Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:25:56.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Theory in Political Science: A Critique of Easton's Systems Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Peter Leslie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There have been a number of attempts in recent years to define the subject-matter of political science and to provide a theoretical framework within which the discipline may be expected to develop. Among these, the work of David Easton occupies a leading place.1 This article discusses how successful Easton has been in adumbrating a general theory embracing the discipline. It then offers a rather looser and less ambitious framework within which the theories collectively called ‘political science’ may be placed and their interrelationships perceived.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 155 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The main work examined here is Easton's, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965).Google Scholar Occasional references are also made to Easton's, earlier works: The Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953)Google Scholar and A Framework for Political Analysis (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1965).Google Scholar

2 The political system is conceived by Easton as a system of behaviour, or a set of interrelated activities, whereby values are authoritatively allocated for a society. In this definition, the term ‘values’ is a somewhat elliptical substitute for the composite term ‘valued things’, tangible or intangible, such as wealth, satisfaction of individual or collective aspirations, or observance of religious or cultural norms. The term ‘allocation’ covers both the distribution of scarce (tangible) values, and the choice between mutually incompatible (intangible) values. It is when such allocations are made authoritatively (as opposed to freely or voluntarily, as in the case of economic exchange) that the process of allocation acquires a political character; allocations are ‘authoritative’ whenever the persons in relation to whom they are made consider themselves to be bound to accept them. See Easton, , A Framework for Political Analysis, pp. 47–57.Google Scholar

3 At times Easton also describes political systems as being composed of ‘members’, but this is already an abstraction from the whole person since it considers individuals only in their political roles. In any case this seems to me to be inconsistent with his definition of the political system as a system of interactions, i.e. of behaviour, not persons or even roles. This point is elaborated in (and was suggested to me by) Anderson, G., Analysis of the Political System of David Easton (unpublished B.A. thesis, Queen's University, 1967).Google Scholar

4 Easton's statement that demands may produce stress in a ‘direct way’, as well as indirectly by causing erosion of support (Easton, , A Systems Analysis, p. 58Google Scholar), is contradicted on the very next page in the passage which I have quoted. Since his statement in this passage is logically defensible, and the previous one is not, I have emphasized the proposition that stress arises from—or rather is precisely equivalent to—an inadequate inflow of support.

5 The meaning of these terms receives extensive discussion in A Systems Analysis, Chapters 11–13. Very briefly, and inevitably with substantial loss of precision, the ‘authorities’ are those persons who (at whatever level) exercise authority in the system, i.e. who make or implement authoritative allocations. ‘The regime’ includes the institutions, rules, and norms relating to the process of allocating values authoritatively. And ‘the political community’ is an aggregate of persons (the ‘members of the system') in their political roles, jointly associated in some process of allocating values authoritatively. The term ‘political community’ is not intended to imply any particular degree of group cohesion.

6 To be precise, it must be recognized that ‘the incidence of violence or coercion’ is not exactly the inverse of ‘frequency of compliance’ although the two variables are obviously negatively correlated. The discrepancy arises where two conditions hold: (a) non-compliance is not accompanied by violence, and (b) non-compliance fails to provoke the authorities to resort to the use of threat of force. This situation amounts to a reduction in the range of values authoritatively allocated, or a reduction (as I shall describe it below) in the scope of the political system. Since non-compliance not accompanied by violence or coercion may be dealt with under the heading of scope, I prefer to use the violence-coercion variable rather than the compliance variable.

7 It will be recalled that the two ‘essential variables’ are postulated to be ‘the allocation of values for a society and [secondly] the relative frequency of compliance with them’. Hitherto we have been discussing only the ‘frequency of compliance’ variable.

8 Almond, Gabriel A., ‘A Developmental Approach to Political Systems’, World Politics, 17 (1965), 183–214, p. 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), p. 24.Google Scholar

10 Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structures, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Toronto: Collier-Macmillan, 1957), p. 9.Google Scholar

11 In The Political System (1953) Easton dealt at length with the need for such a central concept and a theory related to it. At that time he described political equilibrium as ‘the only discernible suggestion of a theoretical framework on the broad horizon of empirical research’ (The Political System, p. 267); but after considering the limitations of this mode of analysis, he concluded that ‘political science ought to search in other directions for a satisfactory framework’ (The Political System, p. 305). The concept and theory of systems persistence constitute Easton's response to the need which he described in The Political System.