Systems Approach

• Systems analysis

• Systems analysis, which was influenced by the Austrian Canadian biologist Ludwig von
Bertalanffy and the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–79), is a broad
descriptive theory of how the various parts and levels of a political system interact with
each other. The central idea of systems analysis is based on an analogy with biology. This
approach has been used in different forms by David Easton, Deutsch, Kaplan and others.

• Systems theory analyses interactions, structures, institutions, and processes pertaining to

politics. Politics involves power, authority, physical coercion, and allocation of values for
society.

• Systems analysis studies first appeared alongside behavioral and political culture studies
in the 1950s. David Easton’s The Political System (1953) conceived the political system
as integrating all activities through which social policy is formulated and executed—that
is, the political system is the policy-making process. Easton defined political behaviour as
the “authoritative allocation of values,” or the distribution of rewards in wealth, power,
and status that the system may provide. Easton’s conception of system emphasizes
linkages between the system and its environment. Inputs (demands) flow into the system
and are converted into outputs (decisions and actions) that constitute the authoritative
allocation of values.
• In simple terms, Easton's behavioral approach to politics, proposed that a political system
could be seen as a fluid (changing) system of steps in decision making. In all shades of
politics, political processes, and structures are enmeshed with several other elements,
factors, and considerations. As such, a ‘political system’ cannot be physically separated
from its non-political aspects, and is, therefore, usually understood and studied in an
analytical manner. Society as a whole makes up the general social system, which contains
many subsystems.

• The environment generates different demands from different section of society demand
for better and effective education system etc.

• 1. changes in the social or physical environment surrounding a political system produce

"demands" and "supports" for action or the status quo directed as "inputs" towards the
political system, through political behavior.

• 2. these demands and supporting groups stimulate competition in a political system,

leading to decisions or "outputs" directed at some aspect of the surrounding social or
physical environment.

• 3. after a decision or output is made (e.g., a specific policy), it interacts with its
environment, and if it produces change in the environment, there are "outcomes."

• 4. when a new policy interacts with its environment, outcomes may generate new
demands or supports and groups in support or against the policy ("feedback") or a new
policy on some related matter.

• 5. feedback, leads back to Step 1, forming a never-ending cycle.

• If the system functions as described, then we have a "stable political system". If the
system breaks down, then we have a "dysfunctional political system".

• Systems analysis was also applied to international relations to explain how the forces of
the international system affect the behaviour of states. The American political scientist
Morton Kaplan delineated types of international systems and their logical consequences
in System and Process in International Politics (1957). According to Kaplan, for
example, the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union brought
about a bipolar international system that governed much of the two countries’ foreign and
security policies. Locked in a zero-sum game (when one country wins, the other loses),
the two superpowers watched each other vigilantly, eager for gains but also wary of the
threat of nuclear war.

• Easton has developed his systems theory as a conceptual framework for empirical
political analysis. His approach, as such can be considered as a brainchild of behavioural
revolution. It can be regarded as a blueprint for developing an empirical political theory.
His input-output analysis presents a flow model of political system. Easton’s ‘systems
theory’ is not a ‘theory’, and lacks explanatory power. He intended to develop such a
theory and made a start, but remained at where he was. Even in 1965, he could not
produce a general theory of politics. His theory is unable to deal with fundamental, basic
or revolutionary changes, such as, revolutions, growth, decline, disruptions, breakdowns,
etc. His approach is more interested in systems maintenance, and has little material to go
beyond its persistence. His approach has no room for problems concerning power, the
elite, leadership, mass politics, representation, etc.