and periphery
countries.
➢ The existence of semi-peripheral countries is crucial for the world system, as
they act as a buffer between the core and periphery.
Wallerstein also describes the fourth division of labor as external areas. These are considered
as the areas outside the capitalist system. These areas are also known as closed systems.
Russia includes this area until 20th century.
1.8 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have understood the following theoretical points regarding the political
economy approach:
• Modernization theory presents the optimistic version of development in which
underdeveloped states must pass through different stages to reach the final stage of
capitalism, which the developed countries had passed long ago.
98 | P a g e

• Dependency theory was the first to criticize the premises of the modernization theory
of development that explains the underdevelopment of a country through its internal
factors. On the other hand, dependency theory claims that this underdevelopment
should be analyzed through external factors that make third-world countries
dependent on the other part of the world.
• Underdevelopment of development concept was presented by renowned political
economist ‘Ander Gunder Frank’. According to him, the concept of “The
development of underdevelopment” is to explain the causes of underdevelopment
through historical colonial domination in Third-World Countries. To explain the
relationship between developed and underdeveloped countries, frank has formulated a
“metropolis-satellite” model. Here metropolis denoted the developed countries, on the
other hand, the satellite was used for underdeveloped countries.
• World system theory, like dependency theory, suggests that wealthy countries benefit
from other countries, however, this model recognizes the minimal benefits that are
enjoyed by the low-status countries in the world system. The theory originated with
sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, who suggests that the way a country is integrated
into the capitalist world system determines how economic development takes place in
that country.
1.9.1 Self-Assessment Questions

1. Explains the relevance of the political economy approach in the discipline of
comparative politics.
2. Explain the reasons for the criticism of the modernization theory of development?
3. What are the reasons for the emergence of the dependency model in Latin America?
4. Describes the reasons for the failure of the modernization theory of development.
5. Explains the international division of labor by Wallerstein.
1.9.2 Multiple-Choice Questions
1. What are the main reasons for criticism of the modernization theory of development?
a) Focused on industrialization.
b) Negligence for Indigenous Culture
c) For giving an internal explanation of underdevelopment
99 | P a g e

d) All the above

2. Who has propounded the theory of the world system?
a) Andre Gunder Frank
b) Dos Santos
c) Immanuel Wallerstein
d) Paul Prebisch
3. Who is the author of the book ‘The Stages of Economic growth: A Non-Communist
Manifesto’?
a) Daniel Lerner
b) Max Weber
c) Walt Rostow
d) None of the above
4. What is the similarity between dependency theory and world system theory?
a) Both criticize the modernization theory of development.
b) Both give an alternative to explain the reason for underdevelopment.
c) Both theories were influenced by Marxist ideology.
d) All the above
5. Who was the metropolis in the metropolis-satellite system by frank?
a) Third-world countries
b) Latin America
c) African Countries
d) Western Countries
1.10 REFERENCES
• Chilcote, R. H. (2000) Comparative Inquiry in Politics and Political Economy:

Theories and Issues, Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 31-52, pp. 57-81.
• Esteva, G. (2010) Developments in Sachs, W. (Eds.), The Development Dictionary: A
Guide to Knowledge as Power (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books, pp.1-23.
• So, A.Y. (1990) Social Changes and Development: Modernization, Dependency and
World-System Theories. London: Sage, pp. 91-109.
100 | P a g e

• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System:
Concepts for Comparative Analysis, Comparative Studies in Society and History,
Vol.16, pp. 38-415.
• Rostow, W.W (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
• Frank, A.G (1975). On Capitalist Underdevelopment, Oxford University Press:
Bombay.
• Landman, Todd. (2000). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An
Introduction. Routledge: London.
• Mohanty, Manoranjan. (1975). ‘Comparative Political Theory and Third World
Sensitivity’. Teaching Politics, No.1 & 2.
• Lim, C. Timothy. (2006). Comparative politics: An Introduction to Approaches and
Issues. Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Reiner.
• Chilcote, H Ronald. (1994). Theories of Comparative Politics, Westview Press.
• Limequeco, Peter and Bruco McFralane. (1983). Neo- Marxist Theories of
Development. Croom Helm and St. Martin Press: London.
101 | P a g e

Unit-VI
GENDERING COMPARATIVE POLITICS

(a) The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics
(b) Political Representation: Women in Government and Politics
Dr. Latika Bishnoi
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics
1.4 Mainstream Research, the Gender Research and Democratisation
1.5 Gender Lacuna: Achievements and Challenges
1.6 Political Representation: Women in Government and Politics
1.7 United States of America and Women Political Participation
1.8 India and Women Political Participation
1.9 Conclusion
1.11 References
The idea of democracy is to bring equality and liberty to every society. While democracy
represents the citizenry, the democratization process intends to understand inclusiveness,
marginality, representation and decision making. While in some liberal regimes these issues
have been taken into account, the other regimes still have a long way to go in the
democratization process. Also, because the leadership in these regimes has been limited to
the political elites who are mostly men. The gender lacuna intends to explore the gender
imbalance in politics. Women underrepresentation in politics and decision making has been
overlooked in several societies that also fail to bring to light opportunities for women
representation in politics. Several women mobilization have now and again asserted on the
gendered gaps that marginalize women. The question to be observed is how do we observe a
woman’s movement in comparative political analysis? Do we analyze it has been one single
102 | P a g e

variable in a larger study of democratization or do we understand it as a study that can lead to

democratization. Gendering lacuna as a subject has only recently gained importance in
comparative politics. The objective of study in this chapter is to understand gender and
comparative politics instead of different research and observe why women representation has
been overlooked in politics. An analysis of comparative literature of different democratic
regimes has been observed as a key to political analysis of understanding women
marginalization in politics.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Gender lacuna is an understanding of the gaps and differences in the study of gender and
political science, especially in the study of comparative politics. Women’s narratives,
perspectives and experiences have been closely observed in gender studies but despite that
there remains a wide substantial gap in comparative literature in the study and inclusion of
women representation in politics.
The reasons could be manifold. The fact that the women movements have been less
acknowledged, the study has been acknowledged to a certain limit regarding which the
movement has taken place, women’s rights have remained a small sub field and have not
been given importance in comparative political literature, women have been conditioned to
vote in a certain manner, voting behavior is conformed in a certain manner, despite being
elected women are not part of the decision making in the legislatures, women education in
some decries have been less leading to their voting behavior, their needs have been different.
In political parties, male candidates are given more preferences than the female candidates,
there are ambivalent conclusions when it comes to women voting behavior, traditional gender
roles limit their opportunities, women are encouraged less to be part of the politics,
depending on their families, leading to gender gaps in political representation. This tends to
evaluate the gender lacuna in political representation of women in comparative literature.
Why certain democracies have more women representatives than men (if at all)? What do
democracies do to limit this gender gap? How are women mobilization analyzed in this
framework, all comprise the gender lacuna that needs to be observed considering the less
participation and representation of women in politics.
1.3 GENDER LACUNA IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
The process of democratization asserts the idea of inclusiveness. Scholars observe that there
has been less attention on gender in politics.i Gender’s relevance to politics has been rarely
103 | P a g e

observed by the mainstream scholars and its non-relevance to politics is even overlooked by
the gender researchers. There is a concern that the scholarship on gender-based research has
been institutionalized and rather become a subfield to the study of politics.ii
Gender based research has become a part of several studies in the past decades, but it
is still not considered a part of the mainstream subject of political science. Gender
scholarship have now again tried to understand the behaviors, patters and even emotions
which have been laid out in the form of reels and texts but there is a certain loss in pattern
while placing women and politics together in the research. Gender studies have still not been
adhered to as a ‘legitimate theoretical approach’. While several research lays down the
importance of values, cultural understanding and difference, the process of understanding the
role of women in transition and in democratization process has largely been overlooked. The
problems of women have been cited by gender scholars, but their participation and their
gendered nature has been overlooked.iii
Despite several research on the democratization process, there is rare study that
accounts for gender and women or their work. The fact that we overlook the understanding of
women in democracy and how her participation has been in the past few decades brings to
light how gender as a study is still not considered vital. A political analysis in comparative
studies on gender lacuna needs greater emphasis to understand the process of
democratization, it was because women were marginalized and their absence in the main field
of politics was meagre, that led to the study of women and politics. This study is an attempt
to understand gender lacuna in comparative politics and to incorporate their role in the
process of democratization.
1.4 THE MAINSTREAM RESEARCH, THE GENDER RESEARCH

AND DEMOCRATISATION
Scholars argue that the problem lays in the approach to the two problems: of understanding
the gender lacuna within mainstream comparative politics and the integration of women. The
process as to how these two rely on each other and how these variables have been questioned
have only led to widening the gap. There are also the assumptions made by several scholars
belonging to these two groups. The mainstream scholars believe that being a different
category study may not be a problem. Other studies like social movements and several other
methods are also subfields and gender like others is just one variable among several others.
Lisa Baldez points out both the definitions can be problematic while considering
women and gender and democratization, to what she calls an ‘elite focus’. The definition of
104 | P a g e

gender tends to be overlooked in the comparative study on democratization literature despite

it being a concept that is contested. The fact that the definition of democracy as a variable
that is dichotomous does not bring to light the issues from the perspective of gender until
citizenship rights pertaining to women in democratic societies are brought to forefront by
scholars. Women’s rights have been overlooked as democratic in certain regimes. Examples
from history being that there was less blood shed for the rights and women suffrage than that
of men.iv Women’s mobilization and activism for suffrage has been overlooked by
politicians. Baldez points that any regime cannot be considered democratic if it overlooks the
inclusion of women despite the fact women comprise half the population of the world. The
expiation of democratization process overlooks several process that include women’s
mobilizations, their struggles against tyranny and policies that are women friendly.
The elite focus, Baldez points out inhibits the role of women in democratic transition
but nonetheless should not prevent from asking the question as to why is it that the political
elites across the world are mostly men?
Gender perspective can also be analyzed even by the lens of elite centered approach
where one can try and understand why only certain people and not others become political
elites. Non gender approaches tend to understand only the people who participate in the
process of democratization and not others who do not. The question still remains why they do
not? The suggestion by Munck could be considered vital while taking into account the gender
approach as “recast the issue of which actors are relevant to the consolidation of democracy
as an empirical question.”v The question to put forward is that instead of questioning the fact
that why most men are the political elites one could try and understand as to why certain
people are supported by the citizens in democratization? In military regimes where
masculinity is the base there is a good chance that women could be supported because of their
being caring and empathetic. Such questions need to be more emphasized and comprehended.
The second approach is to bring to light how elite views are affected by women’s
mobilizations. Elite reforms are rarely discussed in the democratization process and their
decisions are based on popular support. Valerie Bunce argues that such support is centered on
mass mobilizations, where the participation of women is seen at large. The shift in questions
could be as to what makes an elite consider a reform? Is it mass mobilization? Are the
dissents of women taken into account? Bunce says that if these questions are taken into
account, then women’s influence maybe be better agreed upon and taken into account in the
transition process where mobilizations play a vital role in elite decision making.
M. Steven Fish further argues how status of women shows low status of
democratization in Islamic countries where women’s bodies have become area of religious-
105 | P a g e

secular issue central struggle for control. Islamic countries like Afghanistan have witnessed a
fierce conflict between reformers and traditionalists over the improvement of status of
women. Recent developments have further witnessed how women have been removed from
political offices, are not allowed to go to school and be a part of media houses. Fish points
out this patriarchal culture has emanated from historical struggle. This study of gender and
how it is integrated has further paved way for a new study in comparative politics and gender.
Studies on democratization relies on the normative study that it is the other regimes
where democracy can be successful. This cannot be true when it comes to women as
sometimes gender equality can also be worsened in a democratic state. Studies show that
women that democratic establishment have paved way for exclusion of women from political
powers where women and their roles have been limited, to be visible in several contexts. In
India, for examples the social reform movements and the abolition of the certain institutions
in the name of morality, equality and upliftment have further marginalized women (For
example, the devadasi pratha where women’s agency was subjugated).vi Democracy does
pave way for equality and liberty but at the same time one cannot overlook how women have
been subjugated in the name of democratic regimes, argues Baldez.
The mainstream scholars look at the women movements as just a single occurrence
and hence heed less importance to it. Scholars on gender understand that the women’s
movements have unique features of study which cannot be explained when compared to other
non-gender research. The unique position of women in the political system may require
convincing. Baldez argues that women it may not be necessary that a woman’s movement
needs to be always explained in a gender analysis, it can also look at it in a non-gender
manner.
ACTIVITY
Watch the movie Madam Chief Minister (2021).
The movie is a struggle by a Dalit women in India and her rise to power from
grassroots to the state Chief minister. The movie brings to light the intersectional
realities in India and a Dalit woman’s struggle to fight corruption, power and
subjugation in patriarchal structures.
106 | P a g e

1.5 GENDER LACUNA: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES
The past decade has witnessed the advance of several political scientists as identifying
themselves as comparativists. Several political and gender scholars especially have been
associating themselves with this subfield. The reasons could be because this area lacks
hegemonic agenda where gender is the key focus in comparative political analysis, there is an
interest in new areas of research, methodological pluralism is analyzed deeply, and field work
is given an important area of understanding the research.vii
Though recently, it has been observed that gender research has been less assimilated
in comparative politics literature. Few argue because the focus is more on gender than on
comparative studies, the research by the feminists has been given less importance in the
subfield, due to the fact that the literature is not vital for “mainstream’ and has separate
issues.viii Yet it is vital to understand and explore how gender can help in understanding
several political dynamics. New challenges can be observed and learned in the process of
comprehending an incorporating it in comparative political analysis.
The fear of “engendering” the subfield has perhaps been observed by several scholars.
Analysing gender in it as dependent or independent variable can perhaps give greater
understanding to the study. Several have even asserted to moving the study from “woman” to
“gender”, where the emphasis on the latter is observed as a fact that it can pave way for
several other research areas.ix
There are at least two strategies that should be taken into account by researchers on
gender according to Leslie Schwindt- Byer. Firstly, within the developments that are
happening globally they should take into account the finding from a specific country and
secondly, they should assert on how gender can cut across other areas of research; research
what she terms as an “added- value” research based on non- gender studies, evaluating new
theories and how they can bring a difference in the political process. Though like several
intersectional studies concerns, this study needs to be careful as well as it can overlook
certain understandings of feminist research in the process of becoming a more legitimate
study in political science. It is vital to balance such study.
While trying to analyze Comparative Politics from a gender perspective Monal Lena
Brook says that though some studies in comparative politics have now and again analyzed
from a gender perspective, the non- gender scholars have not paid much attention to this sub-
field and its contributions. Social movements, women’s exclusion from politics, women’s
role in different organization have perhaps been the key focus of research by the feminist
107 | P a g e

scholars. The study is to understand the political opportunity structures in women’s

mobilizations and their failures and success, that bring forward new understandings leading
to a social change in the society.
Studies also try to analyze women’s role in political parties and how they respond to
the demands by the feminists by focusing on strategies, structures and ideologies. How a
party responds and puts forward a women candidate is important.
Another area that is examined closes is elections. What are the gendered trends that
let a woman be elected politically? Though women’s suffrage is widely legal, there are still
trends in trying to analyze the patters of women voting which are anticipated to be different
from the men. The difference in voting is also observed in some countries because of the
gender gap. Women’s access is undoubtedly identified politically, socially, culturally and
economically.
Furthermore, a vital feature to be understood is public policy and the state. How do
state polices influence gender and how the gender norms shape the policies? This
understanding could play a key role in women and law and how the women’s issues are
views and given importance in policymaking.
Numerous challenges arise while understanding comparative politics and gender. First
of all, the greatest issue which the feminist scholarship has now and again raised is defining
gender. Then how different facets shape narratives and experiences? Women cannot be
observed as a group on one homogenous definition. Laurel Waldez however points out that
despite these issues, a comparative study can bring to light the intersectional study; and
identities can be made to “denaturalize and politicize”.” Another issue is that scholars have
mostly given importance to the developed nations and have successful democracies and have
not bothered to analyze a comparison globally. The idea of general is limited to only the
developed democracies. Hence, the comparison needs to be vital while highlighting the
problems of one nation that has already been examined as compared to the other nation which
has not. Another concern is how to handle the ‘political.’ Feminist scholarship have always
sought to expand the definition of the political to include even the informal structures that are
not defined and are part of the everyday life of woman than just limiting to the formal
institutions. But nonetheless even the formal structures have changed in the past years, hence
it is important to understand all the intersections and collaborate closely to understand further
the comparative analysis in Gender Lacuna.
108 | P a g e

ACTIVITY
Watch the movie Thalaivii (2021).
The movie is based on the life of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M.
Jayalalithaa. The movie shows her onwards journey from film star to a
politician in the state in regional party. Regional parties have supported
several women Chief Ministers for example in the state of Uttar Pradesh, West
Bengal and Tamil Nadu have all had women Chief Ministers for regional
political parties.
1.6 POLITICAL REPRESENTATION: WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT

AND POLITICS
Political participation is acknowledged by the knowledge of an informed citizenry. People

who have more opinions about issues related to the public are more participatory than those
who do not. The fact that those who participate have apt knowledge is also questionable.
Women participation is a vital subfield in politics. It observes how liberal democracies
enhance and observe women participation as legislators. Despite the fact that right to vote
was granted to almost women in liberal democracies in 1920 and 1920s, studies observe that
women are less likely to vote than men. This has been reversed in several countries like
America where women participation was visible strongly since 1980s to 2012, though male
voter turnout is still more in these democracies and the elderly are seen to participate more.
Men are seen to dominate political organizations, hold high posts in several developed and
developing nations and remain more informed about the politics. The reasons argued could be
that women are less visible than men in professions that enhance careers politically;
confidence is another reason and legislatures are still observed as ‘gendered institutions’
where men have an upper hand than women, and women even if elected have less say.
Several nations have taken formal mechanism to increase women participation in politics,
these can be elaborated as:x
i. Reserved Seats: The oldest mechanism where a political party reserves seats for
women candidates in proportion to its votes, the number of seats winning leads to
more reservation of seats to be allocated. Rwanda for example has the highest women
109 | P a g e

as legislators.
ii. Party Quotas: Another commonly used mechanism mostly in Europe where one
party adopts quota for women and other political parties follow the procedure for the
fear of lagging behind.
iii. Legislative Quotas: A method incorporated recently especially visible in Latin
America and is similar to Party Quota, only that it is validated by law and is to be
followed by all political parties.
It is argued that quotas are remedies to increase women representation. It is observed that
despite the quota the women legislators in several nations is still low than the quota allotted
by the party or the legislature. France for example passed a law in 2000, but by 2012 the
women legislators increased to only 26 percent. The reason for it could be the
implementation of the policy or the state and political party’s manner to encourage women
candidates in politics; and the fact that the dominance of the men is rarely challenged. But
despite these flaws, women are largely being elected as the head of the office or the state. The
argument here favors the legislative quota in the sense if one woman is elected as a
representative in the state, several other countries adopt a procedure that encouraged women
as the heads politically. Women in cabinets have increased across the globe and openly
challenge the politics and male hegemony in the field. Though they are elected they are given
to what is known as soft fields and not fields like finance, defense or foreign policy.
1.7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WOMEN POLITICAL

PARTICIPATION
United States is perhaps the greatest examples of democracy. As a democratic state it is

understood that women representation in politics is perhaps the highest in this country.
United States has about 17.1 percent women representation in politics as compared to other
nations of the world. The country does not guarantee equal rights between men and women
and stands sixty eighth as compared to other nations when it comes to women representation.
While understanding the political behavior and public opinion, it was observed that there is a
gender gap between the formal laws and the cultures and sadly it was observed that women
voted more conservatively than men. These gender gaps have recently been taken to immense
attention by media houses and scholars have put forward their theories on the gender gap
based on economics, socialization and politics. Changes in women’s attitudes have been
observed to result from structural conformation and post industrialization. The issue of
woman’s vote has of late gained importance and scholars argue that it can be elusive and
110 | P a g e

substantive depending on the manner it can be used by activists and leaders. There has been a
further noteworthy outcome when it comes to gender gaps and public policy. The argument
being that women expect the government to be more serious when it comes to unemployment
in public sector jobs as they “counter disadvantages of women.” This gap also shifts to the
fact of women’s jobs, democratization and the structure of the family. The sexual division of
labor observes a shift within the family structure although there is less gender equality when
a woman joins a paid labor job. Comparative study on women and democratization has
witnessed gaps that support the rights of women and others that support democracy. The fact
that men make better leaders than woman is a support that has been witnessed worldwide.
Recent observation as the case of Jacinda Ardern been elected as the head of the state of New
Zealand and her exemplary stand on welfarism and against terrorism has women her support
across the world. The twenty first century has witnessed several women leaders emerge that
have made a shift in the policies and decision making and asserted their strong leadership.xi
CASE STUDY
Pick a country for example India and observe the number of women legislators in the
Parliament since independence. Then pick a village in a state of India and try and analyze
the women candidates in the past decade. Have you noticed any rise or decline of women
legislators or women heads. Can you try and understand the reasons why? Is it women
education, women’s fear, women in traditional set- up, women 3ncouraged less by
families or political organizations or more by them? Try and understand the reasons and
if you can try and compare it with another country.
1.8 INDIA AND WOMEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
India guarantees every individual political rights. Her functional democracy can be largely
noticed by the fact that the country guaranteed right to vote to each citizen irrespective of
caste, class, sex, religion. Despite the illiteracy in India and the orientalist argument, India
took a huge step through adult suffrage by making democracy participatory. But how far the
participation has been successful? Political Participation is the key to understanding the
issues of every citizen and making the democratization process a success. Mostly it is vital to
observe that in a diverse nation such as India, how is every citizen included in the
democratization process? India has guaranteed several rights to the marginalized and has also
guaranteed schemes for upliftment and women representation in political offices.
111 | P a g e

India has had a Prime Minister who was a woman for more than two terms in the
office. The present Finance Minister is a woman. Data shows that women representation in
the Parliament has increased in the past few years. The first Lok Sabha elections had only 5
percent women in, whereas the sixteenth Lok Sabha witnessed the rise to 11 percent of
women representatives. There have been several attempts to reserve seats for women in the
legislature. The women reservation bill was introduced in 2008 and lapsed in 2013 due to
dissolution of the Lok Sabha.xii The attempt was to reserve at least 33 percent of seats for
women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The bill has witnessed several oppositions
observing the patriarchal hegemony in politics. There has been a debate that since India has
been a diverse country there needs to be a quota within the quota when it comes to women
reservation. Others have also observed that if the reservation is given only a certain section of
the elite women would benefit from it and the marginal women would still be a disadvantage.
Nonetheless, there have been provisions for women representations at the village
making it decentralized, inclusive and for larger proportions of women to be represented and
be a part of decision making and political process. The 73rd amendment Act makes it
mandatory for one –third of the seats to be reserved for women in village panchayats. Despite
this, failures have been observed where in certain areas though women are elected at village
level as Sarpanches/ Village head; it is the men, their family members who are observed as
ruling the village.xiii
A significant contribution in the study of gender lacuna in comparative politics is in
understanding the political parties and electoral systems. Political parties in India like any
other country play a vital role in nominating or electing women representative. Traditional
research tends to overlook the role of political parties in comparative politics in political
outcomes, according to Karen Beckwith. The structure of the party, the area they would be
contesting, the caste, the religion, the social structure is all taken into account India during
candidate selection. Several political parties in India rely on connections of their families for
candidate selection. There is also an ideology that is perhaps taken into account while
candidates are selected. The structures facilitate big political parties than the regional political
parties. The data on women selection in regional political parties is almost negligible. The
solution as given by Mona Lena Krook is quotas. But as observed earlier quotas in patriarchal
structures are less functional despite being implemented.
Women in politics are less encouraged even in India where kinship and family play an
important role. Some groups encourage women solely and have made different women’s
political organizations within the political parties to encourage women participation.
Women representation in some Indian states has witnessed a rise whereas there is
112 | P a g e

minimal representation in the other. The states have enhanced reservation to encourage
women participation in politics. Kerala has the highest women representation in local
governments. It implemented a scheme in 2010 that granted fifty percent reservation to
women at grassroots’ level. This has enhanced women participation in the state. The state of
Odisha has further implemented thirty three percent reservations for women in local
government. Rajasthan reserved fifty percent of seats for women at the grassroots level in
1994, encouraging women to participate in politics. Tamil Nadu further granted fifty percent
seats in 1996 to women at the local government, followed by Bihar in 2006 that incorporated
the same policy at the local level.
The India state has further made certain schemes that have been for the upliftment of
women in India and while taking.
➢ Beti Bachao Beti Padhao launcehd in 2015 to address the sex ratio and promote
education for the girl child.
➢ Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana launched in 2015 to promote education and savings for
the girl child by the parent.
➢ Swachh Bharat Abhiyan a national campaign launched in 2014 with specific focus
tofacilitate hygienic and clean sanitation facilities for women.
➢ Mahila E-Haat launchd in 2016, to promote women entrepreneurs and provide them
an online marketing platform.
1.9 CONCLUSION
Gender Lacuna in politics is perhaps the most under researched area. The study is vital in
understanding how many women have been represented in different countries and how have
they made it that far? What is the level of support they have gotten from the state and policy
makers? How have the traditional norms structured their voting and political behaviors? What
is the role of women mobilizations’ in making such attempt to analyze women in politics?
Despite several studies that look at gender and others that are mainstream there is rarely an
agreement on the comparative study on the gender lacuna and mostly this study is limited as a
subfield and not as a complete study. Also, it is vital to understand the feminist approaches
that have long struggled to uplift the women from marginality and bring her to the
mainstream. Examples from different nations need to be considered in the gendering lacuna
because some developed countries despite being democratic have failed to put women to the
forefront and the others despite being developing nations have more women as legislators.
Examples have shown that women tend to question more on issues of economics an arena
113 | P a g e

considered male dominated and have been exemplary in foreign affairs office, finance and
incorporating welfarism for common good of the society. While the structures of the state are
strong and made dominating, women candidates have perhaps thrived in some nations despite
being developing. It is vital to do a thorough comparative political analysis and bring to light
why the representation is low because only then the democratization process would be a
success. An inclusive approach that takes into account the multitude of issues and
intersectionality van address the gender lacuna and enhance women representation.
The gendering lacuna in comparative politics and the underrepresentation of women
in Indian politics are complex issues that require a nuanced and intersectional analysis.
Political analysis provides a valuable framework for understanding these issues and
identifying solutions for increasing political representation of women. By adopting a more
inclusive and intersectional approach, political analysis can help to address the gender lacuna,
the gender gaps and enhance equality.
1. What do you understand by the term Gender Lacuna?

2. What is the mainstream argument and gender researchers’ argument on women
political analysis in comparative politics?
3. What are the problems in understanding the gender lacuna in Comparative studies
Literature?
4. What do you understand by Political representation of women in government and
Politics?
5. Do you think women’s movements are vital in understanding the Gender Lacuna in
Comparative Politics. Why?
1.11 REFERENCES
Baldez, Lisa (2010) Symposium, The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics. March 10,
Vol. 8/No. 199-205.
Baldez, Lisa (2008), “Political Women in Comparative Democracies A Primer for
Americanist” in Political Women and American Democracy Baldez, Lisa, Beckwith, Karen
and Wolbrecht, Christina ed., Cambridge University Press.
Beckwith, Karen (2010) Comparative Politics and the Logics in Comparative Politics of
114 | P a g e

gender. American Political Science Association. Vol. 8, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 159-168.
Frogee Brief, 2021, “Women in Politics: Why Are They Under-represented?”, March 8.
https://freepolicybriefs.org/2021/03/08/women-in-politics/
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and Mc Cormick (2019), Political Participation in Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction (11th Edition), Red Globe Press. Pp. 223-225.
Krook Mona Lena (2011): Gendering Comparative Politics: Achievements and Challenges,
Politics and Gender 7 (1), pp. 99-105.
Krook, Mona Lena (2009) Quotas for Women In Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection
Reform Worldwide OUP, New York
i
Baldez, Lisa (2010) Symposium, The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics. March 10, Vol. 8/No.
199-205.
ii
Sue Tolleson Rinehard and Sue Carroll point out in Baldez, Lisa (2010) Symposium, The Gender
Lacuna in Comparative Politics. March 10, Vol. 8/No. 199-205.
iii
Georgina Waylen in ibid
iv
Baldez, Lisa (2010) Symposium, The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics. March 10, Vol. 8/No.
199-205.
v
ibid
vi
Vijaisri Priyadarshni (2004), Recasting the Devadasi: Patterns of Sacred Prostitution in Colonial
South India, Kanishka Publisher, New Delhi.
vii
Karen beckwith in Krook Mona Lena (2011): Gendering Comparative Politics: Achievements and
Challenges, Politics and Gender 7 (1), pp. 99-105.
viii
Teri Caraway 2010; Schwindt-Bayer 2010 in ibid
ix
ibid
x
As per the UN sponsored Beijing Platform for Action, 1995
xi
https://thenewsmen.co.in/photos/ten-women-prime-ministers-in-the-world-who-are-currently-
serving/31373-2156
xii
Madhavan, M.R (2017), “Parliament” in Kapur, Devesh, Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, and Vaishnav,
Milan, Rethinking Public Institutions in India, Oxford Scholarship Online: May.
xiii
Pai Sudha, 1998, “Pradhanis in New Panchayats: Firld Notes from Meerut District”, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 33, Issue No. 18, 02 May.
115 | P a g e


NWJLFK, Oa LRR F'K (KK Fohkkx: Fnyyh Fo'Ofo - Ky

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NWJLFK, Oa LRR F'K (KK Fohkkx: Fnyyh Fo'Ofo - Ky

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Distance and Continuing Education

B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Sl. No. Title Writer Pg. No.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Unit-V Approaches to Studying Comparative Dr. Garima 86

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 Learning Objectives

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3 NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Second, Macridis considers the traditional approach as ‘essentially parochial’. This

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.4 WHY COMPARE?

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Those who rule

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.5 METHODS OF COMPARISON

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

(b) Focus on Identities

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

that one thing is identified as the cause.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

expenditure on military and education.

1.6 GOING BEYOND EUROCENTRISM

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.8 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. What do you understand by Eurocentrism? Highlight its impact on study of

• Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

• Macridis, Roy C. (1955), “Major Characteristics of the Traditional Approach”, in The

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Unit-II: Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

Before we begin with the discussion on the institutional approach, it is important to

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.4 SYSTEMS APPROACH

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Demands Political System Laws

A simple diagrammatic description of the Political System

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.5 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Despite the above-mentioned criticisms, it is no doubt that the structural-functional

1.7 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Write an essay on various approaches in Comparative politics.

• Almond, G and Coleman, J. S. (1960), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: