Systems theory
Systems Theory and Morton Kaplan’s Models
Systems theory views global politics as a system of interacting elements — states and non-state actors within boundaries yet open to the environment. Drawn from biology, sociology and engineering, it entered political science as a product of the Behavioural Revolution. Types: natural, mechanical and social (the international system is the most complex). Stanley Hoffmann (System and Process in International Politics): a dynamic network in which a shift in one part reverberates across the whole.
| Kaplan’s classical model | Core feature |
|---|---|
| Balance of power | Five or six essential actors governed by six rules; oppose any actor that threatens the balance |
| Loose bipolar | Two superpowers with non-aligned states and a role for supranational bodies (the Cold War) |
| Tight bipolar | Hierarchic blocs with little non-alignment (the later Cold War) |
| Universal international | A universal actor integrating judicial, economic, political and administrative functions |
| Hierarchical international | A universal actor absorbs almost all others — a hegemonic order |
| Unit veto | Every actor can destroy every other — mutual destruction, and therefore unstable |
Kaplan added four “new” models: a very loose bipolar system, detente, unstable blocs, and incomplete nuclear diffusion. Criticism: over-emphasis on structure at the expense of agency; hypothetical models that do not fit a multipolar world of non-state actors. Stanley Hoffmann found it too remote; Hedley Bull called it an intellectual exercise; Robert Lieber found it hard to test.
Systems Approach — Easton’s input-output model
Developed by David Easton; drawn from biology and sociology (Talcott Parsons).
What a “system” is
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (General Systems Theory): “a set of elements standing in interaction.” O. R. Young: “a set of objects, together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.”
The political system is “that behavior or set of interactions through which authoritative allocations are made and implemented for society.” — David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965)
The political system as a converter of demands into decisions. INPUTS (Demands + Supports) → POLITICAL SYSTEM (Conversion — authoritative allocation of values) → OUTPUTS (Decisions + Policies). FEEDBACK: outputs reshape future demands & supports.
Criticisms of Easton
- S. P. Verma: abstraction cut off from empirical politics. Eugene Meehan: conceptual framework over explanatory theory.
- Status quo bias (persistence over breakdown); Western-centric; present-centric (thin on history).
Merits
Strengthens comparative analysis; groundwork for a general functional theory. Davies and Lewis: “an original set of concepts for arranging at the level of theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new and helpful way.”
Three Derivatives of Systems Theory
A · Structural-functionalism (Gabriel Almond)
Almond’s political system
“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 systems in the society.”
| Input functions | Output functions |
|---|---|
| Political socialisation & recruitment | Rule-making (legislature) |
| Interest articulation | Rule-application (executive) |
| Interest aggregation | Rule-adjudication (judiciary) |
| Political communication | — |
Critique: neglects interactions among structures; Western / American bias; input-heavy; status-quo. Giovanni Sartori: structural-functionalism is “a lame scholar that claims to walk on two feet, but actually on one foot and a bad foot at that.”
B · Cybernetics (Karl Deutsch)
Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (1966): politics as communication and control (the term coined by Norbert Wiener). Core ideas — information, communication, channels, feedback (with load, lag, gain, lead). Deutsch studies the “nerves,” not the “bones or muscles,” of the body politic. Critique: over-mechanical; quantity over quality.
C · Morton Kaplan’s six models of the international system
- Balance of power — five or six essential actors; six rules of behaviour.
- Loose bipolar and tight bipolar — two superpowers; non-aligned states shrink in the tight form.
- Universal — a universal actor (e.g. the UN) integrates functions.
- Hierarchical — the universal actor absorbs the rest; directive or non-directive.
- Unit veto — every actor can destroy others; inherently unstable.
Later four: very loose bipolar, detente, unstable bloc, incomplete nuclear diffusion. Critique: assumes a linear loose → tight → universal → hierarchical drift; regional systems (OAU, Arab League) and non-alignment cut against it.
Systems Theory — the balance-sheet
| Criticisms | Strengths |
|---|---|
| Over-reliance on organic analogies | Comprehensive framework; phenomena read as interconnected units |
| Status quo bias; ignores decline and breakdown | Pervasive influence in comparative research |
| “State” merely relabelled “political system” | Addresses system–environment relations, persistence, structure–function |
| Present-centric; thin on historical evolution | Fuses micro and macro analysis; interdisciplinary reach |
S. N. Ray: systems theory “gives us an excellent opportunity for fusing micro-analytical studies with macro-analytical ones.”