Midterm: Oral Exam Questions

1. The behavior of the mass public determine the trajectory of the democratization process
among democratizing nations while it shapes the form of democracy among advanced
democracies. In particular, how do the citizens ensure the vibrancy of the conditions for the
making of democracy? Why is it that Aristotle preferred the middle class as the social class
capable to maintain the conditions of democracy? How do scholars look at the relationship
between state and society over the question of State legitimacy? If the problem can be solved by
not placing the two as opposing institutions, how can balance between the two be achieved, in
the context of cleavage and consensus?

The social conditions necessary for democracy are conflict or cleavages, which allow for the
struggle over ruling positions and challenges to parties in power, and consensus—the peaceful
play of power. Citizens ensure the vibrancy of such conditions by maintaining a strong civil
society as legitimate opposition contributes to the integration of societies and organizations.
Trade-unions, for example, give their members the means to gain representation in the larger
polity, providing a basis for loyalty to the system. 
Aristotle preferred the middle class as the most capable of maintaining democracy because these
members have sufficient property and face moderate conflict. If some people possess much,
while others possess little to nothing, then despotic forms of government will emerge. This is
less likely to occur within the middle class for its members are generally satisfied with their
standing and work to maintain their property, ensuring that democracy is not perverted by neither
the greed of the upper class nor the anger of the lower class. 
The cleavage between the absolutist rulers of the seventeenth century and the bourgeoisie made
the distinction between society and state clear, giving rise to a number of scholars deliberating
the legitimacy of the state. Jean Bodin, for instance, introduced the concept of state sovereignty,
while Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jaques Rousseau attempted to find a secular
consensus to bridge the gap between the two. Nineteenth century philosophers began taking sides
as Henri de Saint-Simon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Karl Marx advocated for society as the
fabric which had to be strengthened and the state had to be limited by society; in contrast, Hegel
and Lorenz von Stein argued for the subordination of society’s disparate elements to the
sovereignty of the state. The solution, however, was that the question should treat the state as one
of the many political institutions of society rather than dealing with them as two separate
organisms.
The dilemma now is finding a balance between the two in the context of cleavage and consensus.
Marx characterized society as either in constant conflict or in consensus, envisioning a society
void of all differences, so that the state is no longer needed. Classlessness rids conflict, but it is
only achieved in communism; therefore, there is no place for democracy in his mutually
exclusive theory. Tocqueville, on the other hand, saw democracy as the balance between conflict
and consensus. Fearing that conflict would disappear under the powerful state and that consensus
would be undermined in the mass society, he advocated for local self-government and voluntary
associations to combat the leviathan and create a stable democracy.

2. Political behavior provides frameworks in analyzing the behavior of man vis-a-vis politics and
power. There are these schools of thought introduces which can provide relevant frameworks and
researches on political behavior. Broadly discuss each school in terms of its area focus, its
relationship to the discipline of Political Science and historical development. Further, provide
examples of at most two scholars for each school of thought and provide discussion for their
studies.

The first school of thought is political economy, which is an oppositional stance against the
mainstream neoclassical economics. The first critique against neoclassical economics is that its
assumption of stable preferences cannot be sustained empirically for the economic man makes
choices based on both present and future options. The second and third critiques are that markets
are not perfect and public goods, especially information, generate critical distortions. The fourth
critique is that institutions, rather than individuals, are the dominant forces in the political
economy, aggregating political power through linkages with other bodies. The fifth and sixth
critiques are that there is substantial market power and that stable equilibrium is never achieved
in an economy that is dynamic and variable over time. The last critique is that the state is not an
objective, unbiased actor that only intervenes to correct the market or provide public goods. This
is evident in Etzioni’s work in 1988, which focused on firms’ efforts to gain market power by
shaping government policy. This school of thought provides an alternate explanation of political
behavior in regards to relationships of power and variability in the economy, during a time
period in which policies were mostly aligned with neoclassical assumptions.
The second school of thought is political psychology, the interdisciplinary study of political
thought and behavior within political communities through qualitative methods. Its historical
roots can be traced back to Ancient Greece, but it emerged as a discipline after WWII and
expanded during the societal turn. At the individual level, political scientists research
personality, political beliefs, political decision making, and political communication. From the
relationship between the personality profiles of citizens and those of political leaders, Adorno
developed the authoritarian personality syndrome after WWII to explain mass submission to
political authorities. Political decision making is one of the most important research domains in
political psychology and uses rational choice theory. In regards to political communication, this
school of thought emphasizes how media is used to influence political outcomes through agenda
setting and framing effects. Furthermore, the study of group level processes explores
international conflict, racism in politics, group identities, of which nationalism is the most
studied, and collective action. 
The third school of thought is political sociology, the study of power inherent in social
phenomena, with greater breadth and thematic fragmentation than political science. It developed
from Foucault’s cultural turn that expanded the scope of the concept of power to include both
formal and informal political institutions. Skocpol’s research brought a neo-institutionalist
orientation to the discipline; she found the state to be an empirical reality and analytical variable
independent of social forces, with institutions having autonomy as the empirical lotus that shapes
political and social life. Since the relationship between state and society is the axis of political
sociology, political scientists study the nation-state, citizenship—the evolving sequence of civil
rights—political culture, social movements, and civil society.
3. Institutions and processes of government are structured in response to the citizen’s attitude and
behavior. Discuss the four areas of political behavior. Discuss how each area studies political
behavior and the approaches commonly used to understand political behavior. Provide existing
studies on each area and elaborate the findings of these studies vis-a-vis the political behavior of
the mass public. 
The four areas of political behavior are political culture, political cognition, electoral choice, and
participation. Institutions and patterns of action are closely linked to the political culture of a
nation. Putnam’s research on the local governments in Italy in 1993 demonstrated that the
cultural traditions of a region are potent predictors, even more so than economic differences, of
the performance of their governments. Changes in political culture have emerged in
industrialized democracies as they have shifted from the traditional values of economic well-
being, religion, law, and order to the post-material values of self-expression, personal freedom,
and social equality. Meanwhile, non-democratic countries like Russia have shown high levels of
support for basic democratic principles. Comparing advanced and emerging democracies has
added relevance to the congruence between culture and political structures, which is reflected in
citizens’ response to government policies.

Political cognition refers to the public’s level of knowledge, understanding, and interest in
political affairs; a high level is required for voting and for influencing representatives. The
political environment, the increase in political resources and education that have created a more
mobilized citizenry, and institutional structures are all factors that contribute to political
cognition. The schema theory is an approach that examines how citizens process political
information and make decisions even without preexisting beliefs. Another approach is decision-
making heuristics, which contends that individuals use political cues or turn to political parties,
political leaders, and their peers to guide their behavior. This theory builds upon Down’s
conclusion in 1957 that it is not rational for the citizen to be knowledgeable about everything,
and thus, should use shortcuts. In contrast, the classical theory of democracy assumes that the
electorate is fully informed.

Electoral choice focuses on how voters reach their decision, with the Columbia School providing
a sociological approach and the Michigan School providing a socio-psychological approach. Due
to the decline of long-term predispositions based on partisanship, this area of political behavior
has shifted to short-term factors: candidate-centered politics and issue voting. New democracies
in Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia have been developing basic structures—a process that can
reveal how social groups and political parties form.

Political participation can be studied from a rationalist approach, which views decision-making
as based on cost-benefit terms, or from a socio-psychological approach, which stresses the
influence of personal resources, attitudes, and institutional structures. Voter turnout has
systematically decreased in the West, but the expansion of political interests, social movements,
and interest groups have led to new styles of participation that are more direct and place more
control in the citizens’ hands.
4. The nature of politics is concerned with understanding how authoritative decisions are made
and executed. The political system of David Easton in 1957 provides a framework in
understanding politics from a structural-functionalist perspective. Discuss how the system
operates highlighting interdependence. Identify the attributes and the units of the system and
provide a brief discussion for each. Provide your own example on the operation of the system
with emphasis on the role of the citizen in the overall functioning of the system.
David Easton’s model is a self-contained entity; the system is composed of inputs, which include
demands and support, and outputs, which are the policies and programs made by the
government. These two units work together in a structural-functional operation, meaning if one
part of the system malfunctions, then the whole system malfunctions. Specialization and
integration within the system is important in having an efficient bureaucracy.
Demands are the interests of the people—both external, coming from the public, and internal,
coming from the government; they become issues when they involve binding decisions in
society. Support refers to the orientation of the people, its domain covering the political
community, the regime, and the government. A society generates support through outputs and
politicization, but the amount of support is not necessarily proportional to its scope. When there
are changes in the environment surrounding the system, these attributes of inputs go into the
system and, through the legislative process, transform into authoritative decisions. These outputs
gain feedback from the people and start the process over again. Without outputs, there would be
nothing for which the people would demand and without inputs, there would be no calls for new
policies to be passed.
The role of the citizen is crucial in the functioning of the system because the citizen is the source
of inputs. For instance, a group of citizens with a common interest in protecting women’s
reproductive rights can form an organization that lobbies for such policies. With widespread
demand and substantial support within the society and government, their input goes into the
system as the legislative body passes laws (outputs) that uphold the right of women to have an
abortion, that provide greater access to OBGYN clinics, that extend paid maternity leave, and so
on.

5. Civic culture is one of the approaches in the study of political culture. Almond and Verba in
1963 explored civic culture to understand the political culture of the Five Nations studied. How
did the study of Almond and Verba look at political culture? Explain the difference between the
three types of political culture and the instances of a nation having a mixed or heterogeneous
political culture. Why is there the need to inquire on the congruence or incongruence of structure
and culture? Lastly, discuss the dominant political culture of the five nations studied based on the
results of Almond and Verba.

Across the US, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, and Germany, Almond and Verba explored the
political culture of each nation, which refers to the distributional patterns of orientation—
attitudes toward the political system and one’s role in the system. These political orientations
include cognitive orientation, affective orientation, and evaluational orientation. 

The first type of political culture they identified is parochial political culture. Members have a
low frequency of orientations, with no cognition, feelings, or opinions on the political system.
These nations tend towards traditional political structures, such as African chiefdoms. The
second type of political culture is subject political culture, in which members have a high
frequency of orientations. They are aware of the outputs and the system, but do not evaluate
them or participate in the system; they merely receive the policies in a passive relationship.
These nations tend towards authoritarian political structures. The third type of political culture is
participant political culture, in which citizens are explicitly oriented to the system as a whole—
both inputs and outputs—and take up an activist role. These nations tend toward democratic
political structures. There are also instances of mixed political cultures, including parochial-
subject culture, subject-participant culture, and parochial-participant culture, emerging as a result
of the process of political culture change.

It is important to inquire on whether or not there is congruence between the political structures
and the political culture of a nation because it determines if the current system is effective or can
be maintained over time. Almond and Verba contend that a parochial political culture that was
congruent with its structure would have a high rate of orientations to the diffuse structures of the
community. If there was otherwise incongruence, the political system would have to change for
the people would not accept the outputs being made, rendering the system unstable. This is
evident in countries in which a democratic system is imposed when the political culture is not
compatible, eventually leading to a failed democracy. 

Among the Five Nations, the US and Great Britain are deemed the successful democracies with a
participant political culture. Germany’s subject political culture never developed into substantive
democratic institutions as liberty is limited to the freedom of the state from external forces. The
lack of an allegiant national culture in Italy and the lack of political experience in Mexico leaves
both countries with a parochial political culture.

6. Rational choice theory is one of the approaches to the study of political behavior. Explain its
core methodological assumptions. Discuss Gary Cox’s game theory as to how it can be useful in
studying political behavior, particularly the voting behavior of the mass public. Moreover,
discuss the limitations of the theory.

The first core assumption of the rational choice theory is the discrete purposeful actor
assumption: the individual is a discrete entity that is capable of acting purposefully, which means
considering different possible courses of action, and then selecting and carrying out one or more
actions. The second core assumption is the utility theory assumption: given his individual
preferences, an actor makes decisions based on optimizing his utility. The third core assumption
is the rationality assumption: given whatever constraints he faces, an actor is expected to choose
the course of action that is in their best interest.

Despite being developed for economics, Gary Cox’s game theory is also useful in studying
political behavior, specifically voting, because it models the strategic interactions between two or
more people. There are three elements of game theory, the first being a list of players who are
discrete purposeful actors facing the dilemma of choosing among the alternatives. The second
element is the rules of the game, which emphasize what a player cannot do. From these
constraints, players can create strategy spaces—an individual’s set of possible strategies or paths
of action—that emphasize what a player can do. The third element is the schedule of utility
function: actors assign a utility function to their preferences, creating a strategy profile that
provides different combinations that lead to different outcomes.

In the context of voting in a presidential election, the list of players are the voters trying to
maximize their vote, the rule of the game is that each voter must choose one candidate from the
ballot, and the schedule of utility function is the rank-order of their preferred candidates as Cox’s
model assumes that voters care only about which candidate wins. If voter A’s desired electoral
outcome is Bernie Sanders, while voter B’s desired electoral outcome is Kamala Harris, the Nash
equilibrium is the option that the voters would still choose even when they are aware of one
another’s choice.

Limitations of the rational choice theory include critiques against the utility function assumption,
for our choice is not always consistent, and against the rationality assumption, for we do not
always act rationally. The theory’s methodology is also limited to one actor and doesn’t consider
other factors like institutions. Lastly, it is difficult to implement its research projects.

7. Family is one of the factors that affect the political behavior and attitude of the citizens.
Discuss the study of Jennings, Stoker, and Brown on the reexamination of the role of the family
and the influence it has in the dynamic formation of attitude across generations. Specifically
discuss the findings of the study vis-a-vis the rate of political reproduction across three
generations. Compare the politicization of the child from a family with strong and consistent
parental influence to a child who grew up in an opposite environment. There are other variables
that impact the rate of political reproduction across generations as identified by the study. Briefly
explain the findings of the study pertaining to each variable. 

Political behavior is greatly influenced by an individual’s degree of politicization, which

arguably begins within the family as childhood is a crucial learning stage. Jennings, Stoker, and
Brown studied the correspondence rates of political beliefs between parents and their children
over three generations, focusing on ten core variables: party identification, vote choice, racial
attitude, school prayer, business vs. labor, tolerance, political trust, interest in politics, political
knowledge, and religiosity. They found that the children did indeed adopt the political attitudes
of their parents on virtually all ten topics, especially partisanship and religion due to their strong
affective and moral components; there was also more congruence between Generations 2 and 3.
From their data, they concluded that rates of political reproduction increase when parents provide
clear and consistent political cues, and when the child lives in a highly politicized family. In an
otherwise apolitical family in which the parents shared little to nothing about politics,
transmission rates would decrease.

Other variables, such as parent attribute, parent education, family income, school climate, and
school socioeconomic status, affect political reproduction. Jennings, Stoker, and Brown
augmented their research with this multivariate model, but it yielded similar results to the
bivariate model that only looked at politicization and stable cues in the family. From the data set,
the most influential variables in parent-child correspondence were parent attribute and school
socioeconomic status.
a