Systems Approach


UNIT 4 SYSTEMS APPROACH
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Systems Approach
4.2.1 Geneses of the Systems Approach
4.2.3 Historical Context
4.3 General Systems Theory and Systems Theory
4.3.1 General Systems and Systems Approaches: Distinctions
4.3.2 Systems Analysis: Characteristic Features
4.3.3 Systems Approaches: Concerns and Objectives
4.4 Derivatives of the Systems Analysis
4.4.1 Political System Derivative: Input-Output Derivative
4.4.2 Structural-Functional Derivative
4.4.3 Cybernetics Derivative
4.5 Systems Theory: An Evaluation
4.5.1 Limitations of the Systems Approach
4.5.2 Strength of the Systems Approach
4.6 Let Us Sum Up
4.7 References
4.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

4.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with one of the modern approaches in the study of Comparative
Government and Politics, the Systems approach. After going through this unit,
you should be able to:
 explain the meanings and evolution of systems approach;
 Defined a system
 explain the objectives, characteristics and elements of systems approach;
 distinguish the political system from other social systems;
 Evaluate the systems theory in its proper perspective.


Dr.N D Arora, ( late) University of Delhi, Delhi

55
Understanding
Comparative
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Politics
In the study of Comparative Politics, political scientists adopt various approaches
and methods for explaining political phenomena. The approaches used in
comparative political enquiry can be broadly classified under two categories; the
traditional approach and the modern approach. Traditional approaches are mainly
concerned with the traditional view of politics which emphasised on the study of
formal political institutions, structures or agencies existing in different political
systems such as the judiciary, legislature, bureaucracy, political parties, pressure
groups or any other institution which is constantly engaged in politics.
Proponents of traditional approach comprise both ancient and modern political
thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, James Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold
Laski etc. There are various other traditional approaches to the study of politics
which includes philosophical (advocated by Plato, Aristotle etc.), historical
(Machiavelli, Sabine, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, etc.),legalistic (Cicero, Jean
Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, etc.) and institutional
approaches.
However, traditional approaches have their inherent weakness and limitations.
They are also normative and idealistic in the sense that their analysis stressed
more on values and norms of politics. Traditional approaches are also considered
to be narrow since their analysis and descriptions are primarily confined to the
study of western political institutions and systems.
But, despite their limitations, these approaches largely remain popular till the
mid-twentieth. It was in this backdrop, various modern approaches to the study of
politics were developed aiming to remove the inherent weakness of traditional
approaches. These modern approaches, which may include behavioural approach,
post-behavioural approach, systems approach, structural-functional approach,
communication approach, etc., seek to present scientific, realistic, and analytical
perspectives of politics. In this regard, the development of modern approaches is
said to have brought a revolutionary change in the study of comparative politics
which was, according to Almond and Powell, directed towards; (a) the search for
more comprehensive scope, (b) the search for realism, (c) the search for
precision, (d) the search for the theoretical order.
In the previous unit, you have studied the use of a very old and important
traditional approach of political enquiry called the „institutional approach‟ which
emphasised on the study of formal political institutions and agencies of the
government and the state. In this unit, an attempt shall be made to study, review
and examine a popular modern approach to the study of comparative politics
called the „systems approach‟, also called the systems analysis, which seeks to
take the study of politics beyond the formal institutions and structures, and look
into other aspects of politics such as functions, processes and behaviours. The
unit will deal with the evolution, historical context, characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses and various other aspects of systems approach.

56
 Systems Approach
4.2 SYSTEMS APPROACH
The Systems approach is the study of inter-related variables forming one system,
a unit, a whole which is composed of many facts, a set of elements standing in
interaction. This approach assumes that the system consists of discernible,
regular and internally consistent patterns, each interacting with another, and
giving, on the whole, the picture of a self-regulating order. It is, thus, the study of
a set of interactions occurring within and yet analytically distinct from, the larger
system. The systems theory presumes:
 the existence of a whole on its own merit;
 the whole consisting of parts;
 the whole existing apart from the other wholes;
 each whole influencing the other and in turn, being influenced itself;
 the parts of the whole are not only inter-related but also interact with one
another thereby creating a self-evolving work.
The emphasis of the systems theory is on the articulation of the system and of its
components and their behaviours by means of which it maintains itself over time.
4.2.1 Genesis of the Systems Approach

The genesis of systems approach can be traced to the German biologist Ludwig
Von Bertalanffy who introduced the general systems theory in the study of
Biology in the 1930s. A system, as defined by Bertalanffy is a set of „elements
formulating in interaction‟. This concept is based on the idea that elements within
a group are in some way or the other related to one another and in turn, interact
with one another on the basis of certain identifiable processes. It was from this
general systems theory that the social scientists took the idea and applied it as an
important tool for explaining social phenomena in the post-Second World War
period. Since the 1960s, systems theory or systems analysis became an important
element in the study of political science. David Easton was among the first
political scientists to formulate systems approach in political analysis. In his book
A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965), Easton defined a political system as
that „behaviour or set of interactions through which authoritative allocations are
made and implemented for society‟. Applying systems approach in political
science, he argued that „each part of the political canvas does not stand alone but
is related to other parts‟ and that „the operation of one part cannot be fully
understood without reference to how the whole system operates‟. Other
prominent scholars who advocated for a systems approach in political analysis
are Gabriel Almond (Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, 1978),
David Apter (Introduction to Political Analysis, 1978), Karl Deutsch (Nation and
World: Contemporary Political Science, 1967), Morton Kaplan (System and
Process in International Politics, 1957), Harold Lasswell (Power and Society,
1950) etc.
57
Understanding 4.2.3 Historical Context
Comparative
Politics The systems approach, like any other modern approach, has evolved in a
historical perspective. As the traditional approaches to the study of comparative
politics proved futile, the need to understand it in a scientific manner became
more important. The influence of other disciplines, both natural and social
sciences and their mutual inter dependence gave a new impetus for looking out
these disciplines, comparative politics including, afresh and brought to the fore
the idea that scientific analysis is the only way to understand politics. The study
of political systems became, as times passed on, more important than the study of
Constitutions and governments, the study of political processes came to be
regarded more instructive, than the study of political institutions. The post-
second World War period witnessed, in the USA particularly, a fundamental shift
in the writings of numerous American scholars when they began to borrow a lot
from other social and natural sciences so as to give new empirical orientation to
political studies which helped ultimately to examine numerous concepts, out in
the process enriched their findings. The Social Science Research Council (USA)
contributed a lot to provide an environment in which scientific analysis in
comparative politics could be carried on. Some other American foundations such
as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie
Foundation provided liberal funds for studies in comparative politics. Thus, it
was possible to introduce new approaches, new definitions, and new research
tools in comparative politics. All this led to what may be conveniently termed as
revolution in the discipline: a revolution of sorts in the definition of its mission,
problems and methods' (See Michael Rush and Philip Althoff, An Introduction to
Political Sociology).
The introduction of the systems analysis, like other modern approaches, in
comparative politics by writers like Easton, Almond, and Kaplan was, in fact, a
reaction against the traditional tendency of uni-dimensionalisation, impeding, in
the process, the patterns of scientific analysis which make possible the
unification of all knowledge. The systems approach is one of the modern
approaches that help to understand political activity and political behaviour more
clearly than before. It looks at the social phenomenon as a set of interactive
relationships. So considered, the systems analysis covers not only the science of
politics but also virtually all social sciences.

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1. The emphasis of the systems approach is on :
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
58
2. State briefly the inherent weakness of the traditional approaches. Systems Approach

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

4.3 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMS

THEORY
4.3.1 Distinctions between General Systems and Systems
Approaches

The systems analysis may have sprung from the general systems theory, but the
two are different in many respects. To identify the systems theory with the
general systems theory amounts to committing the philosophical error of the first
order. While the general systems theory gives the impression of a system as one
which is as integrated as the parts of the human body, the systems theory does
recognise the separate existence of parts. What it means is that the general
systems theory advocates organised unity of the system whereas the systems
theory speaks of unity in diversity. That is one reason that the general systems
theory has been rarely applied to the analysis of potential and social phenomena
while the systems theory has been applied successfully in political analysis.
David Easton, for example, has applied the systems theory to politics. Professor
Kaplan has brought out the distinction between the general systems theory and
the systems theory. He says, “... systems theory is not a general theory of all
systems. Although general systems theory does attempt to distinguish different
types of systems and to establish a framework within which similarities between
systems call be recognised despite differences of subject matter, different kinds
of systems require different theories for explanatory purposes. Systems theory
not only represents a step away from the general theory approach but also
explains why such efforts are likely to fail. Thus the correct application of
systems theory to politics would involve a move away from general theory
toward comparative theory”. Furthermore, it has not been possible to make use of
the concepts of general systems theory in social sciences such as political science
while the systems theory has been able to provide concepts (such as input-output,
stability, equilibrium, feedback) which have been well recognized by the
empirical political scientists.

4.3.2 Systems Analysis: Characteristic Features

Systems analysis implies system as a set of interactions. According to O.R.

Young, it is “a set of objects, together with relationships between the objects and
between their attributes”. To say that a system exists is to say that it exits through
59
Understanding its elements, say objects; and its elements (objects) are interacted and they
Comparative interact within a patterned frame. A system‟s analyst perceives inter-related and a
Politics
web-like objects and looks for ever-existing relationships among them. O.R.
Young has advocated for an interactive relationship among the objectives. His
main concerns are i) to emphasise the patterned behaviour among the objects of
the system, ii) to explain the interactive behaviour among them, iii) to search for
factors that help maintain the system.
Systems analysis elaborates, for understanding the system itself, a set of
concepts. These include system, sub-system, environment, input, output,
conversion process feedback, etc. System implies persisting relationships,
demonstrating behavioural patterns, among its numerous parts, say objects or
entities. A system that constitutes an element of a larger system is called a sub-
system. The setting within which a system occurs or works is called
environment. The line that separates the system from its environment is known
as boundary. The system obtains inputs from the environment in the form of
demands upon the system and supports for its functioning. As the system
operates, inputs are subjected to what may be called conversion process and it
leads to system outputs embodying rules to be forced or policies to be
implemented. When system outputs affect the environment so to change or
modify inputs, feedback occurs.
The systems approach, therefore, has characteristics of its own that may be
summed up as;
 a social phenomenon does not exist in isolation, but numerous parts
joined together to make a whole. It is a unit, a living unit with existence
and goal of its own.
 Its parts may not be and, are not organically related together, but they do
make a whole in the sense that they interact and are inter-related. Specific
behavioural relationships pattern them into a living system.
 It operates through a mechanism of inputs and outputs and under/ within
an environment which influences it and which, in turn, provides feedback
to the environment.
 Its main concern is as to how best it maintains itself and faces the
challenges of decay and decline.
 It implies patterned relationships among its numerous parts, explaining
their relative behaviour and role they are expected to perform.

4.3.3 Systems Approaches: Concerns and Objectives

Systems analysis is concerned with certain objectives. One of its major concerns
is the „maintenance of the system‟s integrity‟ which is, according to Welsh,
depends on the system‟s ability to maintain order. The system evolves a
„regularized procedures‟ by which resources in the society are distributed so that
60
members in the system are sufficiently satisfied to protect the system from chaos Systems Approach
and collapse.
The second concern of the systems approach is that to how the system meets the
challenge of change in its environment. Welsh argued that since changes in the
environment are natural, it is natural for the environment to affect the system and
that the system has to adapt itself to the realities the environmental changes. The
systems approach identifies the conflict between systems necessity of responding
to the changes and the already engineered changes as provided by the
environment, and also the capacities to remove the conflict.
The third objective of the systems approach is the importance it gives to the
„goal-realisation‟ as the central aspect of the system. No system can exist over a
substantial period without articulating, determining and pursuing some specific
identifiable goals. According to Welsh, the pursuance of these goals is an
important focus in the systems approach.

Check Your Progress 2

Note: i) Use the space given below .for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this unit.
1) Identify the main differences between the General Systems Theory and the
Systems Theory.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2) State two characteristic features of the Systems Approach.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

4.4 DERIVATIVES OF THE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

4.4.1 Political System Derivative: Input-Output Derivative

Political system or the input-output approach is one derivative of the systems

analysis introduced by David Easton. He provided „an original set of concepts for
arranging at the level of theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new and
helpful way‟ (Davies and Lewis: Models of Political Systems). Easton selects the
61
Understanding political system as the basic unit of analysis and concentrates on the intra-system
Comparative behaviour of various systems. He defines political system as „those interactions
Politics
through which values are authoritatively allocated and implemented for a
society‟. It would be useful to highlight some of the characteristic features of
Easton‟s concept of the political system which can be briefly put as:
 Political system implies a set of interaction through which values are
authoritatively allocated. This means the decisions of those, who are in
power, are binding.
 Political system is a system of regularised persistent patterns of
relationships among the people and institutions within it.
 Political system like any natural system is a self-regulating system which
can alter, correct, or adjust its processes and structures by itself.
 Political system is dynamic in the sense that it can maintain itself through
the feedback mechanism. The feedback mechanism helps the system to
persist through everything else associated it may change, even radically
 Political system is different from other systems of environments physical,
biological, social, economic, ecological, etc.
 Inputs through demands and supports put the political system at work
while outputs through policies and decisions throw back what is not
accepted as feedback.
O.R. Young sums up the essentials of Easton's political system, saying: “Above
all, the political system is seen as a conversion process performing work,
producing output and altering its environment, with a continuous exchange
between a political system and its environment based on the steady operation of
the dynamic processes. At the same time, the systems approach provides
numerous concepts for dealing both with political dynamics in the form of
systematic adaptation processes and even with purposive redirection in the form
of goal-changing feedback”.
However, Easton‟s political system approach has not been free from criticisms.
For instance, Professor S.P. Verma regards it as an abstraction whose relation to
empirical politics (which is classic) is impossible to establish. Eugene Meehan
also said that Easton does less to explain the theory and more to create the
conceptual framework. His analysis, it may be pointed out, is confined to the
question of locating and distributing power in the political system. He seems to
be concerned more with questions such as persistence and adaptation of the
political system as also with the regulation of stress, stability and equilibrium and
thus advocates only the status quo situation. Therefore, there is much less in
Easton's formulation, about the politics of decline, disruption and breakdown in
the political system. Despite all claims that the political system approach is
designed for macro-level studies, Easton‟s analysis has largely focused on
western countries. Easton‟s political system of the input-output model also deals

62
only with the present and has, therefore, no perspective of the future and has less Systems Approach
study of the past.
However, the merits of the input-output or political system approach cannot be
ignored. It has provided an excellent technique for comparative analysis by
introducing a set of concepts and categories that have made the comparative
analysis more instructive. Easton‟s analysis is among the most inclusive
systematic approach of political analysis. It also laid the foundation for systems
analysis in political science which provided a general functional theory of
politics.

4.4.2 Structural-Functional Derivative

The structural-functional analysis adopted by Gabriel Almond is another

derivative of the systems approach widely adopted in political science, especially
in comparative politics. It is primarily concerned with the phenomenon of system
maintenance and regulation. The basic theoretical proposition of this approach is
that all systems exist to perform functions through their structures. The basic
assumptions of the structural-functional derivative of the systems approach are:
 society is a single inter-connected system in which each of its elements
performs a specific function and whose basic goal is the maintenance of
the equilibrium;
 Society consists of its numerous parts which are inter-related;
 The dominant tendency of the social system is towards stability which is
maintained by its in-built mechanism;
 System‟s ability to resolve internal conflicts is usually an admitted fact;
 Changes in the system are natural, but they are neither sudden nor
revolutionary but are always gradual and adaptive as well as adjustive;
 System has its own structure, aims, principles and functions.
The structural-functional derivative speaks of the political system as composed of
several structures as patterns of action and resultant institutions with their
assigned functions. A function, in this context, means „purposes served with
respect to the maintenance or perpetuation of the system‟, and a structure means
„any set of related roles, including such concrete organisational structures as
political parties and legislatures. The structural-functional analysis, therefore,
involves the identification of a set of requisite or at least recurring functions in
the kind of system under investigation. It attempts to determine the kinds of
structures and their interrelations through which those functions are performed.
Gabriel Almond‟s The Politics of the Developing Areas, 1960, summed up
structural-functional analysis as the legitimate patterns of human interactions by
which order is maintained; all political structures perform their respective
functions, with different degrees in different political systems. The Input
functions include:
63
Understanding a) political socialisation and recruitment;
Comparative b) interest articulation;
Politics
c) interest aggregation;
d) political communication;
Whereas, the output functions consist of:
a) rule-making;
b) rule-application;
c) Rule-adjudication.
Gabriel Almond, while considering politics as the integrative and adaptive
functions of a society based on more or less legitimate physical coercion, regards
political system as “the system of interactions to be found in all independent
societies which perform the functions of integration and adaptation by means of
the employment or threat of employment of more or less legitimate order-
maintaining or transforming system in the society”. He argued that there is
interdependence between political and other societal systems; that political
structures perform the same functions in all systems; that all political structures
are multi-functional; and that all systems adapt to their environment when
political structures behave dysfunctionally.
Thus there is a basic difference between Easton‟s input-output model and
Almond's structural-functional approach. While Easton emphasised on
interaction and interrelationship aspects of the parts of the political system,
Almond is more concerned with the political structures and the functions
performed by them. And this is perhaps the first weakness of the structural-
functional analysis which talks about the functions of the structures and ignores
the interactions which are characteristics of the numerous structures as parts of
the political system.
Almond‟s model suffers from being an analysis at the micro-level, for it explains
the western political system, or to be more specific, the American political
system. There is undue importance on the input aspect, and much less on the
output aspect in his explanation of the political system, giving, in the process, the
feedback mechanism only a passing reference. Like Easton, Almond too has
emerged as status-quoist, for he too emphasised on the maintenance of the
system. While commenting on Almond‟s insistence on separating the two terms –
„structures‟ and „functions‟, Sartori said, „the structural-functional analysis is a
lame scholar that claims to walk on two feet, but actually on one foot and a bad
foot at that‟. He cannot visualise the interplay between „structure‟ and „function‟
because the two terms are seldom, if ever, neatly disjointed, the structure remains
throughout a kin brother of its inputted functional purposes”.
And yet, the merit of the structural-functional model cannot be grossly ignored. It
has successfully introduced new conceptual tools in political science, especially
in comparative politics. It has also offered new insights into political realities.
And that is one reason that this model has been widely adopted, and is being used
as a descriptive and ordering framework.
64
4.4.3 Cybernetics Derivative Systems Approach

Another important derivative of the systems analysis is the „communication

approach‟ which Karl Deutsch called as „Cybernetics‟. Cybernetics, as defined
by Deutsch is the science of communication and control. It focuses on the
systematic study of communication and control in organisations of all kinds. The
idea of Cybernetics suggests that „all organisations are alike in certain
fundamental ways and that every organisation is held together by
communication. Deutsch‟s Cybernetics approach viewed „governments‟ as
organisations where information-processes are communicated through channels.
Information, according to Cybernetics, is a patterned relationship between events;
communication means the transfer of such patterned relations; and channels are
the paths through which information is transferred. Deutsch rightly says that his
book The Nerves of Government (1966) deals less with the bones or muscles of
the body politic and more with its nerves...its channels of communication. The
political system, according to Deutsch, is nothing but a system of decision-
making and enforcement, as a network of communication channels.
Drawing largely from the science of neurophysiology, psychology and electrical
engineering, Deutsch perceived the similarities in processes and functional
requirements between living things, electronic machines and social organisations.
According to him, organizations in the society have the capacity to transmit and
react to information (Davies and Lewis, Models of Political Systems, 1971).
The characteristic features of the cybernetics model of the systems analysis can
be, briefly, stated as under:
 Feedback constitutes a key concept in the cybernetics model. It is also
called a servo-mechanism. By feedback, Deutsch means a
communications network that produces action in response to an input
information;
 All organisations, including a political system, are characterised by
feedback mechanisms. It is feedback that introduces dynamism into what
may be otherwise a static analysis.
Thus Deutsch‟s model of Cybernetics deals with communication, control and
channels against Easton's input-output model of interactions and Almond‟s
structural-functional analysis of structures and their functions. All these seek to
explain the functioning of the system – its ability to adapt itself amidst changes
and its capacity to maintain itself over time.
However, Deutsch‟s Cybernetics model has numerous drawbacks: it is essentially
an engineering approach which explains the performance of human beings and
living institutions as if they are machines. The cybernetics is also „quantity-
oriented‟ rather than „quality-oriented‟ which makes the understanding of
political phenomena complex. But, as a derivative of the systems approach,
cybernetics contributed its bit in explaining political phenomena concerning

65
Understanding human behaviour. In this sense, cybernetics model has indeed expanded our
Comparative effort in understanding the political system.
Politics

Check Your Progress 3

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this unit.
1) Give the three characteristic features of Easton‟s input-output model.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2) What are the limitations of Deutsch‟s cybernetics theory?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

4.5 SYSTEMS THEORY: AN EVALUATION

The introduction of systems approaches in political studies provides a broader
and better understanding of not only the political activities, behaviours, process
of a given political system but also politics at large. This is so because the
systems approach takes into account the political phenomena as one unit, a
system in itself, not merely the sum-total of its various parts, but all parts
standing in interaction- with one another.
The systems theorists have drawn much from biology and other natural sciences
and have equated the organic system with social system. Indeed, there are
similarities between the two systems, but analogies are only and always
analogies. Any attempt to extend the argument amounts to falsification. To relate
a hand to human body is not when we relate an individual to the society or a
legislature to the executive organ of the government. The systems theorists have
only built an extended form of organic theory which the individualists had once
argued.
All the systems theorists have committed themselves to building and maintaining
the system. Their concern has been only to explain the system as it exists. What
they have, additionally, done is to state the causes which endanger its existence
and factors which can strengthen it. They are, at best, the status-quoits who have
66 little knowledge about past and perhaps no concern for the future. All the
concepts that systems theorists have developed do not go beyond the explanation Systems Approach
and understanding of the present. The entire approach is rooted in conservation
and reaction. (Verma, 1966).
The systems theorists, in Political Science or in the field of Comparative
Government and Politics, have substituted political system in place of the state by
arguing that the term political system explains much more than the term state.
Indeed, the point is wide and clear. But when these theorists come to highlight
the characteristics of political system, they do not say more than the political
power or force with which the conventional word „state‟ has been usually
associated.
What the systems analysts have done is that they have condemned the
traditionalists for having made the political analysis descriptive, static and non-
comparative. What they have, instead, done is that they have introduced the
numerous concepts from both natural and other social sciences in Political
Science or Comparative Politics so as to make the discipline more inter-
disciplinary. The claim that the systems theorists have evolved a scientific and
empirical discipline is too tall.

4.5.2 Strength of the Systems Approach

If the idea behind the systems approach is to explain the concept of system as a
key to understand the social web, the efforts of the systems theorists have not
gone waste. It is important to note that the influence of the systems analysis has
been so pervasive that most comparative politics research makers use of the
systems concepts. It is also important to state that the systems approach has well
addressed and well-directed itself to numerous meaningful questions – questions
such as the relationships of systems to their environment, the persistence of the
system itself and overtime, stability of the system, function assigned to the
structures as parts of the system, dynamics and machines of the system.
Professor S.N. Ray has summed up the merits of the systems theory very aptly,
saying that, „it (the system theory) gives us an excellent opportunity for fusing
micro-analytical studies with macro-analytical ones. The concepts developed by
this theory open up new questions and create new dimensions for investigation
into the political processes. It often facilitates the communication of insights and
ways of looking at things from other disciplines. It may be regarded as one of the
most ambitious attempts to construct a theoretical framework from within
political sciences.

4.6 LET US SUM UP

Systems approach is one of the modern approaches adopted in the study of
Political Science, especially in Comparative Governments and Politics. It viewed
the political system as a set of interactions, interrelations, patterned behaviour
among the individuals and institutions, a set of structures performing their

67
Understanding respective functions and one that seeks to achieve certain goal and attempts to
Comparative maintain itself amidst vicissitudes.
Politics
The systems approach though claims to provide a dynamic analysis of the
system, remains confined to its maintenance. It claims to have undertaken an
empirical research, but has failed to provide enough conceptual tools for
investigation. It has not been able to project system, particularly political system
more than the state. The approach is, more or less, conservative in so far as it is
status-quoist.
Yet the systems approach is unique in many respects. It has provided a wider
scope in understanding and analysing social behaviour and social interactions. It
has drawn a lot from natural sciences and has very successfully used their
concepts in social sciences. It has been able to provide a degree of
methodological sophistication to the discipline of political science.

4.7 REFERENCES
Almond, G .A. and Powell, G. B. (1978), Comparative Politics: A Development
Approach. Boston, Little Brown.
Apter, David E. (1977). Introduction to Political Analysis. Mass, Cambridge
Charlesworth, J. (ed.). (1967), Contemporary Political Analysis. Free Press, New
York.
Dahl, A Robert. (1979). Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs
Davies M.R. and Lewis, V.A. (1971), Models of Political Systems, Macmillan,
London.
Deutsch, Karl. (1963). The Nerves of Government. New York, The Free Press of
Glencoe.
Easton, David. (1965). A System Analysis of Political Life. Chicago, John Wiley.
Macridis, R.C. and Ward, R.E. (1964), Modern Political Systems. New Jersey,
Prentice Hall.
Ray, S. N. (1999). Modern Comparative Politics. New Delhi, Prentice Hall of
India Private Limited.
Verma, S.P. (1975), Modern Political Theory. New Delhi, Vikas Publishers.
Young, R Oran. (1966). Systems of Political Science. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice
Hall.

68
 Systems Approach
4. 8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1. The systems approach primary emphasized on (a) on the articulation of the
system (b) on the articulation of the components of the system (c) on the
behaviour by means of which the system is able to maintain itself.
2. The traditional approaches are largely historical and descriptive. They are also
normative and idealistic. They lack explanatory power.

Check Your Progress 2

1. The General Systems Theory has been rarely applied to the social sciences
while the systems theory has been successfully applied (b) The General Systems
Theory, developed as it is from natural sciences (biology particularly) treats the
systems as more or less organically integrated from within while the systems
theory lays emphasis on the interactions aspect of the elements of the system.
2. The characteristics of systems approach are; (a) it viewed social phenomena as
a unit (b) it regarded the system as a set of interactions of various elements.

Check Your Progress 3

1. Easton's input-output provided an excellent technique for comparative politics.
Its significance is that it has provided a set of concepts and categories which has
helped in comprehending the system more clearly.
2. Its engineering approach equating individuals and society with machines.
Moreover, its concern with quantity rather than quality of communication poses a
challenge to understanding political phenomena.

69