Q1. Critically examine the behavioural approach to the study of comparative politics. How far has the post-behavioural revolution addressed its limitations? (15 Marks)
How to Approach This Question
This question has two clear parts:
- Critically examine behaviouralism
- Discuss both its strengths and weaknesses.
- For every strength of behaviouralism, show its limitation as well.
- Evaluate post-behaviouralism
- Explain how post-behaviouralism responded to the limitations of behaviouralism.
- Do not merely describe post-behaviouralism. Assess whether it fully solved the problems or only partially addressed them.
End the answer with a balanced judgement.
Answer
The behavioural revolution of the 1950s-60s was a direct reaction against
traditional comparative politics, which focused narrowly on constitutions, legal
structures and Western governments while ignoring how political systems actually
worked in practice. Scholars like David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl and
Sidney Verba argued that politics could be studied scientifically through surveys,
data, hypothesis testing and cross-national comparison.
Contributions
Behaviouralism genuinely expanded the discipline. Almond and Verba's Civic
Culture showed how citizens' attitudes shape democratic stability. Dahl's Polyarchy
explained how democracy functions beyond ideal theory. Easton's Systems
Analysis gave a universal framework applicable across developed and developing
societies alike. For the first time, political scientists moved beyond Europe and
North America to study newly independent states in Asia, Africa and Latin
America.
Limitations
However, behaviouralism's obsession with measurement became its biggest
weakness. Questions of justice, freedom, inequality and ideology were ignored
simply because they could not be quantified. History, identity and structural
conditions which shape politics far more than individual behaviour were sidelined.
The discipline became, as critics noted, methodologically rich but politically blind,
generating data without addressing the real problems societies faced.
Post-Behavioural Response
Easton himself admitted this failure in 1969 and called for relevance alongside
rigour. Post-behaviouralism restored normative theory and historical context. New
Institutionalism brought institutions, informal norms and path dependency back
into analysis. Post-colonial scholars challenged the deep Eurocentric bias that
behaviouralism had never questioned.
Post-behaviouralism corrected the worst excesses but did not fully solve the
original problems. The tension between scientific rigour and social relevance
persists, and mainstream comparative politics remains largely Western in its
assumptions. A truly global comparative politics, one that takes non-Western
political experiences seriously on their own terms remains an unfinished project.
