IIVG Papers

Veröffentlichungsreihe des Internationalen Instituts für Vergleichende Gesellschaftsforschung Wissenschaftszentruro Berlin

PV/78-2

MAJOR CHANGES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1952 - 1977

by Karl W. Deutsch

Harvard University and Science Center Berlin

Publication series of the International Institute for Comparative Social Research WissenschaftsZentrum Berlin A version of this paper was presented on October 20, 1977 at the twenty-fifth anniversary meeting of the International Social Science Council in Paris.

I would like to thank Wayne Koonce for his valuable assistance in compiling the refer ences. Major Changes in Political Science, 1952-1977

1. Five Traditional Foci of Political Inquiry 1.1 Justice 1.2 Power 1.3 Legitimacy and Stability 1.4 Institutions and Procedures 1.5 Large-Scale Trends

2. Four New Centers of Attention: Cognition, Policy Research, System Performance, and the Interplay between Innovative System Transformation and Identity 2.1 Cognition 2.1.1 Hermeneutics 2.1.2 Critical Cognition of Reality 2.1.3 The Impact of Psychology, Psychiatry and Anthropolog 2.1.4 Logical and Empirical Approaches 2.1.4.1 Uses of Symbolic Logic 2.1.4.2 Empirical Evidence 2.1.4.3 The Behavioral Approach 2.1.5 Probabilistic and Mathematical Model Building 2.2 Policy Research 2.3 System Characteristics: Coherence, Governability, Legitimacy and Governing Capacity 2.3.1 Governmental Capabilities and Performance 2.3.2 Theory of Democracy 2.4 Innovation, Self-Transformation and Identity

3. Changes in Regard to Methods 3.1 Sampling and Survey Research 3.2 Content Analysis 3.3 Aggregate Data and Computer Analysis

4. Conclusions 4.1 New Foci of Interest 4.2 A New Normativism 4.3 A Large Expansion of Cognitive Tasks 4.4 A Challenge of Undercapacity and Overload 1

During the last quarter century, political science has grown a great deal, as have most of the social sciences. It has grown in its numbers of university chairs and- - professional personnel, full-time students and courses of study, learned journals and scholarly books, case studies and comparisons within and across nations. Its subject matter has increased. There are about three times as many legally sovereign states in the wold, and in most of them governments are trying to regulate and govern much larger sections of the lives of their inhabitants. There have been many changes of public policies, of governments, of political regimes, and in several countries of the entire social order.

The overview that follows will be. tentative and in­ complete. It will be richer in references to American research and to a lesser extent to research in Germany, Britain, France and Scandanavia. Even though it is true that a large number of the world’s active political scientists are working in these countries, it seems almost certain that this account underrepresents the amount of research done in Japan, the Mediterranean countries, in the developing countries of the Third World of Latin America, Asia and Africa, and in the countries governed by regimes representing the various tendencies of contemporary Marxism and communism. It is to be hoped that in time a more complete and balanced account of the last twenty five years can be put together from the work of political scientists from these various parts of the world.

What have we learned form this large expansion of our tasks and resources? Or at least, to what extent and in what directions have our preoccupations changed?

The first answers to these questions may best be sought in the substance of our concerns, that is, in the main focus and key problems of our professional concerns. In 2

the work of actual political analysts, several of these concerns of course, will tend to overlap. In what follows, I can list each scholar only provisionally under that one of his several concerns which appears to me the strongest.

1. Five Traditional Foci of Political Enquiry 1.1 Justice. From the days of Solon, Plato and Aristotle through the times of St. Augustine, John of Salisbury, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and to the present-day concerns of John Rawls,political thinkers have tended to make rational justice the main target of their search. 1) By this they meant either distributive justice, that is giving to each person his or her due, or else what we may call "functional justice," that is allocating to each member of society whatever would be conducive to some commonly accepted overriding goal.

What was to be a person's "due" might, of course, change from thinker to thinker and age to age - from the Aristotle's justification of inequality between "natural-born" freeman and "natural-born" slaves to the assertions of equal natural rights by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

Overriding goals proved no less changeable. For Plato's Republic, the goal was stability and the support of philosophic studies. For Rousseau, it was obedience to the enlightened general will in response to "the logic of things" - la logique des choses; for Lenin it was the pursuit of the revolutionary transformation of society in accordance with the way in which he had understood and developed the doctrines of Karl Marx.

Despite the difference of these notions of justice, they were all intended to be rational. They were rational in a formal sense, in that the arguments by which they were proposed were meant to be retraceable, step by step, by every educated and capable reader, who thus should be able to check them for their logic and consistency. And they 3

were to be also substantively rational, in the sense that they were supposed to work when applied in practice under the conditions of time and place which their authors ob­ served or else imagined.

1.2 Power. Though justice has continued as a signifi­ cant concern of political science, it yielded pride of place to the concerns for power and interest, particularly from the 16th century onward, from Nicold:Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton to Frederick Schuman, Hans Morgenthau, Klaus Knorr, Hermann Kahn, Henry Kissinger, Bernard de Jouvenel, and Gerhart Ritter. These concerns 2) have played an important part in political thought. Power, more precisely defined as the weight of power, is the capacity of an actor, to shift the probability of outcomes in a predictable direction. Traditionally it has been assumed that this direction is predictable by the actor himself, and that it will coincide with what he conceives to be his interest, that is, some outcome he prefers. "Interest" usually means both a subjective concentration of attention and an objective probability of reward or value gain, - for the same actor. The two, attention and reward, are held to coincide normally by many power theorists, although they have often failed to coincide - the supposed "interests" often have turned out to be erroneous - from the days of Machiavelli to the rulers who started World War II. 3)

1.3 Legitimacy and Stability. The stability of a potential system means the probability that, after having been disturbed in some relevant characteristiöS- it will soon return to its state before the disturbance. Legitimacy means that its predominant values have been psychologically internalised by its citizens, and that they can be pursued without intolerable damage to other major values held by them. 4

A third traditional concern of political scientists has been with the legitimacy and stability of states and govern­ ments. Bodin's notion of France as a community of families pointed in this direction, and so did Edmund Burke's ' conservatism and, with a different approach, Friedrich Meineke's treatment of the "Reasons of State". 4) After 1952, some of the work of Seymour Martin Lipset and of Samuel P. Huntington continued and deepened this concern for the legitimacy and stability of governments and political regimes, and for the social conditions favoring these characteristics.

1.4 Institutions and Procedures. Related to this general interest in questions of political legitimacy and stability is the traditional interest of political scientists in the descriptive, historical and analytical study of particular institutions and procedures. From Edmund Burke, James Madison, John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson to the sophisticated reformulations of institutional approaches by Arnold Brecht, Carl J. Friedrich, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington. 6)

1.5 Large-Scale Trends. A fifth traditional interest of political philosophy and political science has been the identification of large-scale trends in history and social development and the alignment of political action in accordance with them. History, in this view, has a re­ cognizable direction, and in the long run politics will have to move along with it. Forerunners of this tradition include Vico, Lessing, and Condorcet. Explicit formulations were developed by Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung; All these writers believe that they have foreseen at least a part of mankind's future and that they know at least some of the political steps that are to lead to it. '

Other writers take their trends less from history than from what they believe to be biology - and what in fact turns out to be abstracted versions of much of nineteenth 5

century market competition, imperial power politics and arguments in favor of the ruthless exploitation of the weak and poor. Thus Darwin’s work was distorted into "Social Darwinism", and the pitiless nineteenth century tradition stretches from the competition of individuals and families in the thought of Herbert Spencer to the supposed competi­ tion of peoples and races in the murderous ideas and action 8) of Hitler and Mussolini.

More complex and sophisticated images of historic trends, based on culture rather than on simplified biology, were developed in the first half of the twentieth century by Vilfredo Pareto, Oswald Spengler, and in a far richer and 9) more humane mood by Max Weber and Arnold Toynbee.

After 1950, somewhat more limited efforts at analysing large historic trends were made by Shmuel Eisenstadt, Adda Bozeman and Stein Rokkan. 10) Modified versions of social Darwinist ideas were revived in terms of selected animal observations by Konrad Lorenz - and strongly criticized by Nicolaas Tinbergen. 11) Popularized versions of the Social Darwinist tradition were offered by such writers as Robert Ardrey and Lionel Tiger, and notions of the in­ herited superiority or inferiority of particular peoples and races were revived by Arthur Jensen and a few others. 1 2)

During the same period, however, the ideas of biologists about the nature of evolution had become much more sophis­ ticated. Already Gregor Mendel had shown evolution to be a combinational process. De Vries had shown the occurrence of step-wise mutations; and between 1930 and 1950, J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley offered richer, more accurate and in part more calculable versions of the evolutionary process than the Social Darwinists had ever been able to do. 1 3) After World War II this movement toward a more modern biology, exemplified by C.H. Waddington, John R. Platt, Carl Sagan, Rupert Riedl and others, was to go much farther in this direction. 14) 6

2. Three New Centers of Attention: Cognition, Policy Research, System Performance and the Interplay between Innovative System Transformation and Identity.

The many new concerns of the much larger number of political scientists who have been active during the quarter-century 1952-77 may be conveniently grouped under the three headings of cognition, system characteristics and performance, and the interplay between the processes that tend to transform a system or to preserve some important part of its identity.

2.1 Cognition. The operation of cognition consists in a double process of attempted matching. First, there is the operation of recognition, that is, the matching of information derived from an incoming message with some information recalled by the receiving system from its memory, with the result of forming a perception; second, there is the operation of verification, that is, the matching of this perception against some further inform­ ation, derived from the actual or potential object or relationship in the outside world to which the original message and the resulting percept are supposed to refer. 1 5)

2.1.1 Hermeneutics. An old aspect of cognition, hermeneutics or the science of the interpretation and understanding of messages, has received a good deal of new attention. Hermeneutics deals with such questions as these What did the actor or writer mean by his actions or his words? Meaning is context: Hence, what context of his own memories, feelings and intentions - that is his then accepted but still unexecuted programs for further action - did they refer to? From these questions, other questions can be developed: What did the actor's or writer's deeds or words mean to his contemporaries (who might have under­ stood him differently from the way which he or she had intended)? And what could his or her acts or words mean 7

to us with our different memories, feelings and intentions of today?

Already in the 19th century, important work in this area was carried on in the French tradition of explication des textes, and in Germany by Wilhelm Dilthey. Among those influenced by Dilthey were Max Weber, Alfred Schütz and the entire tradition of verstehende Soziologie - that is, a sociology that aimed at reconstructing and reproducing, at least vicariously, the rational and emotional context of 16) each actor or writer under study. '

Both before and after 1952, this interest was developed in American political science by Herbert Marcuse and Leo Strauss, and after 1952 by Richard Cox, in Britain by Peter Laslett, James Weldon and Michael Oakeschott, in France by Raymond Polin and Robert Derathe, and in West Germany by Iring Fetscher. 17)

Another aspect of hermeneutics is the problem of how . two contemporaries can come to understand each other, despite their different original cognitive backgrounds. Here political science has received after 1952 important impulses from the work of Jürgen Habermas in West Germany, which is now beginning to have a wider international effect through its English translations. 18) '

2.1.2 Critical Cognition of Reality. It is not only messages from other persons that we are likely to mis­ understand. Even in looking at the world around us, we are quite capable of deceiving ourselves. A long line of thinkers has pointed to this human talent for misperception and self-deception, among them such major figures as Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Burke and John Stuart Mill. While many other political scientists and thinkers naively accepted the notions of interest and power, these men asked insistently about the capacity of individuals and governments to know the true conditions and directions of their own interests, 8

and the real sources and limits of their power.

After 1952, these critical questions for the first time move closer to the center of attention, and critical epistemology - the study of the process of knowing and of its conditions and limits at each particular time and place - became a major part of political analysis. One group took up the old topic of conflict, special interests and class bias as sources of cognitive distortion, as already such writers as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Georg Lukacz, Karl Mannheim, Max Horkheimer, Charles Beard and Gunnar Myrdal had done well before the 1950’s. 19) In the original view of adherents of this point of view, it was the members of the propertied and privileged classes who are most likely to deceive them­ selves about reality, for their social and economic situations and subculture would reward and reinforce them for a long time in their errors before some eventual catastrophe. Only the common people, or even only the factory workers - the proletariat - have a chance, according to this view, to shed their illusions and to learn to recognize the shape of reality and their own true interests.

Between 1952 and 1977, many of these notions were revived in various forms by writers of a "New Left", who insisted even more strongly that most of the accepted views of politics were class-bound and hence invalid, but who seemed much less confident that the working class would develop a more concrete and realistic conception of politics, and who remained much more vague in regard to their own positive images of political reality. Nonetheless, some new traits are discernible in these post-1952 writings. Though they clearly owe something to Marxist, and sometimes Leninist, traditions, they go beyond them in several respects. They put much less emphasis on objective factors, such as consciousness and will. They expect much less from organised workers and more from intellectuals, students, paupers and marginal minorities. They are less concerned with the production of social wealth than with its dis- 9

tribution, and less with socialist order and discipline than with spontaneity and an element of anarchism: If "domination" can be defined with Max Weber as the chance or probability of being obeyed, then they seek for a future society in which all or most of such domination should be absent.

So long as highly developed industrial societies become increasingly bureaucratized, anarchistic ideas are likely to increase at least somewhat in allure. Here the criticism of allegedly classbound political perceptions meets with the age-old human longing for a society of free and equal persons, with the least possible amounts of domination, coercion and conformity. These longings arous­ ed new interests in the years between 1952 and 1977, but as yet with few substantial contributions to political thought.

Very similar epistemological criticisms, however, could be brought to bear against the decisions of govern­ ments, states and would-be reformers. They, too, could err and such writers as Karl Popper, Friedrich von Hayeke, Milton Friedman, Gordon Tullock, W. Roepke and Baker insisted that the automatic wisdom of competition and free markets deserved more trust than the all-too-fallible decisions of individuals and groups acting through the political machinery of a welfare state. 20)

Some writers, finally, found both private and public decisionmakers fallible. Early champions of such an en­ lightened skepticism included Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano 21) Mosca and Joseph Schumpeter. By contrast, the ration­ ality of political actors in the large was defended after 1950, by V.O. Key's thesis of the "rational electorate" and by the efforts of such writers as Anthony Downs, Mancur Olson and others to construct a theory of politics more or less analogous to economic theory. 22) 10

2.1.3. The Impact of Psychology, Psychiatry and Anthropology. Instead of debating in general terms, however, whether political actors are rational or not in perceiving their own interests and in pursuing - them, an increasing number of investigators began to ask in a more discriminating manner about the psychological sources of perception and motivation, of insight and error, at the heart of political action. In this effort, they drew upon the work of psychologists and psychiatrists, reaching back to the pre-1950 contributions of such pioneers as Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler and C.G. Jung and the path­ breaking 1934 study by Harold Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics. 231 }

During the same period in the late 1930s and the 1940s, some anthropolgists also had- turned to the psychiatrists and psychologists for evidence on the interplay of culture and personality, and on the distributions of particular character structures among a population, from which its "national character" might be derived. 24)

In the 1950s and thereafter, the trickle became a stream. Psychiatrists such as Erik H. Erikson and Robert Lifton concerned themselves with political problems. Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer and Daniel Levinson wrote extensively on national character. The political philosopher T.W. Adorno collaborated with two social psychologists and a psychiatrist in an important study of The Authoritarian Personality. The political economist Kenneth Boulding proposed a new science of eiconics, the formation and role of images underlying and guiding human attitudes and actions. Some of these concerns were continued, albeit with a different vocabulary, in a volume edited by Herbert Kelman, International Behavior. In the United States, Leon Festinger, and later Robert Abelson, developed important studies of "cognitive dissonance", the mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport explored patterns of conflict and conflict behavior through fertile combinations of game theory, 11

mathematical analysis and a large array of laboratory ex­ periments. In France, the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss developed a theoretical approach of "structuralism" which then was elaborated by the French-Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, with implications for several social sciences, including political science. 25)

Other French thinkers who have posed new challenges to social science and political thought include Michel 26) Foucault and Jacques Lacan. '

Thus far, only a few of these theoretical approaches have led to empirical work, most often in the United States. The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno et al. did so. Robert E. Lane tested the psychological theories of John Dollard and others in a series of careful and influential . studies. Fred Greenstein, who was familiar with Lane's approach, opened up with other researchers the field of the 27) political socialization of adolescents to systematic research.

2.1.4. Logical and Empirical Approaches. Political scientists did not rest content with the criticism of errors. They wanted to put political knowledge on a reproducible basis, in the hope that such an achievement of formal rationality eventually would lead also to sub­ stantive rationality, to the successful functioning of their theories and predictions in practice.

2.1.4.1. Uses of Symbolic Logic. The first approach to reproducibility was through a search for more rigorous logic. Already such philosophic and scientific forerunners as Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, Percy W. Bridgman, Philipp Frank, Hans Kelsen, Charles W. Morris, Ernest Nagel and others had pointed the way toward a "unity of science" that was to join the natural and social sciences and in which the logical connections between empirical data were to play a major role. 1 Robert Dahl's Preface to Political Theory showed the potential power of this approach 12

by using the methods of symbolic logic to reveal the structure of James Madison's ambiguous Tenth Federalist Letter and of other examples of political theorizing. 29) Other writers, some of them already mentioned above, used logic as a major tool in their efforts to show the possibility of rationality in politics: John Rawls, Anthony Downs, Mancur Olson, Richard Zeckhauser, Hermann Lübbe and Nikolaus Luhmann among others.3°)

2.1.4.2. Empirical Evidence. Even more numerous investigators sought the reproducibility of their findings by basing them on empirical evidence which itself could be reproduced through suitably standardised operational methods. Here scientific substance was to be attained through the substantial development of old and new methods. Results were often impressive. Again, many early contributions came from neighbouring fields of social science: Paul Lazarsfeld's and Samuel Stouffer's four-volume work The American Soldier; such voting studies as Lazarsfeld’s The People's Choice, Hazel Gaudet's and Bernard Berelson's Voting, the survey research by Jean Stoetzel, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Klaus Liepelt, Viggo Count Blücher, Max Kaase and many others « Soon professional political scientists appeared on the research teams: Campbell, Converse Miller and Stokes began their series of studies of The American Voter at the University of Michigan; David Butler and Donald Stokes produced a major study of the British elec­ torate; Sidney Verba and Norman Nie advanced the field with their studies of Participation in America, and soon thereafter with The New American Voter. At the same time, Rudolf Wildenmann and Max Kaase in 1968 compared the attitudes of West German university students with those of their non-academic age-mates, and with those of the general 31 1 electorate. 7

The boundaries between political science and political sociology were freely transcended. Stein Rokkan, Robert Merton, Seymour Martin Lipset, Alex Inkeles, Daniel Lerner, 13

Erwin Scheuch, Erik Allardt and Pertti Pesonen all made contributions on both sides of the formal dividing line 32) between the professions.

Side by side with the use of empirical data from survey research there came the use of reproducible data from content analysis. Its methods were elucidated by Bernard Berelson, Ole Holsti, Ithiel Pool and Alexander George; its substantive application to political questions was pioneered by Harold Lasswell, Ithiel Pool, Richard Merritt and others.33)

At the same time the use of aggregate data in political research reached new levels of magnitude, and later also of thoroughness. Such data are those which public or private organizations collect for their own purposes, such as trade statistics, census data, voting statistics, budgets and the like, but which then can be reanalyzed for purposes of political research. Arthur Banks, Robert Textor, Karl Deutsch, Bruce Russett and Hayward L. Alker Jr., were among the early workers. Charles L. Taylor and Michael Hudson, Wolfgang Zapf and Peter Flora later made important additions.34)

Finally, there were reproducible data from standardized operations of observation and experiment. James D. Barber observed the behavior of municipal finance committees through one-way glass; Sidney Verba surveyed the evidence from a variety of studies of small group behavior; and Jean Laponce edited a volume on the role of experimentation in political research. 35)

2.1.4.3. The Behavioral Approach. The use of any or all these kinds of reproducible evidence may be summarized under the heading of behavioral research. Behavior, in this view, consists of those aspects of human life that can be observed from the outside and on which, therefore, several qualified observers could agree. The intentions of 14

a person are not behavior, but they could be inferred, more or less fallibly, from what he or she has been doing. Something similar applies to groups: Their behavior can be observed, but the inner predispositions of its members', or possibly those of the group acting as a whole can only be inferred from whatever observable and reproducible evidence can be obtained.

The behavioral approach does not mean, therefore, a mindless refusal to consider anything in political and social life that is not directly and externally observable. It does mean, however, a consistent effort to distinguish between knowledge that can be shared and verified in common through reproducible procedures from observable physical traces, on the one hand, and on the other hand, that different and far less readily reproducible knowledge of other persons that we must infer from our own introspection, speculations or particular experience. 36) 7

From this point of view it seems unlikely that the use of behavioral evidence will soon disappear like a fashion whose day is past. Once chemists learned about two hundred years ago, to weigh all ingredients before and after a chemical reaction, the transition from alchemy to quantitative chemistry became irreversible, and chemists have not stopped to take into account the weights of the materials in their experiments. But the development of chemistry has not stopped with weighing; other and in part more subtle aspects of chemical processes are now also taken into consideration. Perhaps political research similarly will for a long time continue to make major use of behavioral data, but it may not stop with them but rather add to them a more sophisticated concern for the intentions, memories, preference structures, emotions and mental process of political actors.

The succession of research topics and methods, therefore seems unlikely to show us a sequence of displacements and more likely to reveal a sequence of additions. There will 15

hardly be soon a "post-behavioral” epoch in political science, 37) in the sense that interest in behavioral evidence will cease, any more that there has been any "post-quantitative" chemistry or any "post-mathematical" physics or biology. What seems more likely to happen is that other considerations will be added, going well beyond what was observed in each case, but aiding significantly toward its deeper understanding.

Three such approaches toward reaching beyond the immediately observable were developed during the quarter­ century between 1952 and 1977. One was the development of probabilistic and mathematical reasoning and model construc­ tion. A second was the development of systems analysis and systems theory; and a third was a concern with political innovation and the self-transformation of political systems with the simultaneous preservation of major elements of their identity.

2.1.5. Probabilistic and Mathematical Model Building. One major change in the substance of political thought, not merely in method, has been the gradual entry of probabilistic and combinatorial points of view. This change was by no means complete by 1977, but it is continuing and it seems likely to prove irreversible. These viewpoints had triumphed already several decades earlier in the natural sciences; only in the lagging social sciences had scholars still been confronted with an unhappy choice between de­ terministic one-way causation on the one hand, and more or 38) less poetic intuition on the other. 1

Already Pascal and Leibnitz were among the pioneers of the probabilistic approach, but the physicist Willard Gibbs was among the first to propose a consistently probabilistic point of view. Every event that occurred, he taught, had to be understood in terms of its position within the ensemble of possible events that could have occurred in that particular situation. This new viewpoint provided an intellectual foundation for the new theories of 16

information, communication and control, developed by Claude Shannon and Norbert Wiener, and it proved fruitful in many fields. It had been difficult to treat probabilistic situations as special cases within a causally determined world, but it turned out to be easy to treat strongly determined situations as special cases of very high probability within a probabilistic universe. 39) Applications to political science followed. 401

2.2. Policy Research. Another center of attention has been the field that now most often is called policy research. A policy is a second-order decision; it is a decision about a class of decisions. If every decision were made entirely anew, some decisions might cancel out others. A policy, therefore, is a rule about how to make a class of decisions consistent.

Policy research deals with the ways such a higher-order rule or policy is formed: how and by whom it is proposed, by whom modified, how, by whom or as a result of what processes it is decided upon, how "hard" or resistant to change it becomes, how it is applied in intention and in fact, how it is implemented, and what, if any, are its actual effects.

Important work in this respect has been done by Graham Allison, on various models and the origin of policies; by Richard Snyder and his associates on decision making; by Daniel P. Moynihan on the policy case on the project of Family Assistance Planning under the Nixon Administration; by Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky on imple­ mentation; and by T.R. Dye on policy impact. Other studies on large scale social policies are being carried out by Hugh Heclo, Harold L. Wilensky and Peter Fleissner, and the important work by Peter Bachrach and M.S. Baratz on non-decisionmaking - that is, the power of interest groups to keep certain issues off the agenda of decision making and thus delay decisions on them or preventing them altogether - has stimulated a great deal of discussion. The topic of policy research overlaps with the research on the capability and performance of government, and on the problems of bureaucracy and interest groups, and on ad­ ministrative behaviour all of which are dealt with in other sections of this paper.4°a^

Other probabilistic approaches to social and political problems were developed by Raymond Boudon and by Harrison W h i t e . ) Generally, the new mathematical techniques such as stochastic processes, waiting line theory, matrix analysis, and vacancy chain analysis are likely to become a lasting resource of political science - provided that they are applied with a critical sense of the substance 42) of each problem and of their relevance to it.

If applied with such a sense of relevance and sub­ stance, and with a sound background of historical and empirical knowledge, the new methods in their ensemble offer the possibility of a widening of the horizons of political research. In addition to the study of what did happen, they offer the chance of modelling what else could have happened in the past, or could happen now, or might yet happen in the future with various degrees of contin­ gency and probability.

Another new avenue is opened up by the techniques for more clearly keeping track of the complex interactions of various actors and sectors of social and political reality. It is here that the theory of communication and control - that is, cybernetics, is merging with the theory of systems.

2.3. System Characteristics; Coherence, Governabiiity, Legitimacy and Governing Capacity. A system is a set of recognizable units with a markedly higher degree of interdependence among each other than with their en­ vironment, such that a change in one element within the 1 8

system will be followed by, or associated with, a predictable change in some other element within the same system. Since this interdependence of results - and often also the frequency of interactions - is markedly higher within the system, it follows that every system is bounded, in the sense that interdependence and interactions will decline in some respects faster, across the boundary than they do within the system, and/or that at the boundary they will decline below some critical threshhold.

Social and political systems may be conspicuously _ bounded, or else they may be at first more difficult to identify. In the latter case, it is a task of systems analysis to trace through the entire set of transactions or interactions that are critically relevant for the particular problem the investigator is interested in. 43)

In the political science of the 1952-1977 period, the identity and characteristics of large political systems, such as nation-states, have attracted increasing interest. Since 1914, over 100 new states have come into existence, most of them through secession from former empires, and only a very few states have disappeared through voluntary mergers or military occupation or some combination of the two. Thus, during the last 60 years cases of secession have been perhaps more than ten times as frequent as cases of union, but at the same time major projects of union, such as that of Western Europe, have been proposed, promoted, and in some limited respects approached. 44) During the same decades, and particularly after World War II, policies of "nation-building" in many newly emerged states have raised to some extent comparable questions of national political integration and cohesion. 45)

Related to the question whether a cohesive political system exists at all in a particular country, there arises the question as to who participates there in politics with what activity, which groups and strata are relevant 1 9

in politics, and who gets what shares of benefits or burdens out of the political process. 46)

Side by side with the so often widening circle of’ political claimants and participants, there is the changing size and scope of the political system, and perhaps a changing set of major tasks confronting it, ranging from internal pressures from newly active groups or classes to new challenges from world economics, world politics and the physical and biological environment. 47)

2.3.1. Governmental Capabilities and Performance. To cope with these changing tasks and rising needs and claims, the governing capacity of political systems, their ruling institutions and personnel all are being put to increasingly severe tests. Research on the capabilities of governments has increased accordingly. Work on govern­ mental decision-making, legislation and implementation all 48) has increased in quantity and quality. How are elites 4 9) recruited and how do they change?" What are the cybernetic characteristic - the steering capabilities - of political systems?

In this last respect, our perspective on government may have been shifting. We are no longer thinking of governments mainly as engines of enforcement or even as distributors of welfare or other benefits, or as manipulators of symbols and of popular e m o t i o n s . R a t h e r , we are increasingly coming to think of governments as having difficulties in deciding what they want, how to get it, what price they can afford to pay for it, how'to deploy their own resources, and how to foresee what consequences will follow. In short, it is the limited steering capacities and learning capacities of governments that now command a growing part of our attention.

From the governing capabilities of a political system one progresses logically to the question of its actual 20

performance. What services and values can it deliver to its population? In what amounts and kinds, with what security, and with what opportunities for spontaneity and choice, and hence for freedom? To what extent is this population aware of this performance, perhaps satisfied with it and proud of it? Comprehensive answers to such questions are hard to find, but partial information has become available through the movement toward the collection of aggregate data and of political and social indicators, as well as through the development of more systematic methods for political comparisons. 52)

Out of the performance of the system, in turn, come impulses toward an increase or decrease in the initial legitimacy of a state, a regime and a government in the eyes of their population, and hence in the loyalty they may be feeling toward it and in their greater or lesser readiness to support and defend it in case of need. Here comparative survey studies, such as Almond’s and Verba's The Civic Culture have contributed important information. 53)

2.3.2. Theory of Democracy. Against this background, as well as out of the experiences of World War II and the dictatorships that preceded it, there has developed a new interest in the theory of democracy that seems likely to endure. In many ways, it represents a combination of several of the strands mentioned earlier. Lipset's view of the social preconditions for democracy and Rokkan's interest in particular historic sequences meet here with Dahl's interest in pluralism and polyarchy, and with Huntington's stress on the importance of the early and adequate develop­ ment of political institutions. The preferences of these scholars vary. They range from Huntington's concern for order and stability to Dahl's interest in the functioning of organized opposition groups to N.D. Narr's search for a society as free as possible from domination. An interesting sketch of a "complex theory of democracy" has been developed by Fritz Scharpf, as an effort to combine several major 2 1

goals of democracy with several institutions and procedures, including equal mass voting, pluralistic group participation, capacity for innovation, improved information processing, and progress toward greater equality, and care for poorly Orga­ nized or otherwise weak groups through the top leadership of the system and through an "active public" of concerned persons.54)

A similar concern has arisen on the international level. Proposals to organize the world community by methods of em­ pire-building have become discredited and have almost dis- appeared, 55) and so have proposals for complete national autarchy and isolation. Notions of regionals or worldwide federations have become more popular but an increasing body of research, as well as a good deal of political experience, have shown that the way to their popular acceptance will at the very least be long and difficult. In the work of such writers as Joseph B. Nye, Ernst Haas, Dieter Senghaas, J. David Singer and others, the old visions of world govern- ment have largely been replaced by more specific questions: What links among which states should be strengthened or weakened? What inequalities and inequities should be attacked first and by what means, in what regard is national sovereignty likely to remain important, and in which ones can it be modi­ fied or replaced by arrangements for common action?

On the national level, it had become widely accepted by 1977, that democracy requires a good deal of social welfare policy, a limitation of economic and social inequalities, and a reaso­ nable preservation of the national habitat and resource base. On the international level, analogous insights are accepted at most among some scholars and a few other special groups, but hardly at all among the bulk of national interest groups, electorates and governments. The extent and speed of any future change in this state of affairs may itself become a signi­ ficant topic of political research. 22

These questions lead to the last of the new major areas of interest: the capacity of political systems to change their goals and to transform themselves, while preserving some essential elements of their own identity.

2.4. Innovation, Self-Transformation.and identity. The first area of concern about the innovative change of political system arose in the field of political development How to move from colonial and directly politically dependent status to legal sovereignty and substantial political independence, as well as moving from a traditional and locally dispersed native political system to a more modern and centrally coordinated one - that has been a key problem for about one hundred new states; and political scientists have responded to the new experiences, and to the new opportunities for research support, with a flood of studies.

Many of these studies were of high quality. Daniel Lerner's The Passing of Traditional Society was an early and important contribution. Gabriel Almond's The Politics of Developing Areas was a major study which was followed by a series of further volumes by Ithiel Pool, Lucien Pye, Joseph La Palombara, Dankwart Rustow, Robert Ward and others Seymour Martin Lipset applied some of the lessons of these modern studies of political development to the early years of "the first new nation" - the United States - with un­ commonly interesting results. Alex Inkeles and David Smith, in their comparative six-country study of the social, psychological and potentially political effects of factory work, Becoming Modern, set new research standards in sub­ stance and method. Interesting ideas are also found in the volume edited by Georges Balandier, Soc io log i e des mutations, and in Werner Rufs study of the Tunesian leader Habib Bouguiba. 57)

Practically all these studies, however, were written by Western scholars, even though most of these had spent sig­ nificant amounts of time in the countries whose trans- 23

formation they described. A good many of the writings, in this area by scholars from "Third World" countries, such as Frantz Fanon, Anouar Abd el Malek, Samir Amin, Osvaldo Sunkel and others, pose significant challenges to accepted Western notions but still leave something to be desired in terms of relevant and conclusive evidence that can be re- 58) produced and verified.

Only from a few countries have there arisen already some scholars working at world standards of originality and care for evidence, such as Masao Maruyama, Junichi Kyogoku, Kinhide Mushakoji, and others in Japan, or V.M. Sirsikar, A.H. Somjee, R.K. Mukherjee, Rajni Kothari, Gopal Krishna and others in India, Julio Cotier in Peru, Jose De Imäz in Argentina, and Helia Jagauribe, Candido Mendes de Almeida, Simon Schwartzman, Glaucio Soares, Celso Lafer and others in Brazil 591

Both in developing and in more highly industrialized countries in the 1960s and 1970s, the propensity towards the study of political inventions and innovations has been small. The Swedish innovation of the Ombudsman, the new party finance laws in a number of Western countries, the "constructive vote of no-confidence" and the "five-percent barrier" against splinter parties in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany and the variety of national health plans in Britain, Scandinavia, West Germany, Australia 60) and elsewhere all could stand a good deal more study

Something similar applies to the capacity of political systems to change some of their major goals, such as in the loss of colonies by former imperial powers during the three decades after World War II. Arend Lijphart's pathbreaking study of the politics of the Netherlands, The Trauma of g -1 } Decolonization, has as yet found few, if any, parallels . Studies of earlier goal changes, such as those of England and Switzerland, both in the sixteenth century, or Sweden in the 18th century, seem to have remained equally rare. 24

Cases of system transformation that have been studied somewhat better are those of the major revolutions. Much of this work, however, had been done by historians, and in any case it had been done before 1950. The volume Revolutions, (62) edited by Carl J. Friedrich, is a creditable exception.k 7 Only the Chinese Revolution, 1911-1949, has given rise to 63) a substantial literature. . Yet in all the major revolutions the English in the days of Cromwell, the American, the French, the Mexican, the Russian, the Trukish and the Chinese - great political, social and cultural changes have been associated with striking elements of continuity. Each of the six peoples have remained unmistakably what it had been - English, American, French, Mexican, Russian, Turkish and Chinese. Identity may be defined for individuals, groups and peoples as the continuing applicability of memory. Throughout each of these revolutions, a g’reat deal of such identity has been preserved - as it was preserved at other times and places among many peoples who underwent religious conversions, reformation or counter-reformation. Such combinations of radical change in some aspects of life and politics with continuing identity of the whole are as yet not well understood, and here again might be a worth­ while field for political research.

3. Changes in Regard to Methods The preceding discussion of changes in the substance and emphasis of political research has already pointed to the influence of new methods. Only a summary needs to be attempted here.

3.1. Sampling and Survey Research. The development of the science of sampling freed the gathering of opinions and of other evidence from much of its accidental character - though not from all of it, since opinions may change, sometimes quickly, with changes in time, place or circumstances. Together with improved techniques of interviews and of cross checking the effects of particular interviewers, the wording of questions and other conditions under which interviews 25

take place,' survey research was developed as a powerful new instrument, both in the form of long "depth interviews" with relatively limited numbers of respondent, and of broad surveys where brief questions can be put to much larger numbers of people. Still larger numbers of usable responses can be obtained by the "Simulmatic" method, as developed by Pool, Abelson and Popkin, where identical questions from several surveys, made in different months or years but still under comparable conditions, are combined into a single pool of up to 100,000 responses, so as to permit the singling of a much larger number of particular sub­ groups within a general population or electorate.^4)

Altogether, using the results of survey research and interviewing - of voters, elite members, age groups or other political actors - became a new key experience for many political scientists, and hence something like a new paradigm, similar to one of the senses in which Thomas Kuhn has used the word.' ' If we remember once more that Plato called the philosophers the physicians of society then survey research made the work of the political scientist less like that of a veterinary whose patients are mute, and more like that of a physician whose patients can talk.

3.2. Content Analysis. Another new technique in political research was content analysis, originally developed by literary scholars, later applied by Harold Lasswell and his associates during and after World War II. Here, too, was room for the application of sampling theory; and from the 1960s onward the old "hand methods" of content analysis were supplemented by computer methods. (66)' 7

3.3 Aggregate Data and Computer Analysis. Computers also greatly facilitated the tabulation, cross-tabulation and other processing of aggregate data. In addition to samples, computers often could process complete or near­ complete inventories, such as those of countries, provinces or districts; and they could produce large arrays of 26

derived data, such as ratios configurations, or dynamic rates of change. As a result, the data available to political scientists in 1977 have increased tenfold or f 6 7) more beyond what they were in 1952. '

Computers can assist thought but not replace it. As mentioned earlier, mathematical thought produced new ideas and techniques, such as game theory and coalition theory, scaling, latent structure analysis, matrix analysis and a succession of increasingly sophisticated models of social and political structures and processes. Such models were developed for different system levels, ranging from models of small groups or committees to models of national economic or political systems and to the world models sponsored by f 6 8) the Club of Rome and other organizations. ' The extension of these models,most often developed in economics, demography and ecology, to include political aspects will be a significant task for political scientists in the years to

Some of them are moving toward it with pleasure. Stuart Bremer's recent book on political simulation is a good example - and there will be more to follow.

4. Conclusions

To sum up: political science has undergone something like a revolution, and it has gone through this major change while preserving its identity. Carl J. Friedrich's masterful summary of 1963, Man and His Government, and the republication in 1965 of Quincy Wrights' A Study of War, first published in 1942, testify to the continuing vitality of our great tradition. (71)

4.1. New Foci of Interest. The changes, however, must not be underestimated. Major new foci of interest in political communication and control have arisen, including the limited capacities and considerable error rates of 2 7

governments; in the processes of political socialization and alienation; in the forms and conditions of political participation and activity; in elite recruitment and behavior; in political culture and the politics of different social orders; in political development; in political integration and secession; and in conflict (72) theory and peace research.

4.2. A New Normativism. In addition, there is perhaps a new critical normativism, a politics of conscience. It was implied in the protest of French Intellectuals in the 1950s against the war in Algeria. It is now explicit in the work of such writers as Sheldon Wolin, Christian Bay, Richard Falk, Saul Mendlovitz, Anatol Rapoport, and many Eruopeans. (73) And it is implicit in the work of many more, including those 80 per cent of respondents to a sample survey of American political scientists in 1969-1970 who designated the United States involvement in the Vietnam war as a mistake, regardless whether political or moral. (74)

4.3. A Large Expansion of Cognitive Tasks. These developments add up to a striking process of intellectual expansion. The total of fields and subfields of active research concern have doubled^.. The geographic and cultural areas of political concern have more than doubled, and the number of states in the world has tripled. Outside Europe and North America, the scope of government and the size of the public sectors in the national economy of most countries have more than doubled, similar to what had happened earlier in most of Europe and North America during the first quarter of the present century. This means a more than eightfold increase in matters to be covered by political scientists.

But since 1952, there also has been more than a doubling of research methods available to students of political science ; papers and journal articles in political 28

science have grown by a factor of four; the volume of politically relevant aggregate data, published by the world’s national government and by the United Nations and its agencies has grown by a factor of ten; and so has the volume of survey data that are now coming in from many countries. The grand total for 1977, conservatively estimated, amounts to eight times the subject matters of 1952, twice the methods and perhaps up to 20 times the data.

In contrast to this, the amount of published research in political science has only about quadrupled between 1952 and 1977, and so, one may estimate, has the number of professional political scientists. (74)

4.4. A Challenge of Undercapacity and Overload. This leads to a startling thought. On the average, the political scientists of today are spread out about four times as thinly over the sources of evidence, research methods and subject matter, which they are supposed to cover, than were their predecessors of 25 years ago. It is a thought that might suffice to give nightmares to doctoral candidates on the eve of their examination, and an uneasy conscience to their teachers. How have political scientists tried to defend themselves against this threat of creeping superficiality?

Some of us have tried to deal with it by over­ specialization, risking to fall into the old trap of learning more and more about less and less. Others have sought to retreat into a new parochialism, confining themselves to the study of only one state or geographic area, either their own as nationalists or some other as area experts. The latter strategy was less confining but it, too, made it hard for them to use comparisons as tools of discovery. Ref: See John E. Trent, "Political Science Beyond Political Boundaries. The International Institutional Development of Political Science." Paris, I.S.S.C. 1977 (multigraphed) 29

Still others escaped into some strongly held ideology of one kind or another, rejecting all views that did not tally with their own. More tolerant souls simply would retreat from the attempt to test the truth of a proposition about politics, and rather respond to it by a vague expression of ethical or philosophic preference. But enough men and women have remained to continue the study of politics by the methods of scholarship and social science.

The cognitive tasks before our profession will continue to increase. They will require major efforts in professional training, and even retraining for those of us still lively enough to want it. At the same time, the tasks of governments and the size of public sectors are expanding everywhere; and the potential scarcities of food, energy and resources, together with the increasing numbers of people and weapons make the steering performance of governments an even more critical factor of long-term human survival.

We have more problems, more data, more tools, more work - and we have not a single received doctrine but a plurality of paradigms. Our best common ground in matter of cognition might be to search for an increasing cumulative truth content of our theories, that is, for an increasing number of statements of the type "there is ..." and "if... then...", which have been confirmed by a widening array of different operations of verification. And in matters of value, we might do best to accept the complex plurality of values by which each of us must live but also to agree to hold in common the value and protection of human life in its fulness and its unfinished possibilities. With such a basic agreement in favor of the survival of humanity we may have a good chance to find responses to the challenge before us. 1

1. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). Cf. also Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974). -2. Frederick L. Schuman, International Politics: Anarchy and Order in the World Society, 7th ed. (NY: McGraw- Hill, 1969). Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (NY: Knopf, 1948). Klaus Knorr, The War Potential of Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1956); — — . The Power of Nations (NY: Basic Books, 1975). Herman Kahn, Thinking About the Unthinkable (NY: Avon Books, 1964); Henry Kissinger, The Necessity for Choice (NY: Harper- Row, 1961); Gerhard Ritter, Die Dämonie der Macht (Stutt- — gart: Hannsmann, 1947); Bertrand de Jouvenal, The Pure Theory of Politics (Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. Press, 1963) and Qn Power: Its Nature and the History of its Growth (NY: Viking, 1949), J. Huntington, tr. For more critical approaches, see also: Robert A. Dahl, "The Concept of Power,"Behavioral Science, (1957, 2:201-215); Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1961); and "Power'1 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 12 (Cromwell Collier and MacMillan, 1968) pp. 405-415. 3. Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1950); Charles Merriam, Political Power (NY: Macmillan, 1964). 4. Friedrich Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the National State, Robert Kimber, tr. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1970); and Reasons of State (first published as Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte (München and Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1924)

5. Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (New York: Doubleday, 19 59) , and Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures (New York: Heinemann, 1969), and "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy," American Political Science Review, 53, No. 1’ (March 1959) pp. 69-105; Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1968). 6. Arnold Brecht, Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth Century Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959); Carl J. Friedrich, Man and his Government (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1963), and Totalitarianism (NY: The Univer­ sal Library, 1964); Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P, Hunting- ton, Political Power: USA/USSR (NY; Viking Press, 1963). 2

7. Giambattista Vico, On the Study Methods of Our Time (NY: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965); Gotthold E. Lessing, Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts (Hamburg: Hamburger Kulturverlag, 1948); Jean Condorcet, Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de 1*esprit humain ' (Paris: Librairie de la Bibliotheque nationale, 1878- 1879); Immanuel Kant, On History, (NY: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963); George W. Hegel, "On History," in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Hegel (NY: Modern Library, 1953); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Writings on the Paris Commune (NY: Monthly Review Press, 1971), and The Communist Manifesto (NY: Penguin, 1968); Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (NY: International Publish­ ing Co., 1938); Vladimir I. Lenin, State and Revolution (NY: International Publishing Co., 1932); Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National-Colonial Question (San Francisco: Proletarian Publishers, 1975); Mao Tse-Tung, "Where Things Come From and Where They Go," in Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung (Hazelwood, Mo.: Great Wall Press, 1972).

8. For Social Darwinism see Ludwig Gumplowicz, Der Rassenkampf (Innsbruck: Neudr. d. Ausg., 1926); Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, R. Manheim, tr. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943); Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (NY: Fertig-Howard, 1935). For critical discuss­ ion, see Richard Kofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955, rev. ed., Braziller, 1959) ; Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, 3rd ed. (NY: Hafner Press, 1975); and George W. Shepard and Tilden L. Lemelle, eds., Race Among Nations: A Conceptual Approach (Boston: D.C. Heath, 1970). 9. Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society: A Treatise on Gener­ al Sociology (New York: Dover, 1963); Oswald Spengler, Die Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West) (München: Beck, 1920); Max Weber, Wirtschaftsgeschichte (München and Leipzig: Dunsker and Humbolt, 1924); Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, 12 vols. (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1947-1961). 10. Schmuei Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), and The Protes­ tant Ethic and Modernization: A Comparative View (NY: Basic Books, 1968); Adda B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1960) ; Stein Rokkan, et al., Citizens, Elections and Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development (NY: David McKay, 1970), and Comparative Research Across Cultures and Nations (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humani­ ties, 1968).

11. Konrad Lorenz, On Agression, Marjorie Wilson, tr. (NY:Harcourt Brace-Jovanovich, 1966); Nicolaas T i n b e r g e n Study of Instinct (Folcroft, Pa.: Folcroft Library Editions, 1951),and The Animal in Its World f2 Vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1975). 3

12. Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative (NY: Atheneum, 1966); Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1968); Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, The Imperial Animal (NY: Dell, 1972) .

13. J .B.S. Haldane, The Inequality of Man and Other Essays (Philadelphia: R. West, 1932); Julian S. Huxley, Man Stands Alone (Plainview, NY: Books for Libraries, 1941). 14. C.H. Waddington, ed., Towards a Theoretical Biology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh U. Press, 1968); John R. Platt, The Step to Man (NY: Wiley, 1966); Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestria 1 Perspective (NY: Double­ day, 1973), and Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977); and Ruper Riedl, Die Strategie der Genesis (München- Zürich: Piper, 1976) . 15. Peter B. Neiman, unpublished BS Thesis, M.I.T., approx. 1947

16. Wilhelm Dilthey, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1970), The Pattern and Meaning in History (NY: Harper-Row, 1962), and Gesammelte Schriften, 18 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht/Teubner,1966-1977); Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen, 3 Vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926-1933); From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, trs. (Oxford: Oxford ü. Press, 1946); Alfred Schutz, The Problem of Social Reality, Collected Papers, Vol. 1, Maurice Natanson, ed. text ed. (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1962-1966); Herbert Hodges, The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey (Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1974).

17. Herbert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), Eros and Civiliz­ ation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), and One Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964); Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis, Elsa Sinclair, tr. (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1952), and Political Philosophy: Six Essays, Hilail Gildin, ed. (Indianapolis: Pegasus, 1975); Richard H. Cox, Locke on War and Peace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960); Peter Laslett, ed., John Locke: Two Treatises on Government (Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. Press, 1960), and The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1971); Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962); Raymond Polin, La Politique de la Solitude: Essai sur la Philosophie politique de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Paris : Sirey, 1 971 )'; Robert Derathe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la science politique de son temps (Paris: Vrin, 1970); Iring Ffetscher, Marx and Marxism (NY: Seabury Press, 1971), and Der Marxismus (München- Zürich: R. Piper and Co. Verlag, 1976), and Rousseaus politische Philosophie (Neuwied a. Rhein and Berlin: Luchterhand 1968) . 4

18. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971), The Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon, 1975), and Theory and Practice (Boston: Beacon, 1974). 19. Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness, (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1971); Karl Mannheim, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (NY: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich, 1967) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (NY: Ha.rcourt-Brace-Jovanovich, 1955) , and Essays the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegal Paul, 1952); Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment (NY: Seabury Press, 1975) ; Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (NY: Free Press, 1935); Gunnar Myrdal, Against the Stream: Critical Essays on Economics (NY: Pantheon, 1973) and The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1969). 20. Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols., 5th rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1966); Friedrich A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1972); Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), and Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953); James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1962); W. Roepke, International Order and Economic Integration, (Hingham, Ma.: Reidel Publishers, 1960). For a recent critical view, see Amitai Etzioni, "Societal Overload: Sources, Components and Corrections," Political Science Quarterly, (92:4, Winter 1977-78) , pp. 607-631 . 21. See reference 9 above. See also Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class (NY: McGraw, 1939); Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (NY: Harper-Row, 1947), and Imperialism and Social Classes, (NY: New American Library, 1955). 22. V .0. Key, The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presiden­ tial Voting, 1936-1960 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (NY: Harper-Row, 1957) ; Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1971). See also Bruce Russett, ed., Economic Theories of International Politics (Chicago: Markham, 1968). 23. Harold D. Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics (NY: Viking, 1960). 5

24. Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Boston: Houghton- Mifflin, 1961), Race, Science and Politics (NY: Modern Age Books, 1940), and The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (NY: New American Library, 1967); Margaret Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America (Plainview, NY: Books for Libraries, 1942); Jean Stoetzel, Without the Chrysanthemum and the Sword, rep. of 1955 ed. (Westport, Conn.: The Greenwood Press, 1 9 7 6 ) .

25. Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi1s Truth: On the Origins of Mili­ tant Nonviolence (NY: Norton, 1969); Robert J. Lifton, America and the Asian Revolutions, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1973); Alex Inkeles and Daniel Levinson, "Modal Personality,” in Gardner Lindzey and E. Aronson, Handbook of Social Psychology, 5 vols., 2nd ed. (Vol. 4: Group Psychology and Phenomena of Interaction) (Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., 1968); Margaret Mead, "National Character," in Alfred L. Kroeber, ed., Anthropology Today (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952); Geoffrey Gorer, The American People: A Study in National Character (NY: W.W. Norton, 1964) ,and Exploring English Character (NY: Criterion Books, 1955), and with John Rickman, The People of Great Russia: A Psychological Study (NY: Norton, 1962); T.W. Adorno, E. Frankel Brunswick, Daniel Levinson and Nevy Savaford, The Authoritarian Personality (NY: Harper and Row, 1950); Richard Christie and Marie Johoda, eds., Studies in the Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality" (Glencoe, Il.: Free Press, 1954); " ’ „ ______Kenneth E. Boulding, Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1956); Herbert Kelman, International Behavior: A Social Psychological Analysis (NY: Irvington Publishers, 1965); A. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1962) Robert AbeIson, Theories of Cognitive Consistency (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968); Robert Axelrod, ed., Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites (Princeton Princeton U. Press, 1976); Anatol Rapoport, Fights, Games, Debates (Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1960); Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 2 vols. (NY: Basic Books, 1963 and 1976); and Jean Piaget, Structuralism (NY: Basic Books, 1970).

26. Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon, 1977), Mental Illness and Psychology (NY: Harper & Row, 1976), The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (NY: Pantheon, 1970); Jacques Lacan,Ecrits (NY: Norton, 1975), The Language of the Self (NY: Dell, 1975).

27. Robert E. Lane, Political Ideology (NY: The Free Press, 1967); Fred Greenstein, Personality and Politics (Chicago: Markham, 1969). 6

28. Percy W. Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics (NY: Macmillan, 1960), The Way Things Are (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1959); Philipp Frank, Foundations of Physics (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1946); Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law. 2nd rev. and enl. ed., (Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1967); Charles W. Morris,"Foundations of the Theory of Signs," in Foundations of the Unity of Science Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Chicago: U. of'Chicago Press, 1938); Ernest Nagel, Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (NY: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich, 1961).

29. Robert Dahl, Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). 30. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, Interaktion von Wissenschaft und Politik (Frankfurt/ NY: Campus Verlag, 1977); Hermann Lübbe, Wissenschaftspolitik: Planung,Politjzierung, Relevanz (Zürich: Interfromm, 1977); and Rainer M. Lepsius, "Heraus­ forderung und Förderung der Sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung in Mitteilungen der Deutscher Forschungsgemeinschaft 3 (1973), pp. 31-46. 31. Paul Lazarsfeld and Samuel Stouffer et al., The American Soldier, 4 Vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U . Press, 1950); Paul Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson, & H. Gaudet, Wahlen und Wähler (first published as The People's Choice) (Neuwied and Berlin: Luchterhand, 1968); Bernard Berelson, Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1954); Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Umfragen in der Massengesellschaft: Einführung in die Methoden der Demoskopie (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1963); Klaus Liepelt und Christoph Loew, Menschen an der Saar (Frankfurt/M.: Europ. Verl. Anst., 1962); David Butler and Donald Stokes, Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice (London: Macmillan, 1970); Sidney Verba and N.H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (NY: Harper and Row, 1972), and The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press, 1976). Rudolf Wildenmann, Gutachten zur Frage der Subventionierung politischer Parteien aus öffentlichen Mitteln (Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1968), and with Max Kaase, Die Unruhige Generation (Mannheim: Working Paper, 1968); and Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan, Mass Politics (New York: Free Press, 1970). 32. S.M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments (NY: The Free Press, 1967); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1973), and Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row); Robert Scalapino, Elites in the People's Republic of China (Seattle: U. of Washington Press, 1972); Daniel Lerner, et al., The Nazi Elite (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1951); Alex Inkeles, Social Change in Russia (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1971), and Public Opinion in Soviet Russia: A Study in Mass Persuasion (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1950); Wolfgang Zapf, Wandlungen der deutschen Elite: Ein Zirkulationsmodell deutscher Führungs- 7

gruppen 1919-1961 (München: Piper, 1965); Erik Allardt and Yrjö Littunen, eds., Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (Helsinki: Westermarck Society, 1964); Allardt, "Implications of Within-Nation Variations .and .Regional Tmhalances for Cross-National Research,” in Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan, eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1966)i Pertti A. Pesonen, Valitsijamiesvaalien Ylioppilas Äänestäjät (Students as voters in Presidential elections) (1958), and Protestivaalit, Nuorisovaalit (Protest Elections, Youth Elections) (1972). ~

33. Harold Lasswell et al., Language of Politics: Studies in Quantitative Semantics (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1965); Ithiel de Sola Pool, with Harold Lasswell, Daniel Lerner et al., The "Prestige Papers1': A Survey of Their Editorials (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1952); Richard L. Merritt, Symbols of American Community, 1735-1775 (Westport, Conn: The Greenwood Press, 1976); Bernard R. Berelson, Content Analysis in Communications Research (NY: Hafner, 1971); Robert C. North et al., Content Analy­ sis : A Handbook with Applications for the Study of Inter­ national Crisis (Evanston, II.: Northwestern U. Press, 1963); Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley, 1969). 34. Arthur S. Banks and Robert Textor, A Cross-Polity Survey (Cambridge, Ma. MIT Press, date not set); Bruce M. Russett, Karl W. Deutsch, Hayward Alker and Harold D. Lasswell, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1964); Charles Taylor and Michael C. Hudson, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1972); Hayward Alker and Bruce Russett, World Politics in the General Assembly (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1965); Karl W. Deutsch, "On Methodological Problems of Quantitative Research," in Mattei Dogan and Stein Rokkan (eds.), Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Ma.: M.I.T. Press, 1969, pp. 19-39), and "The Impact of Complex Data Bases on the Social Sciences," in Ralph Bisco, ed., Data Bases, Computers and the Social Sciences (NY: John Wiley, 1970, pp. 19-41) and with H.R. Alker and Antoine Stoetzel, eds., Mathematical Approach­ es to Politics (Amsterdam-New York: Elsevier, 1973);Douglas A. Hibbs, jr., Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis (NY: Wiley, 1973); OECD, Measuring Social Well-Being: A Progress Report on the Development of Social Indi cators (Paris: OECD, 1976), and 1976 Progress Report on Phase II-Plan for Future Activities (Paris: OECD, 1977); Peter Flora, "Historical Precesses of Social Mobilization, Urbanization and Literacy, 1850-1965" and with Wolfgang Zapf, "Differences in Path Development: An Analysis for 10 Countries," in S.N. Eisenstadt and Stein Rokkan, eds., Building States and Nations: Models and Data Resources (Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage, 1973), and with Zapf, "Some Problems of Time Series Analysis in Research on Modernization," Social Science Information, 10 (1971), pp. 53-102. " 35. James D. Barber, Power in Committees: An Experiment in the Governmental Process (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966); Sidney Verba, Small Groups and Political Behavior: A Study of Leadership (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton U. Press, 1961); and Jean Laponce and Paul Smoker, eds., Experimentation and Simulation in Political Science (Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1972). 36. For early discussions of what would prove transitory and what would remain more durable in this approach, see Robert Dahl, "The Behavioral Approach" The American Political Science Review, 55, No. 4 (December 1961),pp. 763-772,' David Easton, "The New Revolution in Political Science", The American Political Science Review, 63, No. 4 (December 1959),pp. 1051-1061; Karl W. Deutsch, "On Political Theory and Political Action," The American Political Science Review, 65:1 (March 1971), pp. 11-27. 37. See Easton's article referred to in note 36 above.

38. For an effort to overcome this dilemma, see Robert M. Maclver, Social Causation (Boston: Ginn , 1942); cf. also his The Web of Government (NY: Macmillan, 1947). 39. See Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, II.: U. of Illinois Press, 1949); Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), and his Cybernetics, 2nd rev. ed. (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1962); Colin Cherry, On Human Communication (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1957 , 2nd ed. 1966) ;W. Ross Ashby, Introduction to Cyber­ netics (NY: Barnes and Noble, 1968) and Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behavior, 2nd ed. (NY: Halsted Press, 1960); Warren S. McCulloch, Embodiments of Mind (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1965). For applications to biology, see James Watson, The Double Helix (NY: Atheneum, 1968), and J.G. Miller, Living Systems, (New York: Wiley, 1977). 40. See K.W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1953, 2nd rev. ed., 1966), and The Nerves of Government (New York: The Free Press, 2nd ed., 1966); John steinbruner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976). 40a. For non-decisionmaking, see Peter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967). Cf. also Bachrach and M.S. Baratz, "Two Faces of Power," American Political Science Review, Vol. 56 (1962), pp. 947-953. For the works of authors named, see Footnotes 48 and 51. See also Peter Fleissner et al., Systemanalyse des Gesundheitswesens in Österreich, (Wien: Projektgruppe Gesundheitsplanung, 1974). 41. Raymond Boudon, Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality: Changing Prospects in Western Society (New York: Wiley, 1974); Harrison C. White, Chains of Opportunity: System Models of Mobility in Organizations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), and his "Life in Stochastic Networks," in Alker, Deutsch and Stoetzel, eds., Mathemati­ cal Approaches to Politics, (op. cit., Footnote 34, pp. 287-300), "Cause and Effect in Social Mobility Tables," Behavioral Science (Janaury 1963, pp. 2-63), and "Uses of Mathematics in Sociology, Mathematics and the Social Sciences, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (June" 1 963, pp. 77-94) . 9

42. Alker, Deutsch and Stoetzel, op. cit. (reference 34); K.W. Deutsch and Rudolf Wildenmann, eds., Mathematical Political Analysis (München-Wien: Gunter Olzoq Verlaq, 1976). 43. Cf. e.g. Mihajlo Mesarovic and Yasuhiko Takahara, General Systems Theory: Mathematical Foundations (NY: Academic Press, 1975); Niklas Luhmann, "Theoretische und Praktische Probleme der Anwendungsbezogenen Sozial­ wissenschaften," in Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, (op. cit, Footrote 30); Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory (NY: Braziller, 1968); Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (op. cit., Footnote 40); David Easton, The Political System (NY: Knopf, 1953), Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1965), and Systems Analysis of Political Life (NY: Wiley, 1965); Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, II.: The Free Press, 1951), and Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); and Oran R. Young, Systems of Political Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968). For applications to politics, see Footnote 50 below.

44. For data on the emergence of states, see Charles Taylor and Michael C. Hudson, op. cit. Footnote 34, pp. 26-29, Table 2.1. On problems of mergers and secessions among states, see Robert R. Bowie and Carl J. Friedrich, eds., Studies in Federalism, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1954); Carl J. Friedrich, Europe: An Emergent Nation? (NY: Harper- Row, 1970); K.W. Deutsch, Political Community at the Inter­ national Level (NY: Doubleday-Random House, 1954); K.W. Deutsch, Sidney A. Burrell et al.,Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957); K.W. Deutsch, L.J. Edinger, R.C. Macridis and R.L. Merritt, France, Germany and the Western Alliance (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967); Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1956); Bruce M. Russett, Community and Contention: Britain and the United States in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962); Richard L. Merritt, Symbols of American Community, 1735-1775 Op. cit. (Footnote 33); Michael C. Hudson, The Precarious Republic; Political Moderni­ zation in Lebanon (Philadelphia, Pa.: Philadelphia Book Co., 1968); and Peter Katzenstein, Disjointed Partners: Austria and Germany Since 1815 (Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, 1976) .

45. Karl W. Deutsch and William J. Foltz, Nation-Building (NY: Atherton Press, 1963). 1o

46. Cf. e.g., Verba and Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, op. cit. (Footnote 31) ; Verba, Bashiruddin Ahmed and Anil Bhatt, Caste, Race and Politics; A Compara­ tive Study of India and the United States (Beverly- Hills and London: Sage, 1971). 47. Frederick L. Pryor, Public Expenditure in Communist and Capitalist Nations ( Homewood, II.: Irwin, 1968); Francis Bator, The Question of Public Spending: Public Needs and Private Wants (NY: Macmillan, 1962). For a discussion of public spending as an indicator of the expanding tasks of government, see Jerome Monod and Ph. De Castelbajac, L 1amenagement du territoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971).

48. See, e.g., R.C. Snyder et al., Decision-Making in Foreign Policy (NY: Free Press, 1962); Eric Redman, The Dance of Legislation (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1973); Richard F. Fenno,Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973); Daniel P. Moynihan, The Politics of a Guaran­ teed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assis­ tance Plan (NY: Random House, 1973); Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky, Implementation (Berkeley: Univer­ sity of California Press, 1973); Bruce M. Russett, What Price Vigilance? The Burdens of National Defense (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970); L.N. Rieselbach, Congressional Politics (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1973); and T .R. Dye, The Measurement of Policy Impact (T al 1 aha s - see, Fla.: Florida State U. 1971). 49. See references in Footnote 32. 50. The first view has been common to the laissez-faire liberals since Adam Smith, and to the Marxist tradition. On some problems of the second, see Gunnar Myrdal, Beyond the Welfare State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970). For two examples of the third tradition, see Jose Ortega y Gassett, The Revolt of the Masses (NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1957); and Charles Merriam, Systematic Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945, 2nd ed., 1966). 51. See references in Footnote 32. See also Michael Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964); C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962); David Easton (op. cit., Footnote 43); Hayward R. Alker, Jr., "Le comportement directeur " (Directive Behavior)," Revue Francaise de Sociologie (1971); Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Main­ tenance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) K.W. Deutsch, Politics and Government, 2nd rev.ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974); Wolf-Dieter Narr, Theorie­ begriffe und Systemtheorie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); Frieder Naschold, Systemsteuerung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); W.D. Narr and F. Naschold, Theorie der Demokratie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971); Gebhard L. Schweigier, National Consciousness in Divided Germany (Beverly Hills, - 11 - Ca. London: Sage, 1975); Harold L. Wilensky, Organiza­ tional Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry (NY: Basic Books, 1969); Frieder Naschold, Alternative Raumpolitik: Ein Beitrag zur Verbesserung der Arbeits- und Lebensverhältnisse (Berlin: IIVG Science Center Berlin, 1978) (in Press).

52o See reference 32; and Richard L. Merritt and Stein' Rokkan, Comparing Nations . op. cit. (Footnote 32), Richard L. Merritt, The Systematic Study of Comparative Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970). Cf. also Samuel H. Beer and Adam Ulam, Patterns of Government, 2nd ed., (NY: Random House, 1962) and Roy C. Macridis and Robert E. Ward, Modern Political Systems. Vol. 1, Europe, Vol. 2, Asia, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1972). For an outstanding study of the performance of one parti­ cular country, see Alfred Grosser, Die Bonner Demokratie (Düsseldorf: Rauch, 1960). 53. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Prince­ ton, NJ.: Princeton U. Press, 1963); compare this work with that of Charles E. Osgood, William H. May and Murray S . Miron, Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning (Urbana, II.: U. of Illinois Press, 1975).

54. See Fritz W. Scharpf, Demokratie theorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung (Konstanz: Konstanz U., 1970); and the works by Wolf-Dieter Narr and Frieder Naschold noted in Footnote 51 . 55. See, however, Sir Alan Burns, In Defence of Colonies: British Colonial Territories in International Affairs (London: Allen and Unwin, 1957), and George Liska, Imperial America: The International Politics of Primacy (Baltimore: John Hopkins U. Press, 1967). Hegemony, and the striving for it, still laudable notions in Heinrich Triepel's Die Hegemonie: Ein Buch von führenden Staaten (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1943), now most often have become terms of reproach leveled by writers in one nation against the government of another. 56. Joseph S. Nye, Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971); Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1972); Ernst B. Haas, Tangle of Hopes (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1969); Dieter Senghaas, Friedensforschung und Gesellschaftskritik, 1970-1973, and Gewalt-Konflikt- Frjeden: Essays zur Friedensforschung (Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe , 1974); Senghaas and Karl W. Deutsch, "The Steps to War: A Survey of System Levels, Decision Stages and Research Findings," in PatricK J. McGowan, eu., Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, Vol. 1 (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1973), pp. 275-329; J. David Singer, Financing International Organizations (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1961) . 12

57. Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, II.: Free Press, 1958); Gabriel Almond and James S. Coleman, eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas, vol. 1 in Studies in Political Development Series (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton U. Press, 1960); Joseph La Palombara, ed., Bureaucracy and Political Development, Studies Ser., vol. 2; Robert E. Ward and Dankwart Rustow, eds., Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, Studies Ser., vol. 3,. 1964; Lucien Pye and Sidney Verba, eds., Political Culture and Political Development, Studies Ser., vol. 5, 1965; M. Weiner, Political Parties and Political Development, Studies Ser., vol. 6, 1966; Seymour Martin Lipset, The First New Nation: The US in Historical and Comparative Perspective (NY: Basic Books, 1963); Alex Inkeles and David Smith, Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1974); Georges Balandier,Sociologie des mutations (Paris: Anthropos, 1970); Werner K. Ruf, Per Burgibismus- und die Aussenpolitik des unabhängigen Tunesien (Bielefeld: Bertelsmann University Verlag, 1969); and Michael Brecher, India and World Politics: Krishna Menon's View of the World (London: Oxford U. Press, 1968).

58. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (NY: Grove Press, 1963); Anouar Abdel-Malek, Sociologie de I1 Imper- ialisme (Paris: Editions Anthropos 1971); Samir Amin Le Developpement Inegal: Essai sur les formations sociales du capitalisme peripherique (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1973), Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment , 2 Vols. (NY: Monthly Review, 1974), and Neocolonialism in West Africa (NY: Monthly Review, 1975); Osvaldo Sunkel, "Integration capitaliste transnationale et disintegration nationale en Amerique latine," Politique etrangere, No. 6, 1970, and with Pedro Paz, El subdesarrollo latinoamericano v la teoria del desarrollo (I.L.P.E.S., 1970). 1 3

59. Masao Maruyama, Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1963); Junichi Kyogoku, Gendai minshusei to seijigaku (1969) and Seiji ishiki no bunseki (I960); Kinhide Mushakoji and Morton A. Kaplan, Japan, America and the Future World Order (NY: Free Press, 1976); Kazuo Kawai, Japan's American Interlude (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196o); Chitoshi Yanaga, Japanese People and Politics (NY: Wiley, 1956); Nobutaka Ike, Japanese Politics: An Introductory ..Survey (NY: Knopf, 1957) and The Beginnings of Political Democracy in Japan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 195o); V.M. Sirsikar, The Rural Elite in a Developing Society: A Study in Political Sociology (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 197o); A.H. Somjee, Democracy and Political Change in Village India: A Case Study (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1971); R .K. Mukherjee, Social Indicators (Delhi: The Macmillan Co. of India, Ltd., 1975); Rajni Kothari, Caste in Indian Politics (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1972), and The Democratic Polity and Social Change in India: Crisis and Opportunities (Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books, 1976); Gopal Krishna and Reginald Green, Economic Cooperation in Africa: Retrospect and Prospect (London: Oxford U. Press, 1967); Julio Cotier and Richard Fagen, eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1974), and Cotier, "Actuales pautas de cambio en la sociedad rural del Peru,"in Jose Matos Mar, ed., Dominacion y cambios en el Peru rural: la micro-region del Valle de Chancay (Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1969); Jose L. De Imäz, Los Que Mandan (Those Who Rule) (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1970); Helia Jaguaribe, Economic and Political Development: A Brazilian Case Study (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1968), and Political Development: A General Theory and a Latin American Case Study (NY: Harper and Row, 1973); Candido Mendes de Almeida, ed., Le Mythe du developpement (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1977); Simon Schwartzmann, "Twenty Years of Representative Democracy in Brazil, 1945-1964," in Alker et al., Mathematical Approaches to Politics, op. cit. (Footnote 34), pp. 137-162; Glaucio Ary Dillon Soares,"Desenvolvimento economico e radicalismo politico: o teste de uma hypotese"(Rio de Janeiro: CLAPCS/AL, 5:3, julho/set. 1962), pp. 65-83; "Classes sociais, strata sociais e as eleicoes presidencias de 1960"(Sao Paulo: FESPSP/S, 23:3, set. 1961), pp. 217- 238, and"Urbanizacao e dispersao eleitoral"(Rio de Janeiro: FGU/RDP, 3:2, julho-dez. 1960), pp. 258-270; Celso Lafer y Felix Pena, Argentina y Brasil en el sistema de relaciones internacionales (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Vision, 1973), and Lafer, "El planeamiento en el Brasil: observaciones sobre El Plan de Metas, 1956-1961" (Buenos Aires: IDES/DE, 10:39/40, oct./dic. 1970 and enero/marzo 1971), p p . 309-330 and tables, and "Una interpretacion del sistema de los relaciones internacionales del Brasil" (Mexico City: CM/FI, 9:3, enero/marzo 1969), pp. 298-318. For Brazilian works, see also the periodical Dados, a publication of the Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro. 1 4 -

60. Herbert Alexander and Richard Lampert, Political Finance: Reform and Reality (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1976); Delmer Dunn, Financing Presidential Campaigns (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1972); David Nichols, Financing Elections: The Politics of an American Ruling Class (NY: Watts, 1973); and D.W. Adamany, Campaign Finance in America (North Scituate, Ma.: Duxbury Press, 1 9 7 2 ) . 61. Arend Lijphart, The Trauma of Decolonization: The Dutch and West New Guinea (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1966) 62. Carl J. Friedrich, Revolutions (NY: Lieber-Atherton, 1966). Three important earlier works in this area were Eure Rosenstock, Out of Revolution (Philadelphia: Morrow, 1938); Crane Brinton, A Decade of Revolution: 1789-1799 (NY: Harper and Row, 1935); and George S. Pettee, The Process of Revolution (NY: Harper, 1938). 63. Chalmers Johnson, Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power: The Emergence of Revolutionary China, 1937-1945 (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1962), and his Revolutionary Change (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966); Franz Schurmann. Ideology and Organization in Communist China, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1968). 64. Ithiel de Sola Pool, et al., Candidates, Issues and Strate­ gies : A Computer Simulation of the 1960 and__1964 President­ ial Elections, 2nd rev. ed. (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1965).

65. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1963). 66. Philip J. Stone et al., General Inquirer: A Computer Approac? to Content Analysis (Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1966). 67. Charles L. Taylor, ed., Aggregate Data Analysis: Political and Social Indicators in Cross-National Research (Atlantic Highlands, NJ.: The Humanities Press, 1968).

68. Dennis Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Associates, 1972); Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Peste] Mankind at the Turning Point (NY: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1974). For a critical approach, see H.S.D. Cole et al., Models of Doom (NY: Universe Books, 1973); Bruno Fritsch, Growth Limita­ tion and Political Power (Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger Publ. Co., 1976); and Fred Hirsch, Social Limits to Growth (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1976).

69. Karl W. Deutsch, Bruno Fritsch, Helio Jaguaribe and Andrei Markovits, eds., Problems of World Modeling: Political and Social Implications (Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger, 1977). 15

70. Stuart Bremer, Simulated Worlds: A Computer Model of Decision-Making (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton Ü. Press, 1977).

71. See reference to Friedrich’s work in Note 6; and „Quincy Wright, A Study of War, 2nd ed. (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1965) . 72. _._. On political communication, see Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press,.1941); Richard L. Merritt, ed., Communication in International Politics (Urbana, II.: U. of Illinois Press, 1972); Karl W. Deutsch, Politics and Government: How People Decide Their Fate, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974); Frieder Naschold, op. cit. (reference 51); Fred Greenstein, op. cit. (reference 27); B. Oilman, Alienation: Studies in the History and Theory of Politics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. Press, 1976); Sidney Verba and N.H. Nie, op. cit. (reference 31); Suzanne Keller, Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society (NY: Random House, 1963); Robert Putnam, The Beliefs of Politicians (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1973); and Ronald Inglehard, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1977).

73. Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innova­ tion in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960); Christian Bay, The Structure_of Freedom, rev. ed. (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1970); Richard A. Falk, A Study of Future Worlds (NY: Free Press, 1975), This Endangered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival (NY: Random House, 1972), and A Global Approach to National Policy (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard U. Press, 1975); Saul Mendlovitz, On The Creation of a Just World Order: Preferred Worlds for the 1990's (NY: Free Press, 1975); Anatol Rapoport, Strategy and Conscience (NY: Harper, 1964), and his Science and the Goals of Man: A Study in Semantic Orientation (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1971).

74. 1970 Survey conducted by the Columbia U. Bureau of Applied Social Research for the American Political Science Association.