contents...list of boxes xiii preface xvi acknowledgements xviii part 1 theories of politics 1 what...

List of boxes xiii

Preface xvi

Acknowledgements xviii

P A R T 1

Theories of Politics

1 What is Politics? 3

Defining politics 4

Politics as the art of government 5

Politics as public affairs 7

Politics as compromise and consensus 9

Politics as power 10

Studying politics 13

Approaches to the study of politics 13

The philosophical tradition 13The empirical tradition 14The scientific tradition 14Recent developments 15

Can the study of politics be scientific? 17

Concepts, models and theories 18

Summary 21

Questions for discussion 22

Further reading 22

2 Governments, Systems andRegimes 25

Traditional systems of classification 26

Why classify political systems? 26

Classical typologies 27

The ‘three worlds’ typology 29

Regimes of the modern world 30

Western polyarchies 32

New democracies 34

East Asian regimes 36

Islamic regimes 38

Military regimes 39

Summary 39


Further reading 40

3 Political Ideologies 43

What is political ideology? 44

Liberalism 45

Elements of liberalism 45

Classical liberalism 47

Modern liberalism 47

Conservatism 48

Elements of conservatism 49

Paternalistic conservatism 50

The New Right 51

Neoliberalism 52Neoconservatism 52

Socialism 53

Elements of socialism 54

Marxism 55

Elements of Marxism 56Orthodox communism 57Modern Marxism 58

Social democracy 59

Third way 60

Other ideological traditions 61

Fascism 61

Anarchism 62

Feminism 63

Environmentalism 64

Religious fundamentalism 65

The end of ideology? 67

Summary 68


Further reading 69

Contents

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page vii

C O N T E N T S

4 Democracy 71

Defining democracy 72

Who are the people? 72

How should the people rule? 73

How far should popular rule extend? 75

Models of democracy 75

Classical democracy 76

Protective democracy 77

Developmental democracy 78

People’s democracy 80

Democracy in practice: rival views 81

Pluralist view 82

Elitist view 83

Corporatist view 84

New Right view 86

Marxist view 86

Summary 87


Further reading 88

5 The State 89

What is the state? 90

Rival theories of the state 92

The pluralist state 92

The capitalist state 94

The leviathan state 96

The patriarchal state 97

The role of the state 99

Minimal states 99

Developmental states 100

Social-democratic states 101

Collectivized states 101

Totalitarian states 102

The state in a global era 102

The state and globalization 102

State transformation 104

Summary 105


Further reading 106

P A R T 2

Nations and Globalization

6 Nations and Nationalism 109

What is a nation? 110

Nations as cultural communities 111

Nations as political communities 113

Varieties of nationalism 115

Liberal nationalism 115

Conservative nationalism 118

Expansionist nationalism 119

Anticolonial nationalism 121

A future for the nation-state? 123

Summary 124


Further reading 125

7 Global Politics 127

Understanding world politics 128

Idealism 128

Realism 130

Pluralism 131

Marxism 132

Twenth-first-century world order 133

From biopolarity to unipolarity 133

The ‘war on terror’ 136

Rise of multipolarity 140

Dynamics of globalization 143

Globalizing tendencies 143

Globalization: theories and debates 145

Regionalization 149

The European Union 151

Global governance 156

Towards world government? 156

The United Nations 158

Summary 160


Further reading 161

viii

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page viii

C O N T E N T S

8 Subnational Politics 163

Centralization or decentralization? 164

Centre–periphery relationships 165

Federal systems 166

Why federalism? 167Features of federalism 168Assessment of federalism 170

Unitary systems 171

Local government 172Devolution 173

Ethnic and community politics 175

The rise of ethnic politics 175

A politics of community? 178

Summary 179


Further reading 180

P A R T 3

Political Interaction

9 The Economy and Society 183

Economic systems 184

Capitalisms of the world 185

Enterprise capitalism 186Social capitalism 188Collective capitalism 188Managed or unmanaged capitalism? 189

Varieties of socialism 191

State socialism 193Market socialism 193

Is there an economic ‘third way’? 194

Social structure and divisions 195

Social class 197

The rise and fall of class politics 197Who are the underclass? 199

Race 200

Gender 201

Summary 202


Further reading 203

10 Political Culture, Identity andLegitimacy 205

Political culture 206

Civic culture or ideological hegemony? 206

Decline of social capital? 209

Identity politics and multiculturalism 212

Rise of identity politics 212

Models of multiculturalism 214

Drawbacks of multiculturalism 217

Legitimacy and political stability 219

Legitimizing power 219

Legitimation crises 222

Why do revolutions occur? 224Marxist theories of revolution 224Non-Marxist theories of revolution 226

Summary 228


Further reading 229

11 Mass Media and PoliticalCommunication 231

Theories of the mass media 232

Pluralist model 233

Dominant-ideology model 233

Elite-values model 234

Market model 235

Media, democracy and governance 235

Custodians of democracy? 235

Mass media and governance 238

Media globalization 240

Political communication 241

Propaganda machines 241

Politics of spin 243

Summary 244


Further reading 245

12 Representation, Elections andVoting 247

Representation 248

ix

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page ix

C O N T E N T S

Theories of representation 248Trustee model 249Delegate model 249Mandate model 251Resemblance model 252

Elections 253

Functions of elections 254

Electoral systems: debates and controversies 256

What do elections mean? 264

Voting behaviour 265

Theories of voting 266Party-identification model 266Sociological model 267Rational-choice model 267Dominant-ideology model 268

Summary 268


Further reading 269

13 Parties and Party Systems 271

Party politics 272

Types of party 273

Functions of parties 275Representation 276Elite formation and recruitment 278Goal formulation 278Interest articulation and aggregation 278Socialization and mobilization 279Organization of government 279

Party organization: where does power lie? 280

Party systems 282

One-party systems 283

Two-party systems 284

Dominant-party systems 286

Multiparty systems 287

The decline of parties? 289

Summary 290


Further reading 291

14 Groups, Interests andMovements 293

Group politics 294

Types of group 294

Communal groups 295Institutional groups 295Associational groups 295

Models of group politics 297

Pluralist model 297Corporatist model 299New Right model 300

Patterns of group politics 301

How important are interest groups? 301How do groups exert influence? 304

Social movements 307

New social movements 308

Summary 310


Further reading 311

P A R T 4

Machinery of Government

15 Constitutions, the Law andJudiciaries 315

Constitutions 316

Classifying constitutions 317

The purpose of a constitution 321

Empowering states 322Establishing values and goals 322Providing government stability 323Protecting freedom 323Legitimizing regimes 324

Do constitutions matter? 324

The law 325

Law, morality and politics 325

The judiciary 328

Are judges political? 329

Do judges make policy? 330

Summary 333


Further reading 334

16 Assemblies 335

Role of assemblies 336

x

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page x

C O N T E N T S

Parliamentary systems and presidentialsystems 337

Functions of assemblies 340

Legislation 340Representation 341Scrutiny and oversight 342Recruitment and training 342Legitimacy 343

Structure of assemblies 343

One chamber or two? 344

Committee systems 347

Performance of assemblies 348

Do assemblies make policy? 348

Why are assemblies in decline? 351

Disciplined political parties 352‘Big’ government 352Lack of leadership 353Interest group and media power 353

The rise of assemblies? 353

Summary 354


Further reading 355

17 Political Executives 357

Role of the executive 358

Who’s who in the executive? 358

Functions of political executives 359

Ceremonial leadership 360Policy-making leadership 360Popular leadership 360Bureaucratic leadership 361Crisis leadership 361

Power in the executive: who leads? 361

Presidents 362

Prime ministers 366

Cabinets 371

The politics of leadership 372

Theories of leadership 373

Styles of leadership 376

Summary 378


Further reading 379

18 Bureaucracies 381

Theories of bureaucracy 382

Rational-administrative model 382

Power-bloc model 384

Bureaucratic oversupply model 385

Role of bureaucracies 386

Functions of bureaucracies 386

Administration 387

Policy advice 387

Articulating interests 388

Political stability 388

Organization of bureaucracies 389

Bureaucratic power: out of control? 392

Sources of bureaucratic power 392

How can bureaucrats be controlled? 395

Political accountability 395

Politicization 397

Counter-bureaucracies 398

Summary 399


Further reading 400

19 Militaries and Police Forces 401

The military and politics 402

Role of the military 403

Instrument of war 403

Guarantee of domestic order 404

Interest group 405

Alternative to civilian rule 407

Controlling the military 408

When does the military seize power? 410

The police and politics 413

Roles of the police 414

Civil policing 414

Political policing 415

Police states 417

Political control and accountability 418

Summary 420


Further reading 421

xi

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page xi

C O N T E N T S

P A R T 5

Policy and Performance

20 Policy Process and SystemPerformance 425

The policy process 426

Theories of decision-making 426

Rational actor models 426Incremental models 427Bureaucratic organization models 428Belief system models 429

Stages in the policy process 430

Initiation 430

Formulation 432Implementation 434Evaluation 435

System performance 437

Stability performance 437

Material performance 439

Citizenship performance 440

Democracy performance 441

Summary 443


Further reading 444

Glossary of Political Terms 445

Bibliography 461

Index 471

xii

0230_524974_03_previi.qxd 28/2/07 1:22 pm Page xii

What is Politics?

Politics is exciting because people disagree. They disagree about how they shouldlive. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed?Should society be based on cooperation or conflict? And so on. They also disagreeabout how such matters should be resolved. How should collective decisions bemade? Who should have a say? How much influence should each person have? Andso forth. For Aristotle, this made politics the ‘master science’: that is, nothing lessthan the activity through which human beings attempt to improve their lives andcreate the Good Society. Politics is, above all, a social activity. It is always a dialogue,and never a monologue. Solitary individuals such as Robinson Crusoe may be ableto develop a simple economy, produce art, and so on, but they cannot engage in politics. Politics emerges only with the arrival of a Man (or Woman) Friday. Never-theless, the disagreement that lies at the heart of politics also extends to the nature ofthe subject and how it should be studied. People disagree about both what it is thatmakes social interaction ‘political’, and how political activity can best be analysedand explained.

The central issues examined in this chapter are as follows:

Key issues

�What are the defining features of politics as an activity?

�How has ‘politics’ been understood by various thinkers and traditions?

�Does politics take place within all social institutions, or only in some?

�What approaches to the study of politics as an academic discipline havebeen adopted?

�Can the study of politics be scientific?�What roles do concepts, models and theories play in political analysis?

Contents

Defining politics 4Politics as the art of

government 5Politics as public affairs 7Politics as compromise

and consensus 9Politics as power 10

Studying politics 13Approaches to the study of

politics 13Can the study of politics be

scientific? 17Concepts, models and

theories 18

Summary/Questionsfor discussion/Furtherreading 22

‘Man is by nature a political animal.’AR I S T O T L E , Politics, 1

1

CH

AP

TER

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 3

1 · W H A T I S P O L I T I C S ?

� Defining politicsPolitics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserveand amend the general rules under which they live. Although politics is also anacademic subject (sometimes indicated by the use of ‘Politics’ with a capital P), it isthen clearly the study of this activity. Politics is thus inextricably linked to thephenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence of rivalopinions, different wants, competing needs and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. On the other hand, peoplerecognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, theymust work with others – hence Hannah Arendt’s (see p. 9) definition of politicalpower as ‘acting in concert’. This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as aprocess of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests arereconciled with one another. However, politics in this broad sense is better thoughtof as a search for conflict resolution than as its achievement, as not all conflicts are,or can be, resolved. Nevertheless, the inescapable presence of diversity (we are not allalike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is aninevitable feature of the human condition.

Any attempt to clarify the meaning of ‘politics’ must nevertheless address twomajor problems. The first is the mass of associations that the word has when used ineveryday language; in other words, politics is a ‘loaded’ term. Whereas most peoplethink of, say, economics, geography, history and biology simply as academic sub-jects, few people come to politics without preconceptions. Many, for instance, auto-matically assume that students and teachers of politics must in some way be biased,finding it difficult to believe that the subject can be approached in an impartial anddispassionate manner. To make matters worse, politics is usually thought of as a‘dirty’ word: it conjures up images of trouble, disruption and even violence on theone hand, and deceit, manipulation and lies on the other. There is nothing newabout such associations. As long ago as 1775, Samuel Johnson dismissed politics as‘nothing more than a means of rising in the world’, while in the nineteenth centurythe US historian Henry Adams summed up politics as ‘the systematic organizationof hatreds’. Any attempt to define politics therefore entails trying to disentangle theterm from such associations. Not uncommonly, this has meant attempting to rescuethe term from its unsavoury reputation by establishing that politics is a valuable,even laudable, activity.

The second and more intractable difficulty is that even respected authoritiescannot agree what the subject is about. Politics is defined in such different ways: asthe exercise of power, the exercise of authority, the making of collective decisions,the allocation of scarce resources, the practice of deception and manipulation, andso on. The virtue of the definition advanced in this text, ‘the making, preserving andamending of general social rules’, is that it is sufficiently broad to encompass most, ifnot all, of the competing definitions. However, problems arise when the definition isunpacked, or when the meaning is refined. For instance, does ‘politics’ refer to aparticular way in which rules are made, preserved or amended (that is, peacefully, bydebate), or to all such processes? Similarly, is politics practised in all social contextsand institutions, or only in certain ones (that is, government and public life)?

From this perspective, politics may be treated as an ‘essentially contested’ concept(see p. 19), in the sense that the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate mean-

Conflict: Competition betweenopposing forces, reflecting adiversity of opinions,preferences, needs orinterests.

Cooperation: Workingtogether; achieving goalsthrough collective action.

4

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 4

D E F I N I N G P O L I T I C S

ings. On the other hand, these different views may simply consist of contrastingconceptions of the same, if necessarily vague, concept. Whether we are dealing withrival concepts or alternative conceptions, the debate about ‘what is politics?’ is worthpursuing because it exposes some of the deepest intellectual and ideological dis-agreements in the academic study of the subject. The different views of politicsexamined here are as follows:

• politics as the art of government

• politics as public affairs

• politics as compromise and consensus

• politics as power and the distribution of resources.

Politics as the art of government‘Politics is not a science ... but an art’, Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have toldthe German Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, theexercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collectivedecisions. This is perhaps the classical definition of politics, developed from theoriginal meaning of the term in Ancient Greece.

The word ‘politics’ is derived from polis, meaning literally city-state. AncientGreek society was divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of whichpossessed its own system of government. The largest and most influential of thesecity-states was Athens, often portrayed as the cradle of democratic government. Inthis light, politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis – in effect,‘what concerns the polis’. The modern form of this definition is therefore ‘what concerns the state’ (see p. 91). This view of politics is clearly evident in the everydayuse of the term: people are said to be ‘in politics’ when they hold public office, or tobe ‘entering politics’ when they seek to do so. It is also a definition that academicpolitical science has helped to perpetuate.

In many ways, the notion that politics amounts to ‘what concerns the state’ is thetraditional view of the discipline, reflected in the tendency for academic study tofocus upon the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics is inessence to study government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority.This view is advanced in the writings of the influential US political scientist DavidEaston (1979, 1981), who defined politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values’.By this he meant that politics encompasses the various processes through which government responds to pressures from the larger society, in particular by allocatingbenefits, rewards or penalties. ‘Authoritative values’ are therefore ones that arewidely accepted in society, and are considered binding by the mass of citizens. In this view, politics is associated with ‘policy’ (see p. 426): that is, with formal orauthoritative decisions that establish a plan of action for the community.

However, what is striking about this definition is that it offers a highly restrictedview of politics. Politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organ-ization centred upon the machinery of government. Politics is therefore practised incabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and the like, and it isengaged in by a limited and specific group of people, notably politicians, civil servantsand lobbyists. This means that most people, most institutions and most social activitiescan be regarded as being ‘outside’ politics. Businesses, schools and other educationalinstitutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘nonpolitical’,

Polis: (Greek) City-state;classically understood to implythe highest or most desirableform of social organization.

Polity: A society organizedthrough the exercise of politicalauthority; for Aristotle, rule bythe many in the interests of all.

5

Authority

Authority can most simplybe defined as ‘legitimatepower’. Whereas power isthe ability to influence thebehaviour of others,authority is the right to doso. Authority is thereforebased on an acknowledgedduty to obey rather than onany form of coercion ormanipulation. In this sense,authority is power cloakedin legitimacy or rightfulness.Weber (see p. 220)distinguished between threekinds of authority, based onthe different grounds uponwhich obedience can beestablished: traditionalauthority is rooted inhistory; charismaticauthority stems frompersonality; andlegal–rational authority isgrounded in a set ofimpersonal rules (see thesection on legitimizingpower, pp. 219–22).

Concept

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 5


because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’. By the same token, to portraypolitics as an essentially state-bound activity is to ignore the increasingly importantinternational or global influences upon modern life, such as the impact of trans-national technology and multinational corporations. In this sense, this definition ofpolitics is a hangover from the days when the nation-state (see p. 123) could still beregarded as an independent actor in world affairs. Moreover, there is a growingrecognition that the task of managing complex societies is no longer simply carriedout by government but involves a wide range of public and private sector bodies.This is reflected in the idea that government is being replaced by ‘governance’.

This definition can, however, be narrowed still further. This is evident in thetendency to treat politics as the equivalent of party politics. In other words, the realmof ‘the political’ is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated byideological beliefs, and who seek to advance them through membership of a formalorganization such as a political party. This is the sense in which politicians aredescribed as ‘political’, whereas civil servants are seen as ‘nonpolitical’, as long as, ofcourse, they act in a neutral and professional fashion. Similarly, judges are taken tobe ‘nonpolitical’ figures while they interpret the law impartially and in accordancewith the available evidence, but they may be accused of being ‘political’ if theirjudgement is influenced by personal preferences or some other form of bias.

6

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

Italian politician and author. The son of a civillawyer, Machiavelli’s knowledge of public lifewas gained from a sometimes precariousexistence in politically unstable Florence. Heserved as Second Chancellor (1498–1512),and was despatched on missions to France,Germany and throughout Italy. After a briefperiod of imprisonment and the restoration ofMedici rule, Machiavelli embarked on aliterary career. His major work, The Prince,published in 1531, drew heavily upon his

first-hand observations of the statecraft ofCesare Borgia and the power politics thatdominated his period. It was written as aguide for the future prince of a united Italy.The adjective ‘Machiavellian’ subsequentlycame to mean ‘cunning and duplicitous’.

Governance

Governance is a broader term than government (see p. 26). Although it still has no settled oragreed definition, it refers, in its widest sense, to the various ways through which social life iscoordinated. Government can therefore be seen as one of the institutions involved ingovernance; it is possible to have ‘governance without government’ (Rhodes, 1996). Theprincipal modes of governance are markets, hierarchies and networks. The wider use of theterm reflects a blurring of the state/society distinction, resulting from changes such as thedevelopment of new forms of public management, the growth of public–private partnerships,the increasing importance of policy networks (see p. 432), and the greater impact of bothsupranational and subnational organizations (‘multi-level governance’). While some associategovernance with a shift away from command and control mechanisms to a reliance onconsultation and bargaining, others argue that it implies a preference for ‘less government’and the free market.

Concept

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 6


The link between politics and the affairs of the state also helps to explain whynegative or pejorative images have so often been attached to politics. This is because,in the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians.Put brutally, politicians are often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personalambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction. Indeed,this perception has become more common in the modern period as intensifiedmedia exposure has more effectively brought to light examples of corruption anddishonesty, giving rise to the phenomenon of anti-politics. This rejection of the personnel and machinery of conventional political life is rooted in a view of politics as a self-serving, two-faced and unprincipled activity, clearly evident in the use of derogatory phrases such as ‘office politics’ and ‘politicking’. Such an image of politics is sometimes traced back to the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, who, in ThePrince ([1531] 1961), developed a strictly realistic account of politics that drewattention to the use by political leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation.

Such a negative view of politics reflects the essentially liberal perception that, asindividuals are self-interested, political power is corrupting, because it encouragesthose ‘in power’ to exploit their position for personal advantage and at the expenseof others. This is famously expressed in Lord Acton’s (1834–1902) aphorism: ‘powertends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Nevertheless, few whoview politics in this way doubt that political activity is an inevitable and permanentfeature of social existence. However venal politicians may be, there is a general, ifgrudging, acceptance that they are always with us. Without some kind of mechanismfor allocating authoritative values, society would simply disintegrate into a civil warof each against all, as the early social-contract theorists argued (see p. 93). The task istherefore not to abolish politicians and bring politics to an end, but rather to ensurethat politics is conducted within a framework of checks and constraints that ensurethat governmental power is not abused.

Politics as public affairsA second and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm ofgovernment to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words,the distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the nonpolitical’ coincides with the divisionbetween an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a privatesphere. Such a view of politics is often traced back to the work of the famous Greek

7

Anti-politics: Disillusionmentwith formal and establishedpolitical processes, reflectedin nonparticipation, support forantisystem parties, or the useof direct action.

Power

Power, in its broadestsense, is the ability toachieve a desired outcome,and it is sometimesreferred to in terms of the‘power to’ do something.This includes everythingfrom the ability to keeponeself alive to the ability ofgovernment to promoteeconomic growth. Inpolitics, however, power isusually thought of as arelationship: that is, as theability to influence thebehaviour of others in amanner not of theirchoosing. It is referred to interms of having ‘powerover’ people. More narrowly,power may be associatedwith the ability to punish orreward, bringing it close toforce or manipulation, incontrast to ‘influence’,which also encompassesrational persuasion (see thefaces of power focus box, p. 11). A distinction hasalso been drawn between‘hard’ power and ‘soft’power (see p. 142).

Concept

Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

Greek philosopher. Aristotle was a student of Plato (see p. 12) and tutor of the young Alexander the Great. Heestablished his own school of philosophy in Athens in 335 BCE; this was called the ‘peripatetic school’ after histendency to walk up and down as he talked. His 22 survivingtreatises, compiled as lecture notes, range over logic,physics, metaphysics, astronomy, meteorology, biology,ethics and politics. In the Middle Ages, Aristotle’s workbecame the foundation of Islamic philosophy, and it waslater incorporated into Christian theology. His best knownpolitical work is Politics, a study of the ideal constitution.

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 7

philosopher Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a politicalanimal’, by which he meant that it is only within a political community that humanbeings can live ‘the good life’. From this viewpoint, then, politics is an ethical activityconcerned with creating a ‘just society’; it is what Aristotle called the ‘master science’.

However, where should the line between ‘public’ life and ‘private’ life be drawn?The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm conformsto the division between the state and civil society. The institutions of the state (theapparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social-security systemand so forth) can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for thecollective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’sexpense, out of taxation. In contrast, civil society consists of what Edmund Burke(see p. 49) called the ‘little platoons’, institutions such as the family and kinshipgroups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community groups and so on thatare ‘private’ in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society. On the basis of this‘public/private’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself andthe responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of lifethat individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic,personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘nonpolitical’.

An alternative ‘public/private’ divide is sometimes defined in terms of a further andmore subtle distinction, namely that between ‘the political’ and ‘the personal’ (seeFigure 1.1). Although civil society can be distinguished from the state, it neverthelesscontains a range of institutions that are thought of as ‘public’ in the wider sense thatthey are open institutions, operating in public, to which the public has access. One ofthe crucial implications of this is that it broadens our notion of the political, transfer-ring the economy in particular from the private to the public realm. A form of politicscan thus be found in the workplace. Nevertheless, although this view regards institu-tions such as businesses, community groups, clubs and trade unions as ‘public’, itremains a restricted view of politics. According to this perspective, politics does not,and should not, infringe upon ‘personal’ affairs and institutions. Feminist thinkers inparticular have pointed out that this implies that politics effectively stops at the frontdoor; it does not take place in the family, in domestic life, or in personal relationships.This view is illustrated, for example, by the tendency of politicians to draw a cleardistinction between their professional conduct and their personal or domesticbehaviour. By classifying, say, cheating on their partners or treating their childrenbadly as ‘personal’ matters, they are able to deny the political significance of suchbehaviour on the grounds that it does not touch on their conduct of public affairs.

1 · W H A T I S P O L I T I C S ?8

Civil society

The term ‘civil society’ hasbeen defined in a variety ofways. Originally, it meant a‘political community’, asociety governed by law,under the authority of astate. More commonly, it isdistinguished from thestate, and the term is usedto describe institutions thatare ‘private’ in that they areindependent fromgovernment and organizedby individuals in pursuit oftheir own ends. ‘Civilsociety’ therefore refers toa realm of autonomousgroups and associations:businesses, interestgroups, clubs, families andso on. Hegel (see p. 90),however, distinguishedbetween the family and civilsociety, viewing the latteras a sphere of egoism andselfishness. The term‘global civil society’ refersto transnationalorganizations, such asNGOs (see p. 297) andsocial movements (see p. 308) that are ‘private’,non-profit-making, self-governing and voluntary.

Concept

Fig. 1.1 Two views of thepublic/private divide

Public Private

The state:apparatus of government

Civil society:autonomous bodies: businesses,

trade unions, clubs, families, and so on

Public realm:politics, commerce, work, art,

culture, and so on

Personal realm:family and domestic life

Public Private

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 8


The view of politics as an essentially ‘public’ activity has generated both positiveand negative images. In a tradition dating back to Aristotle, politics has been seen as anoble and enlightened activity precisely because of its ‘public’ character. This positionwas firmly endorsed by Hannah Arendt, who argued in The Human Condition(1958) that politics is the most important form of human activity because it involvesinteraction amongst free and equal citizens. It thus gives meaning to life and affirmsthe uniqueness of each individual. Theorists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (seep. 79) and John Stuart Mill (see p. 48) who portrayed political participation as agood in itself have drawn similar conclusions. Rousseau argued that only throughthe direct and continuous participation of all citizens in political life can the state bebound to the common good, or what he called the ‘general will’ (see p. 79). In Mill’sview, involvement in ‘public’ affairs is educational in that it promotes the personal,moral and intellectual development of the individual.

In sharp contrast, however, politics as public activity has also been portrayed as aform of unwanted interference. Liberal theorists in particular have exhibited a pre-ference for civil society over the state, on the grounds that ‘private’ life is a realm ofchoice, personal freedom and individual responsibility. This is most clearly demon-strated by attempts to narrow the realm of ‘the political’, commonly expressed as thewish to ‘keep politics out of’ private activities such as business, sport and family life.From this point of view, politics is unwholesome quite simply because it preventspeople acting as they choose. For example, it may interfere with how firms conducttheir business, or with how and with whom we play sports, or with how we bring upour children.

Politics as compromise and consensusThe third conception of politics relates not so much to the arena within which politicsis conducted as to the way in which decisions are made. Specifically, politics is seenas a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise, conciliation andnegotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is impliedwhen politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent inthe everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem

9

Hannah Arendt (1906–75)

German political theorist and philosopher. Hannah Arendtwas brought up in a middle-class Jewish family. She fledGermany in 1933 to escape from Nazism, and finally settledin the USA, where her major work was produced. Her wide-ranging, even idiosyncratic, writing was influenced by theexistentialism of Heidegger (1889–1976) and Jaspers(1883–1969); she described it as ‘thinking withoutbarriers’. Her major works include The Origins ofTotalitarianism (1951), which drew parallels between NaziGermany and Stalinist Russia, her major philosophical workThe Human Condition (1958), On Revolution (1963) andEichmann in Jerusalem (1963). The final work stimulatedparticular controversy because it stressed the ‘banality ofevil’, by portraying Eichmann as a Nazi functionary ratherthan as a raving ideologue.

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 9


as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what isoften called a ‘military’ solution. Once again, this view of politics has been tracedback to the writings of Aristotle and, in particular, to his belief that what he called‘polity’ is the ideal system of government, as it is ‘mixed’ in the sense that it com-bines both aristocratic and democratic features. One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick. In his classic study In Defence of Politics,Crick offered the following definition:

Politics [is] the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are concili-ated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare andthe survival of the whole community. (Crick, [1962] 2000:21)

In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting thatconflict is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possesspower they must be conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he por-trayed politics as ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliationrather than violence and coercion’ (p. 30). Such a view of politics reflects a deepcommitment to liberal–rationalist principles. It is based on resolute faith in the efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is characterizedby consensus rather than by irreconcilable conflict. In other words, the disagree-ments that exist can be resolved without resort to intimidation and violence. Critics,however, point out that Crick’s conception of politics is heavily biased towards theform of politics that takes place in western pluralist democracies: in effect, heequated politics with electoral choice and party competition. As a result, his modelhas little to tell us about, say, one-party states or military regimes.

This view of politics has an unmistakeably positive character. Politics is certainlyno utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides,leaving no one perfectly satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alterna-tives: bloodshed and brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized andcivilizing force. People should be encouraged to respect politics as an activity, andshould be prepared to engage in the political life of their own community. Never-theless, a failure to understand that politics as a process of compromise and reconcil-iation is neccessarily frustrating and difficult (because in involves listening carefullyto the opinions of others) may have contributed to a growing popular disenchant-ment with democratic politics across much of the developed world. As Stoker(2006:10) put it, ‘Politics is designed to disappoint’; its outcomes are ‘often messy,ambiguous and never final’.

Politics as powerThe fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Ratherthan confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘pub-lic’ realm) this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner ofhuman existence. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in What is Politics? The Activityand Its Study (2004), ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal andinformal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. In thissense, politics takes place at every level of social interaction; it can be found withinfamilies and amongst small groups of friends just as much as amongst nations andon the global stage. However, what is it that is distinctive about political activity?What marks off politics from any other form of social behaviour?

10

Consensus

The term ‘consensus’means agreement, but itusually refers to anagreement of a particularkind. It implies, first, abroad agreement, the termsof which are accepted by awide range of individuals orgroups. Second, it impliesan agreement aboutfundamental or underlyingprinciples, as opposed to aprecise or exact agreement.In other words, aconsensus permitsdisagreement on matters ofemphasis or detail. Theterm ‘consensus politics’ isused in two senses. A procedural consensus is a willingness to makedecisions throughconsultation andbargaining, either betweenpolitical parties or betweengovernment and majorinterests. A substantiveconsensus is an overlap ofthe ideological positions oftwo or more politicalparties, reflected inagreement aboutfundamental policy goals.Examples are the UK’spost-1945 social-democratic consensus, andGermany’s social-marketconsensus.

Concept

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 10


At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution and use ofresources in the course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. This notion was neatlysummed up in the title of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When,How? (1936). From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but theessential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while humanneeds and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and powercan be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted.

Advocates of this view of power include feminists and Marxists. Modern feminists have shown particular interest in the idea of ‘the political’. This arises fromthe fact that conventional definitions of politics effectively exclude women frompolitical life. Women have traditionally been confined to a ‘private’ sphere of

11

Focus on . . .

‘Faces’ of power

Power can be said to be exercised whenever A gets B to do something that Bwould not otherwise have done. However, A can influence B in various ways. Thisallows us to distinguish between different dimensions or ‘faces’ of power:

� Power as decision-making: This face of power consists of conscious actionsthat in some way influence the content of decisions. The classic account of thisform of power is found in Robert Dahl’s Who Governs? Democracy and Power inan American City (1961), which made judgements about who had power byanalysing decisions in the light of the known preferences of the actors involved.Such decisions can nevertheless be influenced in a variety of ways. In ThreeFaces of Power (1989), Keith Boulding distinguished between the use of force orintimidation (the stick), productive exchanges involving mutual gain (the deal), andthe creation of obligations, loyalty and commitment (the kiss).

� Power as agenda setting: The second face of power, as suggested byBachrach and Baratz (1962), is the ability to prevent decisions being made: thatis, in effect, ‘non-decision-making’. This involves the ability to set or control thepolitical agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in thefirst place. For instance, private businesses may exert power both by campaigningto defeat proposed consumer-protection legislation (first face), and by lobbyingparties and politicians to prevent the question of consumer rights being publiclydiscussed (second face).

� Power as thought control: The third face of power is the ability to influenceanother by shaping what he or she thinks, wants, or needs. This is powerexpressed as ideological indoctrination or psychological control. This is whatLukes (2004) called the radical view of power, and it overlaps with the notion of‘soft’ power (see p. 142). An example of this would be the ability of advertising toshape consumer tastes, often by cultivating associations with a ‘brand’. Inpolitical life, the exercise of this form of power is seen in the use of propagandaand, more generally, in the impact of ideology (see p. 45).

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 11


existence, centred on the family and domestic responsibilities. In contrast, men havealways dominated conventional politics and other areas of ‘public’ life. Radical feminists have therefore attacked the ‘public/private’ divide, proclaiming insteadthat ‘the personal is the political’. This slogan neatly encapsulates the radical-feminist belief that what goes on in domestic, family and personal life is intenselypolitical, and indeed that it is the basis of all other political struggles. Clearly, a moreradical notion of politics underlies this position. This view was summed up by KateMillett in Sexual Politics (1969:23), in which she defined politics as ‘power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlledby another’. Feminists can therefore be said to be concerned with ‘the politics ofeveryday life’. In their view, relationships within the family, between husbands andwives, and between parents and children, are every bit as political as relationshipsbetween employers and workers, or between governments and citizens.

Marxists have used the term ‘politics’ in two senses. On one level, Marx (see p. 55)used ‘politics’ in a conventional sense to refer to the apparatus of the state. In the Com-munist Manifesto ([1848] 1967) he thus referred to political power as ‘merely the orga-nized power of one class for oppressing another’. For Marx, politics, together with lawand culture, are part of a ‘superstructure’ that is distinct from the economic ‘base’ thatis the real foundation of social life. However, he did not see the economic ‘base’ andthe legal and political ‘superstructure’ as entirely separate. He believed that the ‘super-structure’ arose out of, and reflected, the economic ‘base’. At a deeper level, politicalpower, in this view, is therefore rooted in the class system; as Lenin (see p. 81) put it,‘politics is the most concentrated form of economics’. As opposed to believing thatpolitics can be confined to the state and a narrow public sphere, Marxists can be said tobelieve that ‘the economic is political’. From this perspective, civil society, character-ized as Marxists believe it to be by class struggle, is the very heart of politics.

Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quitesimply, about oppression and subjugation. Radical feminists hold that society ispatriarchal, in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to malepower. Marxists traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is character-ized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. On the other hand,these negative implications are balanced against the fact that politics is also seen asthe means through which injustice and domination can be challenged. Marx, forinstance, predicted that class exploitation would be overthrown by a proletarianrevolution, and radical feminists proclaim the need for gender relations to be

12

Plato (427–347 BCE)

Greek philosopher. Plato was born of an aristocratic family. He became a follower ofSocrates, who is the principal figure in his ethical and philosophical dialogues. AfterSocrates’ death in 399 BCE, Plato founded his own academy in order to train the newAthenian ruling class. Plato taught that the material world consists of imperfect copies ofabstract and eternal ‘ideas’. His political philosophy, expounded in The Republic and TheLaws, is an attempt to describe the ideal state in terms of a theory of justice. Bothworks are decidedly authoritarian and pay no attention to individual liberty, believing thatpower should be vested in the hands of an educated elite, the philosopher kings. He wastherefore a firm critic of democracy. Plato’s work has exerted wide influence onChristianity and on European culture in general.

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 12

S T U D Y I N G P O L I T I C S

reordered through a sexual revolution. However, it is also clear that when politics isportrayed as power and domination it need not be seen as an inevitable feature ofsocial existence. Feminists look to an end of ‘sexual politics’ achieved through theconstruction of a nonsexist society, in which people will be valued according topersonal worth rather than on the basis of gender. Marxists believe that ‘class politics’ will end with the establishment of a classless communist society. This, inturn, will eventually lead to the ‘withering away’ of the state, bringing politics in theconventional sense also to an end.

� Studying politics

Approaches to the study of politicsDisagreement about the nature of political activity is matched by controversy aboutthe nature of politics as an academic discipline. One of the most ancient spheres ofintellectual enquiry, politics was originally seen as an arm of philosophy, history orlaw. Its central purpose was to uncover the principles upon which human societyshould be based. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, this philo-sophical emphasis was gradually displaced by an attempt to turn politics into ascientific discipline. The high point of this development was reached in the 1950sand 1960s with an open rejection of the earlier tradition as meaningless metaphysics.Since then, however, enthusiasm for a strict science of politics has waned, and therehas been a renewed recognition of the enduring importance of political values andnormative theories. If the ‘traditional’ search for universal values acceptable toeveryone has largely been abandoned, so has been the insistence that science (seep. 16) alone provides a means of disclosing truth. The resulting discipline is todaymore fertile and more exciting, precisely because it embraces a range of theoreticalapproaches and a variety of schools of analysis.

The philosophical traditionThe origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and a tradition usuallyreferred to as ‘political philosophy’. This involved a preoccupation with essentiallyethical, prescriptive or normative questions, reflecting a concern with what ‘should’,‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought about, rather than with what ‘is’. Plato and Aristotle areusually identified as the founding fathers of this tradition. Their ideas resurfaced inthe writings of medieval theorists such as Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas(1225–74). The central theme of Plato’s work, for instance, was an attempt todescribe the nature of the ideal society, which in his view took the form of a benigndictatorship dominated by a class of philosopher kings.

Such writings have formed the basis of what is called the ‘traditional’ approach topolitics. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have beencentral to political thought. Most commonly, it has taken the form of a history ofpolitical thought that focuses on a collection of ‘major’ thinkers (that spans, forinstance, Plato to Marx) and a canon of ‘classic’ texts. This approach has the charac-ter of literary analysis: it is interested primarily in examining what major thinkerssaid, how they developed or justified their views, and the intellectual context withinwhich they worked. Although such analysis may be carried out critically and scrupu-lously, it cannot be objective in any scientific sense, as it deals with normative ques-

Normative: The prescription ofvalues and standards ofconduct; what ‘should be’rather than what ‘is’.

Objective: External to theobserver, demonstrable;untainted by feelings, values orbias.

13

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 13


tions such as ‘why should I obey the state?’, ‘how should rewards be distributed?’ and‘what should the limits of individual freedom be?’.

The empirical traditionAlthough it was less prominent than normative theorizing, a descriptive or empiricaltradition can be traced back to the earliest days of political thought. It can be seen inAristotle’s attempt to classify constitutions (see pp. 27–8), in Machiavelli’s realisticaccount of statecraft, and in Montesquieu’s (see p. 336) sociological theory of govern-ment and law. In many ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now calledcomparative government, and they gave rise to an essentially institutional approach tothe discipline. In the USA and the UK in particular this developed into the dominanttradition of analysis. The empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by theattempt to offer a dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approachis ‘descriptive’ in that it seeks to analyse and explain, whereas the normative approachis ‘prescriptive’ in the sense that it makes judgements and offers recommendations.

Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical underpinning from thedoctrine of empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwardsthrough the work of theorists such as John Locke (see p. 47) and David Hume(1711–76). The doctrine of empiricism advanced the belief that experience is theonly basis of knowledge, and that therefore all hypotheses and theories should betested by a process of observation. By the nineteenth century, such ideas had developedinto what became known as positivism, an intellectual movement particularlyassociated with the writings of Auguste Comte (1798–1857). This doctrine pro-claimed that the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophicalenquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once sciencewas perceived to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure todevelop a science of politics became irresistible.

The scientific traditionThe first theorist to attempt to describe politics in scientific terms was Karl Marx.Using his so-called materialist conception of history (see p. 55), Marx strove touncover the driving force of historical development. This enabled him to make pre-dictions about the future based upon ‘laws’ that had the same status in terms ofproof as laws in the natural sciences. The vogue for scientific analysis was also takenup in the nineteenth century by mainstream analysis. In the 1870s, ‘political science’courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris and Columbia, and by1906 the American Political Science Review was being published. However, enthusi-asm for a science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence, moststrongly in the USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily uponbehaviouralism. For the first time, this gave politics reliably scientific credentials,because it provided what had previously been lacking: objective and quantifiabledata against which hypotheses could be tested. Political analysts such as David Easton proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences,and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best suited to the use of quant-itative research methods, such as voting behaviour, the behaviour of legislators, andthe behaviour of municipal politicians and lobbyists.

Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s onwards.In the first place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly constrained

Behaviouralism: The beliefthat social theories should beconstructed only on the basisof observable behaviour,providing quantifiable data forresearch.

14

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 14


the scope of political analysis, preventing it from going beyond what was directlyobservable. Although behavioural analysis undoubtedly produced, and continues toproduce, invaluable insights in fields such as voting studies, a narrow obsession withquantifiable data threatens to reduce the discipline of politics to little else. Moreworryingly, it inclined a generation of political scientists to turn their backs upon theentire tradition of normative political thought. Concepts such as ‘liberty’, ‘equality’,‘justice’ and ‘rights’ were sometimes discarded as being meaningless because theywere not empirically verifiable entities. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism grew asinterest in normative questions revived in the 1970s, as reflected in the writings oftheorists such as John Rawls (see p. 60) and Robert Nozick (see p. 100).

Moreover, the scientific credentials of behaviouralism started to be called intoquestion. The basis of the assertion that behaviouralism is objective and reliable isthe claim that it is ‘value-free’: that is, that it is not contaminated by ethical ornormative beliefs. However, if the focus of analysis is observable behaviour, it is difficult to do much more than describe the existing political arrangements, whichimplicitly means that the status quo is legitimized. This conservative value bias was demonstrated by the fact that ‘democracy’ was, in effect, redefined in terms ofobservable behaviour. Thus, instead of meaning ‘popular self-government’ (literally,government by the people), democracy came to stand for a struggle between competing elites to win power through the mechanism of popular election. In otherwords, democracy came to mean what goes on in the so-called democratic politicalsystems of the developed West.

Recent developmentsAmongst recent theoretical approaches to politics is what is called formal political the-ory, variously known as ‘political economy’, ‘public-choice theory’ (see p. 300) and‘rational-choice theory’. This approach to analysis draws heavily upon the example of economic theory in building up models based upon procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behaviour of the individuals involved.Most firmly established in the USA, and associated in particular with the so-called Virginia School, formal political theory provides at least a useful analytical device,which may provide insights into the actions of voters, lobbyists, bureaucrats andpoliticians, as well as into the behaviour of states within the international system. Thisapproach has had its broadest impact on political analysis in the form of what is calledinstitutional public-choice theory. The use of such techniques by writers such asAnthony Downs, Mancur Olson and William Niskanen, in fields such as party compe-tition, interest-group behaviour and the policy influence of bureaucrats, is discussedin later chapters. The approach has also been applied in the form of game theory,which has been developed more from the field of mathematics than from economics.It entails the use of first principles to analyse puzzles about individual behaviour. Thebest known example in game theory is the ‘prisoners’ dilemma’ (see Figure 1.2).

By no means, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis beenuniversally accepted. While its supporters claim that it introduces greater rigour intothe discussion of political phenomena, critics have questioned its basic assumptions. Itmay, for instance, overestimate human rationality in that it ignores the fact that peopleseldom possess a clear set of preferred goals and rarely make decisions in the light offull and accurate knowledge. Furthermore, in proceeding from an abstract model ofthe individual, rational-choice theory pays insufficient attention to social and histori-cal factors, failing to recognize, amongst other things, that human self- interestedness

Empirical: Based onobservation and experiment;empirical knowledge is derivedfrom sense data andexperience.

15

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 15


may be socially conditioned, and not merely innate. As a result, a variety of approacheshave come to be adopted for the study of politics as an academic discipline.

This has made modern political analysis both richer and more diverse. To tradi-tional normative, institutional and behavioural approaches have been added notonly rational-choice theory but also a wide range of more recent ideas and themes.Feminism has, particularly since the 1970s, raised awareness of the significance ofgender differences and patriarchal structures, questioning, in the process, estab-lished notions of ‘the political’. What is called ‘new institutionalism’ has shiftedattention away from the formal, structural aspects of institutions to, for instance,their significance within a larger context, their actual behaviour and the outcomes ofthe policy process. Green politics has challenged the anthropocentric (human-centred) emphasis of established political and social theory and championed holisticapproaches to political and social understanding. Critical theory, which is rooted

16

Science, scientism

Science (from the Latinscientia, meaning‘knowledge’) is a field ofstudy that aims to developreliable explanations ofphenomena throughrepeatable experiments,observation and deduction.The ‘scientific method’, bywhich hypotheses areverified (proved true) bytesting them against theavailable evidence, istherefore seen as a meansof disclosing value-free andobjective truth. Karl Popper(1902–94), however,suggested that science canonly falsify hypotheses,since ‘facts’ may always bedisproved by laterexperiments. Scientism isthe belief that the scientificmethod is the only sourceof reliable knowledge, andso should be applied tofields such as philosophy,history and politics, as wellas the natural sciences.Doctrines such as Marxism,utilitarianism (see p. 427)and racialism (see p. 120)are scientistic in thissense.

Concept Focus on . . .

The prisoners’ dilemma

Two criminals, held in separate cells, are faced with the choice of ‘squealing’ or‘not squealing’ on one another. If only one of them confesses, but he providesevidence to convict the other, he will be released without charge, while his partnerwill take the whole blame and be jailed for ten years. If both criminals confess,they will each be jailed for six years. If both refuse to confess, they will only beconvicted of a minor crime, and they will each receive a one-year sentence. Theoptions are shown in Figure 1.2.

In view of the dilemma confronting them it is likely that both criminals willconfess, fearing that if they do not the other will ‘squeal’ and they will receive themaximum sentence. Ironically, the game shows that rational behaviour can resultin the least favourable outcome (in which the prisoners jointly serve a total of 12years in jail). In effect, they are punished for their failure to cooperate or trust oneanother. However, if the game is repeated several times, it is possible that thecriminals will learn that self-interest is advanced by cooperation, which willencourage both to refuse to confess.

Fig. 1.2 Options in prisoners’ dilemma

A: B:6, 6

A: B:0, 10

A: B:10, 0

A: B:1, 1

Institution: A well-establishedbody with a formal role andstatus; more broadly, a set ofrules that ensure regular andpredictable behaviour, ‘therules of the game’.

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 16


in the neo-Marxism (see p. 96) of the Frankfurt School, established in 1923, hasextended the notion of critique to all social practices drawing on a wide range ofinfluences, including Freud and Weber (see p. 220). Postmodernism (see p. 67) hasquestioned the idea of absolute and universal truth and helped to spawn, amongstother things, discourse theory. Finally, a general but profoundly important shift isthat political philosophy and political science are now less likely to be seen as distinctmodes of enquiry, and still less as rivals. Instead, they have come to be accepted simply as contrasting ways of disclosing political knowledge.

Can the study of politics be scientific?Although it is widely accepted that the study of politics should be scientific in thebroad sense of being rigorous and critical, some have argued, as has been pointed out,that it can be scientific in a stricter sense: that is, that it can use the methodology of thenatural sciences. This claim has been advanced by Marxists and by positivist social scientists, and it was central to the ‘behavioural revolution’ of the 1950s. The attraction of a science of politics is clear. It promises an impartial and reliable means ofdistinguishing ‘truth’ from ‘falsehood’, thereby giving us access to objective knowl-edge about the political world. The key to achieving this is to distinguish between‘facts’ (empirical evidence) and ‘values’ (normative or ethical beliefs). Facts are objective in the sense that they can be demonstrated reliably and consistently; they can be proved. Values, by contrast, are inherently subjective, a matter of opinion.

However, any attempt to construct a science of politics must confront three diffi-culties. The first of these is the problem of data. For better or worse, human beingsare not tadpoles that can be taken into a laboratory or cells that can be observedunder a microscope. We cannot get ‘inside’ a human being, or carry out repeatableexperiments on human behaviour. What we can learn about individual behaviour istherefore limited and superficial. In the absence of exact data, we have no reliablemeans of testing our hypotheses. The only way round the problem is to ignore the thinking subject altogether by subscribing to the doctrine of determinism. Oneexample would be behaviourism (as opposed to behaviouralism), the school ofpsychology associated with John B. Watson (1878–1958) and B. F. Skinner(1904–90). This holds that human behaviour can ultimately be explained in terms ofconditioned reactions or reflexes. Another example is ‘dialectical materialism’, thecrude form of Marxism that dominated intellectual enquiry in the USSR.

Second, there are difficulties that stem from the existence of hidden values. Theidea that models and theories of politics are entirely value-free is difficult to sustainwhen examined closely. Facts and values are so closely intertwined that it is oftenimpossible to prise them apart. This is because theories are invariably constructedon the basis of assumptions about human nature, human society, the role of the stateand so on that have hidden political and ideological implications. A conservativevalue bias, for example, can be identified in behaviouralism, rational-choice theoriesand systems theory (see pp. 19–20). Similarly, feminist political theories are rootedin assumptions about the nature and significance of gender divisions.

Third, there is the myth of neutrality in the social sciences. Whereas naturalscientists may be able to approach their studies in an objective and impartial manner, holding no presuppositions about what they are going to discover, this isdifficult and perhaps impossible to achieve in politics. However politics is defined, itaddresses questions relating to the structure and functioning of the society in which

Discourse: Human interaction,especially communication;discourse may disclose orillustrate power relationships.

Determinism: The belief thathuman actions and choices areentirely conditioned by externalfactors; determinism impliesthat free will is a myth.

Bias: Sympathies or prejudicesthat (often unconsciously)affect human judgement; biasimplies distortion (see p. 238,the ‘political bias’ conceptbox).

17

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 17


we live and have grown up. Family background, social experience, economic posi-tion, personal sympathies and so on thus build into each and every one of us a set ofpreconceptions about politics and the world around us. This means that scientificobjectivity, in the sense of absolute impartiality or neutrality (see p. 329), mustalways remain an unachievable goal in political analysis, however rigorous ourresearch methods may be. Perhaps the greatest threat to the accumulation of reliableknowledge thus comes not from bias as such, but from the failure to acknowledgebias, reflected in bogus claims to political neutrality.

Concepts, models and theoriesConcepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis. However, as withmost things in politics, the analytical tools must be used with care. First, let us consider concepts. A concept is a general idea about something, usually expressed ina single word or a short phrase. A concept is more than a proper noun or the name ofa thing. There is, for example, a difference between talking about a cat (a particularand unique cat) and having a concept of a ‘cat’ (the idea of a cat). The concept of acat is not a ‘thing’ but an ‘idea’, an idea composed of the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character: ‘a furry mammal’, ‘small’, ‘domesticated’, ‘catches rats and mice’, and so on. The concept of ‘equality’ is thus a principle or ideal. This isdifferent from using the term to say that a runner has ‘equalled’ a world record, orthat an inheritance is to be shared ‘equally’ between two brothers. In the same way,the concept of ‘presidency’ refers not to any specific president, but rather to a set ofideas about the organization of executive power.

What, then, is the value of concepts? Concepts are the tools with which we think,criticize, argue, explain and analyse. Merely perceiving the external world does notin itself give us knowledge about it. In order to make sense of the world we must, in a sense, impose meaning upon it, and this we do through the construction of concepts. Quite simply, to treat a cat as a cat, we must first have a concept of what itis. Concepts also help us to classify objects by recognizing that they have similarforms or similar properties. A cat, for instance, is a member of the class of ‘cats’.Concepts are therefore ‘general’: they can relate to a number of objects, indeed toany object that complies with the characteristics of the general idea itself. It is noexaggeration to say that our knowledge of the political world is built up throughdeveloping and refining concepts that help us make sense of that world. Concepts, inthat sense, are the building blocks of human knowledge.

Nevertheless, concepts can also be slippery customers. In the first place, the polit-ical reality we seek to understand is constantly shifting and is highly complex. Thereis always the danger that concepts such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and ‘capital-ism’ will be more rounded and coherent than the unshapely realities they seek todescribe. Max Weber tried to overcome this problem by recognizing particular con-cepts as ‘ideal types’. This view implies that the concepts we use are constructed bysingling out certain basic or central features of the phenomenon in question, whichmeans that other features are downgraded or ignored altogether. The concept of‘revolution’ can be regarded as an ideal type in this sense, in that it draws attention toa process of fundamental and usually violent political change. It thus helps us makesense of, say, the 1789 French Revolution and the eastern European revolutions of1989–91 by highlighting important parallels between them. The concept must nevertheless be used with care because it can also conceal vital differences, and

18

Ideal type

An ideal type (sometimes‘pure type’) is a mentalconstruct in which anattempt is made to drawout meaning from anotherwise almost infinitelycomplex reality through thepresentation of a logicalextreme. Ideal types werefirst used in economics, forinstance, in the notion ofperfect competition.Championed in the socialsciences by Max Weber,ideal types are explanatorytools, not approximations ofreality; they neither‘exhaust reality’ nor offeran ethical ideal. Weberianexamples include types ofauthority (see p. 5) andbureaucracy (see p. 383).

Concept

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 18


thereby distort understanding – in this case, for example, about the ideological andsocial character of revolution. For this reason, it is better to think of concepts or idealtypes not as being ‘true’ or ‘false’, but merely as more or less ‘useful’.

A further problem is that political concepts are often the subject of deep ideologicalcontroversy. Politics is, in part, a struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms andconcepts. Enemies may argue, fight and even go to war, all claiming to be ‘defendingfreedom’, ‘upholding democracy’ or ‘having justice on their side’. The problem is thatwords such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ have different meanings to differentpeople. How can we establish what is ‘true’ democracy, ‘true’ freedom or ‘true’ justice?The simple answer is that we cannot. Just as with the attempt to define ‘politics’ above,we have to accept that there are competing versions of many political concepts. Suchconcepts are best regarded as ‘essentially contested’ concepts (Gallie, 1955/56), in thatcontroversy about them runs so deep that no neutral or settled definition can ever bedeveloped. In effect, a single term can represent a number of rival concepts, none ofwhich can be accepted as its ‘true’ meaning. For example, it is equally legitimate todefine politics as what concerns the state, as the conduct of public life, as debate andconciliation, and as the distribution of power and resources.

Models and theories are broader than concepts; they comprise a range of ideasrather than a single idea. A model is usually thought of as a representation of some-thing, usually on a smaller scale, as in the case of a doll’s house or a toy aeroplane. Inthis sense, the purpose of the model is to resemble the original object as faithfully aspossible. However, conceptual models need not in any way resemble an object. Itwould be absurd, for instance, to insist that a computer model of the economyshould bear a physical resemblance to the economy itself. Rather, conceptual modelsare analytical tools; their value is that they are devices through which meaning can beimposed upon what would otherwise be a bewildering and disorganized collectionof facts. The simple point is that facts do not speak for themselves: they must beinterpreted, and they must be organized. Models assist in the accomplishment of this task because they include a network of relationships that highlight the meaningand significance of relevant empirical data. The best way of understanding this isthrough an example. One of the most influential models in political analysis is themodel of the political system developed by David Easton (1979, 1981). This can berepresented diagrammatically (see Figure 1.3).

Model: A theoreticalrepresentation of empiricaldata that aims to advanceunderstanding by highlightingsignificant relationships andinteractions.

19

Fig. 1.3 The political systemGovernmentPeople Gatekeepers

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 19


This ambitious model sets out to explain the entire political process, as well as thefunction of major political actors, through the application of what is called systemsanalysis. A system is an organized or complex whole, a set of interrelated and inter-dependent parts that form a collective entity. In the case of the political system, alinkage exists between what Easton calls ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’. Inputs into the polit-ical system consist of demands and supports from the general public. Demands canrange from pressure for higher living standards, improved employment prospects,and more generous welfare payments to greater protection for minority and individ-ual rights. Supports, on the other hand, are ways in which the public contributes tothe political system by paying taxes, offering compliance, and being willing to par-ticipate in public life. Outputs consist of the decisions and actions of government,including the making of policy, the passing of laws, the imposition of taxes, and theallocation of public funds. Clearly, these outputs generate ‘feedback’, which in turnshapes further demands and supports. The key insight offered by Easton’s model isthat the political system tends towards long-term equilibrium or political stability, asits survival depends on outputs being brought into line with inputs.

However, it is vital to remember that conceptual models are at best simplifica-tions of the reality they seek to explain. They are merely devices for drawing outunderstanding; they are not reliable knowledge. In the case of Easton’s model, forexample, political parties and interest groups are portrayed as ‘gatekeepers’, thecentral function of which is to regulate the flow of inputs into the political system.Although this may be one of their significant functions, parties and interest groupsalso manage public perceptions, and thereby help to shape the nature of publicdemands. In short, these are in reality more interesting and more complex institutionsthan the systems model suggests. In the same way, Easton’s model is more effective inexplaining how and why political systems respond to popular pressures than it is inexplaining why they employ repression and coercion, as, to some degree, all do.

The terms theory and model are often used interchangeably in politics. Theoriesand models are both conceptual constructs used as tools of political analysis. How-ever, strictly speaking, a theory is a proposition. It offers a systematic explanation ofa body of empirical data. In contrast, a model is merely an explanatory device; itis more like a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. In that sense, in politics, whiletheories can be said to be more or less ‘true’, models can only be said to be more orless ‘useful’. Clearly, however, theories and models are often interlinked: broadpolitical theories may be explained in terms of a series of models. For example, thetheory of pluralism (discussed in Chapters 4 and 5) encompasses a model of thestate, a model of electoral competition, a model of group politics, and so on.

However, virtually all conceptual devices, theories and models contain hiddenvalues or implicit assumptions. This is why it is difficult to construct theories thatare purely empirical; values and normative beliefs invariably intrude. In the case ofconcepts, this is demonstrated by people’s tendency to use terms as either ‘hurrah!words’ (for example ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’) or ‘boo! words’ (for example ‘conflict’, ‘anarchy’, ‘ideology’, and even ‘politics’. Models and theories are also ‘loaded’ in the sense that they contain a range of biases. It is difficult, for example, to accept the claim that rational-choice theories (examined above) arevalue-neutral. As they are based on the assumption that human beings are basicallyegoistical and self-regarding, it is perhaps not surprising that they have oftenpointed to policy conclusions that are politically conservative. In the same way,class theories of politics, advanced by Marxists, are based on broader theories about

Theory: A systematicexplanation of empirical data,usually (unlike a hypothesis)presented as reliableknowledge.

20

Paradigm

A paradigm is, in a generalsense, a pattern or modelthat highlights relevantfeatures of a particularphenomenon, rather in themanner of an ideal type. Asused by Kuhn (1962),however, it refers to anintellectual frameworkcomprising interrelatedvalues, theories andassumptions, within whichthe search for knowledge isconducted. ‘Normal’science is thereforeconducted within theestablished intellectualframework; in‘revolutionary’ science, anattempt is made to replacethe old paradigm with a newone. The radical implicationof this theory is that ‘truth’and ‘falsehood’ cannot befinally established. They areonly provisional judgementsoperating within anaccepted paradigm thatwill, eventually, bereplaced.

Concept

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 20

S U M M A R Y

history and society and, indeed, they ultimately rest upon the validity of an entiresocial philosophy.

There is therefore a sense in which analytical devices, such as models andmicrotheories, are constructed on the basis of broader macrotheories. These majortheoretical tools of political analysis are those that address the issues of power andthe role of the state: pluralism (see p. 82), elitism (see p. 84), class analysis, and so on.These theories are examined in Chapters 4 and 5. At a still deeper level, however,many of these macrotheories reflect the assumptions and beliefs of one or other ofthe major ideological traditions. These traditions operate rather like what ThomasKuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) called paradigms. A paradigmis a related set of principles, doctrines and theories that help to structure the processof intellectual enquiry. In effect, a paradigm constitutes the framework within whichthe search for knowledge is conducted. In economics, this can be seen in the replace-ment of Keynesianism by monetarism (and perhaps the subsequent shift back toneo-Keynesianism); in transport policy it is shown in the rise of Green ideas.

According to Kuhn, the natural sciences are dominated at any time by a singleparadigm; science develops through a series of ‘revolutions’ in which an oldparadigm is replaced by a new one. Political and social enquiry is, however, differ-ent, in that it is a battleground of contending and competing paradigms. Theseparadigms take the form of broad social philosophies, usually called political ideologies: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, fascism, feminism and so on. Eachpresents its own account of social existence; each offers a particular view of theworld. To portray these ideologies as theoretical paradigms is not, of course, to saythat most, if not all, political analysis is narrowly ideological in the sense that itadvances the interests of a particular group or class. Rather, it merely acknowledgesthat political analysis is usually carried out on the basis of a particular ideologicaltradition. Much of academic political science, for example, has been constructedaccording to liberal–rationalist assumptions, and thus bears the imprint of itsliberal heritage.

The various levels of conceptual analysis are shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.4.

� Summary� Politics is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. As such, it is an essentially social activity, inextricably linked, on the one hand, to the existence of diversity and conflict, and

21

Fig. 1.4 Levels of conceptualanalysis

Examples: power, social class,rights, law

Examples: systems analysis,public choice, game theory

Examples: pluralism, elitism,functionalism

Examples: liberalism, Marxism,feminism

Concepts

Models or microtheories

Macrotheories

Ideological traditions/paradigms

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 21


on the other to a willingness to cooperate and act collectively. Politics is better seenas a search for conflict resolution than as its achievement, as not all conflicts are, orcan be, resolved.

� Politics has been understood differently by different thinkers and within differenttraditions. Politics has been viewed as the art of government or as ‘what concerns thestate’, as the conduct and management of public affairs, as the resolution of conflictthrough debate and compromise, and as the production, distribution and use ofresources in the course of social existence.

� There is considerable debate about the realm of ‘the political’. Conventionally,politics has narrowly been seen as embracing institutions and actors operating in a‘public’ sphere concerned with the collective organization of social existence. How-ever, when politics is understood in terms of power-structured relationships, it maybe seen to operate in the ‘private’ sphere as well.

� A variety of approaches have been adopted to the study of politics as an academicdiscipline. These include political philosophy or the analysis of normative theory, an empirical tradition particularly concerned with the study of institutions andstructures, attempts to introduce scientific rigour through behavioural analysis, anda variety of modern approaches including the use of rational-choice theory.

� The study of politics is scientific to the extent that it is possible to gain objectiveknowledge about the political world by distinguishing between facts and values. Thistask is nevertheless hampered by the difficulty of gaining access to reliable data, byvalues that are implicit in political models and theories, and by biases that operatewithin all students of politics.

� Concepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis, providing thebuilding blocks of knowledge. However, they are only analytical devices. Althoughthey help to advance understanding, they are more rounded and coherent than theunshapely and complex realities they seek to describe. Ultimately, all political andsocial enquiry is conducted within a particular intellectual framework or ideologicalparadigm.

� Questions for discussion� If politics is essentially social, why is not all social activity political?

� Why has politics so often carried negative associations?

� How could you defend politics as a worthwhile and ennobling activity?

� Is politics inevitable? Could politics ever be brought to an end?

� Why has the idea of a science of politics been so attractive?

� Is it possible to study politics objectively and without bias?

� Further readingBall, A. and B. Guy Peters, Modern Politics and Government (7th edn.) (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2005). A popular short introduction to politics that covers a wide variety ofthemes and issues.

22

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 22

F U R T H E R R E A D I N G

Crick, B., In Defence of Politics (rev. edn.) (Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin, 2000). Athoughtful and stimulating attempt to justify politics (understood in a distinctively liberalsense) against its enemies.

Hay, C., Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke and New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2002). A coherent and accessible introduction to some of the key issues in political science.

Heywood, A., Key Concepts in Politics (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2000). A clear and accessible guide to the major ideas and concepts encountered in politicalanalysis.

Leftwich, A. (ed.), What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004). A very useful collection of essays examining different concepts of politics as well as contrast-ing views of the discipline.

Marsh, D. and G. Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd edn.) (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). An accessible, yet comprehensiveand sophisticated, exploration of the nature and scope of the discipline of political science.

Stoker, G., Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). A stimulating analysis of why democratic politics is doomed todisappoint and how civic participation can be revived.

23

0230_524974_05_Ch01.qxd 28/2/07 1:24 pm Page 23

Abacha, General 39, 407, 413Abercrombie, W. 209abortion 306, 331absolutism 28, 93, 445accountability 79, 94, 342, 395–7,

418, 445Action Française 120Acton, Lord 7, 46Adams, H. 4administration 387, 445Adonis, A. 436Adorno, T. 59, 223adversary politics 285, 350, 445affirmative action 214, 445Afghanistan 38, 66–7, 137, 139,

404Africa 29–30, 112, 114–15, 121–2,

177–8, 295, 407see also individual countries

African National Congress (ANC)200, 286

agenda setting 431, 445al-Qaeda 67, 136, 141, 142, 240Albrow, M. 382Algeria 121, 122, 123alienation 56, 445Allende, S. 413Allison, G. 132, 428Almond, G. 206–7altruism 249, 445American Civil War 409Americanization 238, 241anarchism 27, 62–3, 131–2, 166,

445anarcho-capitalism 63anarcho-communism 63and decentralization 178

anarchy 93, 445Ancien régime 48, 445Ancient Greece 5, 13, 71, 72, 76,

440Anderson, B. 113Annan, K. 159anomie 445anthropocentrism 65, 445anti-capitalist movement 309, 310anti-Semitism 62, 120, 121, 200,

445anticolonialism 121–3antiglobalization 237, 309antiparty parties 290, 445antipolitics 7, 289, 445apartheid 117, 200Aquinas, T. 13, 128Aquino, C. 408Arendt, H. 4, 9, 44, 309Argentina 185, 407, 408aristocracy 28

natural 50, 454Aristotle 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 25, 26,

71, 77, 326, 374forms of government and

27–8

Arrow, K. 265Aryanism 62Asia 29–30, 121–2

East Asian regimes 36–7see also individual countries

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) 150, 151

Asian values 37, 445Asquith, H. H. 409assemblies 335

and policy-making 348–51decline of 351–3group politics and 305performance of 348–54role of 336–43structure of 343–8see also bicameralism;

committees; parliamentary systems; unicameralism

assimilation 214, 445association 294, 445

see also interest groupsAssociation of South-East Asian

Nations (ASEAN) 150Ataturk, M. K. 39atomism 47, 445Augustine 13Austin, J. 326Australia

assembly 338, 345, 348, 350bureaucracy 388, 396constitution 317, 320elections 254executive 367federalism 168, 169, 170group politics 300, 306multiculturalism 214nationalism 112party system 284

Austria 34, 65, 101assembly 345, 346bureaucracy 398executive 365federalism 169group politics 299, 304

autarky 156, 445authoritarianism 29, 38, 189, 445

military 39authority 5, 50, 52, 445

charismatic 220–1legal–rational 221–2traditional 220types of 220–2see also legitimacy

autonomy 78, 442, 445Azikwe, N. 121

Ba’athism 139Bachrach, P. 11Bagehot, W. 320, 335balance of power 130, 138, 445balkanization 392, 446

Balzac, H. de 381Banda, H. 121Bangladesh 284Baratz, M. 11Barber, B. 240, 241Barber, J. 375Barrett, S. 434Barry, B. 219Beard, C. 322Beck, U. 148Beer, S. 432Beetham, D. 222behaviouralism 14–15, 14, 17,

298, 446behaviourism 17Belgium 34, 124, 177, 254, 287–8,

340, 346Bell, D. 67, 210Bentham, J. 77, 427Bentley, A. 297–8Berlesconi, S. 242–3, 290Berlin, I. 216, 324Bernstein, E. 53, 59Bhutan 317bias 17, 238, 446, 455bicameralism 34, 82, 344, 345–7,

345, 446bills 345, 446bills of rights 34, 167, 323, 446bin Laden, O. 136bipolarity 130–1, 134, 446Bismarck, Otto van 5, 118Black, H. 331Black Muslims 176, 201Black Panther Party (USA) 176Blair, Tony 61, 243–4, 266, 281,

319, 325, 350, 369, 370, 377,391, 397, 398, 433

Blondel, J. 353Bobbitt, P. 104, 134Bodin, J. 28Bolivar, S. 116Bolshevism 53, 57, 225Bonapartism 375, 446Bookchin, M. 63, 178Bork, R. 329Bosnia 36, 160, 178, 218, 407Boulding, K. 11, 429bourgeois ideology 207, 446bourgeoisie 44, 56, 57, 95, 198,

446Brandt Reports 147Braybrooke, D. 427Brazil 39, 141, 168, 413Breitenbach, H. 194Bretton Woods system 156–7Bright, J. 217Britain, see United KingdomBritish National Party 200Brittan, S. 86, 223Brzezinski, Z. 29Buddhist economics 195Bulgaria 35, 36

Bull, H. 131Bullitt, W. 375Burden, T. 194bureaucracy 222, 295, 358, 364,

375, 381, 383, 446and decision-making 428–9and policy-making 387–8,

393control of 395–9functions of 386–9group politics and 304–5leadership and 375–6organization of 389–92power-bloc model 384–5rational-administrative model

382–4theories of 382–6see also individual countries

bureaucratic power 392–9Burke, E. 8, 49, 80, 206, 249, 273Burnham, J. 83, 383, 392Burns, B. 376Burton, J. 129–30, 131Burundi 115Bush Doctrine 138, 139Bush, G. 118, 133, 134–5, 331,

375, 377Bush, G. W. 136, 138, 306, 331,

364, 375, 377, 389, 437Butler, D. 436

cabinets 359, 369, 371–2, 446cabinet government 367,

370, 446see also individual countries

cadre 273, 446Cambodia 122Campbell, A. 265Canada 110, 316

assembly 345, 346elections 254executive 369federalism 168, 169, 170, 172group politics 305multiculturalism 214parties 284, 289

capitalism 29, 44, 61, 184, 185–91,446

collective 188–9enterprise 186–7globalization and 145–6laissez-faire 45, 47, 78, 189,

190managed 48, 189–91social 188state 94–6, 193, 458transition to 35–6unmanaged 189–91

Capra, F. 65Carr, E. H. 130Carter, J. 129, 303, 340, 364, 435Castro, F. 374, 428, 429caucuses 281, 446

IndexNumbers in bold refer to boxed information. Numbers in italics refer to pages on which a term is defined in the margin or glossary.

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 471

I N D E X

Ceausescu, N. 405censorship 242, 446centralization 34, 164–5, 164,

389–90, 446centre–periphery relations 164,

165–75Chamberlain, H. S. 121, 200charisma 220–1, 221, 372, 374,

446Chauvin, N. 120chauvinism 446Chechnya 136, 365, 405, 407checks and balances 446Chile 39, 351, 407, 411, 413, 417China 37, 58, 137, 141, 157,

225–6, 228, 240assembly 342, 344bureaucracy 358, 387, 389, 395economic system 188–9military 402–3, 408, 410nationalism 121, 122party 273, 283Tiananmen Square 228, 405

Chirac, J. 351, 366Chomsky, N. 63, 140, 233–4, 234,

309Christian Democracy 51, 446Christianity 34, 66Chua, A. 218Churchill, W. 71, 151, 409citizenship 113, 441, 446

performance 440–1rights 441

civic culture 206–9, 446civic nationalism 216, 446civil disobedience 307, 414civil liberties 323, 407, 446civil servants see bureaucracycivil society 8, 29, 90, 209, 446

global civil society 8civil war 404, 446civil–military relations 408–10clash of civilizations thesis 136,

217class see social classclass analysis 21class consciousness 56, 198, 225,

446class dealignment 198, 267, 446clientelism 388, 446Clinton, B. 61, 179, 183, 243, 364,

365, 375, 390coalition 287, 288, 446

government 34, 260–2, 350,447

Coates, D. 194Cobden, R. 217, 352cohabitation 340, 447Cold War 27, 29, 130–1, 133–4,

133, 149, 159, 406, 447collective responsibility 447collective security 129, 158, 447collectivism 54, 63, 196, 447collectivization 102, 447colonialism 105, 114, 121, 122,

130, 177, 447see also neocolonialism

command economies 102committees 346, 347–8, 447common law 318, 447common ownership 54–5Commonwealth of Individual States

(CIS) 166

Commonwealth of Nations 165commune 178, 447communication 231

political 241–4see also mass media

communism 29, 35, 55, 57–8, 447collapse of 35–6, 53, 55, 60,

67, 144, 178, 349–50economic system 193media and 242

communitarianism 61, 178–9,179, 209, 441, 447

community 54, 178–9, 178, 447transnational 213, 214, 459

competition 54, 101electoral 254

Comte, A. 14concepts 18–19, 447

contested 447essentially contested 4–5, 19

confederations 165–6, 165, 447conflict 4, 447Confucianism 36, 438, 447Congo 105consensus 10, 447consensus politics 9–10, 33, 34,

447consent 46, 78, 447conservatism 48–53, 447

ideology for 44–5nationalism and 118–19One Nation 49, 51, 454paternalistic 50–1policing and 414political culture of 209–10political stability 438Toryism 51see also neoconservatism;

neoliberalism; New Rightconstitutional law 340, 447constitutionalism 46–7, 316, 321,

344, 405, 447constitutions 315, 315–25, 315,

447classifications of 27–8,

317–21codified/written 34, 169,

317–18, 319, 460constitutional government

46–7, 91judicial review and 331–2purpose of 321–4significance of 324–5uncodified/unwritten 34,

317–18see also constitutionalism;

individual countriesconsumerism 240, 241, 447contract 447

social 93, 156convention 318, 447convergence thesis 383, 447Cooper, R. 105, 134, 137–8cooperation 4, 54, 448core–periphery model 133, 176corporatism 84–6, 185, 194, 223,

299, 301, 448democracy and 84–6group politics and 299–300neocorporatism 84, 454

corruption 389, 448cosmopolitan democracy 73cosmopolitanism 117, 217, 448

counter-bureaucracies 398–9coup d’état 26, 224, 410, 411, 448Crick, B. 10, 72crime 414

war crimes 328critical theory 16–17, 59Croatia 36Cromwell, O. 409Crosland, A. 59, 60Crowther-Hunt, Lord 393Cuba 139, 193Cuban missile crisis 132, 159, 428cult of personality 221, 375, 376,

448culture 448

civic 206–9, 446cultural globalization 145,

240–1, 240, 448see also political culture

Czech Republic 36, 363Czechoslovakia 36, 178

Dahl, R. 11, 33, 82–3, 94, 298, 331Dalai Lama 374Daly, M. 201Davies, J. 227De Gaulle, C. 152, 153, 221, 278,

325, 351, 366, 377dealignment

class 198, 267, 446partisan 266, 279, 455

decentralization 165, 165, 389,448

see also centre–periphery relations

decision 426, 448decision-making

belief system models 429–30bureaucratic organization

models 428–9incremental models 427–8power as 11rational-actor models 426–7theories of 426–30

Defferre, G. 173, 174deindustrialization 199, 448delegate 249–51demagogue 28, 448democracy 15, 29, 32–6, 71–87,

206, 448Athenian 76–7, 442, 445Christian 51, 446classical 76–7consociational 34, 447cosmopolitan 73definitions 72–5deliberative 80, 448democratic centralism 282,

448democratic culture 207democratic deficit 149, 448developmental 78–80direct 74, 448economic theory of 264electronic (cyber democracy)

237globalization and 148–9liberal 30, 32–4, 46, 76, 82,

86, 383, 438, 452local 172, 452mass media and 235–8new democracies 34–6, 35,

454

parliamentary 80, 455party 280–2, 281, 455people’s 80–1plebiscitary 75, 455pluralist 34, 82–3, 83, 86–7,

298, 455protective 77–8radical 75, 457representative 74, 248, 442,

457semi-democracies 35, 458social 59–60, 458system performance 441–3theories of 75–81totalitarian 74–5, 74, 79, 459transition to 35–6see also democratization;

individual ideologiesdemocratization 30, 32, 81, 140,

148, 254, 272, 448waves of 32–3, 34

Denmark 320, 344, 418departmentalism 390, 448Desai, M. 370d’Estaing, G. 366determinism 17, 448developing world 29–30

globalization and 147, 149see also individual countries

Devlin, P. 328devolution 34, 173–5, 173, 319,

448dialectic 448dialectic materialism 17, 55, 56,

448diaspora 214Dicey, A. V. 326dictatorship 363, 405, 448

elective 319, 449military-backed 39of the proletariat 95, 102, 448see also totalitarianism

direct action 296, 448discourse 17, 448discourse theory 17disjointed incrementalism 427Disraeli, B. 50, 118divine right 327, 448Djilas, M. 193, 385Doe, S. 407dominant-ideology model

mass media 233–4voting 268

Donaldson, Lord 329Dönitz, Admiral 410Donne, J. 54Downs, A. 15, 84, 264, 274, 277,

426Dunleavy, P. 386Durkheim, E. 178Duverger, M. 282Dye, T. 436

East Asian regimes 36–7see also specific countries

Easton, D. 5, 14, 19–20Eccleston, B. 330ecocentrism 448ecoconservatism 64ecofeminism 64–5ecologism 64, 448ecology 64, 449economic man 449

472

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 472

I N D E X

economic systems 184–95ecosocialism 64, 148Eden, A. 429egalitarianism 449Egypt 123, 336, 407–8Einstein, A. 109Eisenhower, D. 332, 365, 375, 406,

409El Salvador 417elections 78, 247, 253–6, 253, 449

functions of 254–6importance of 264–5primary election 278, 456see also electoral systems; under

individual countries; voting

elective dictatorship 319electoral college 281, 449electoral systems 34, 256–63

additional member (AMS)261

alternative vote/supplementary vote (AV/SV) 259

majoritarian 256, 260, 263party list 263proportional 256second ballot 258single-member plurality

(SMP) 34, 257single-transferable vote (STV)

262see also elections; under

individual countries; voting

elite 278, 384, 449elitism 21, 84, 256, 298, 449

competitive 84democracy and 83–4power elite 83–4, 85

Emily’s List 202empire 449empirical 15, 449empiricism 14, 449end of history 30, 31, 137Engels, F. 44, 55, 56, 102, 207,

384entrepreneurialism 61, 449environmentalism 64–5, 310, 449

economy and 185, 195see also ecologism; green

politicsequality 46, 54, 101, 248, 440, 449

centralization and 164gender see feminismglobalization and 146–7political 72–3, 73, 455

Erhard, L. 188Ershad, General 284essentially contested concepts

4–5, 19ethnic cleansing 118, 218, 449ethnic group 110, 449ethnic politics 175–8ethnicity 174, 449ethnocentrism 27, 429, 449Etzioni, A. 179, 428Euratom 152Eurocommunism 87, 449European Coal and Steel

Community (ECSC) 152,168

European Economic Community(EEC) 145, 150, 152, 168

European Union (EU) 103–4,117, 141, 145, 150, 151–6, 321

constitution of 153, 155democratic deficit in 154federalism 152, 153group politics 307institutions 154integration 151–3, 154–5, 155monetary union 152–3

Euroscepticism 287exceptionalism 34, 449executive 169, 336, 340, 357, 358,

449core 358, 371, 372, 448power in 361–72role of 358–61see also under individual

countries; leadershipexpansionism 134, 449Eysenck, H. 276

faction 272, 449factionalism 272, 281–2, 449facts 17, 449false consciousness 449Fanon, F. 212Farrakhan, L. 176fascism 61–2, 449

Italian 29, 61–2federal systems 29, 166–71federalism 34, 82, 124, 167–71,

167, 215, 345, 450European 152, 153, 168

feminism 16, 17, 63–4, 201–2,310–11, 450

citizenship and 441democracy and 75liberal 64, 98policy process and 430politics and 11–12radical 12–13, 64, 98, 457representation and 252socialist 64state and 98–9see also gender; patriarchy

feudalism 185, 450Fichte, J. G. 111, 120Fiji 345Finland 339, 342, 363, 365fiscal crisis of the welfare state 223,

450fiscal policy 450Foley, M. 369Ford, G. 324Fordism 198, 199

see also post-FordismFourier, C. 53France 28, 62, 95, 154

assembly 336, 338, 339, 345, 347, 348, 350, 351

bureaucracy 387, 390, 391, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398

central–local relations 173, 174

constitution 316, 317, 325elections/voting 255, 256–7,

258executive 340, 358, 363,

365–6, 371group politics 294, 302, 303judiciary/courts 329–30military 408multiculturalism 213, 216

nationalism 113, 114, 120, 177, 200

parties 278, 287, 288police 416, 418state 100

franchise 450Frankfurt School 17, 59fraternity 54, 450free market 440, 450

see also laissez-faire; neoliberalism; New Right

free press 235, 450free trade 147, 150–1, 157, 310,

450Free Trade Area of the Americas

(FTAA) 150, 151freedom 46, 48, 78, 117, 323, 324,

450negative 324, 454of information 342positive 324, 456

Freud, S. 17, 375Friedan, B. 63, 310Friedman, M. 52, 100, 186, 191,

431, 440Friedrich, C. J. 29Fromm, E. 309Fudge, C. 434Fukuyama, F. 30, 31, 67, 103, 134,

148, 156, 191functionalism 90, 152, 450

European integration and152

see also neofunctionalismfundamentalism 65–7, 66, 122,

144, 450Christian 34, 66Hindu 66Islamic 38, 66, 122–3Jewish 66Shi’ite 66

Gaddafi, Colonel 38, 376Gaia hypothesis 65Galbraith, J. K. 60, 94, 199, 200,

298Gallie, W. B. 19Gamble, A. 51, 433Gandhi, I. 34, 286, 325, 331, 368Gandhi, Mahatma 307Gardner, H. 377Garvey, M. 112, 175, 176, 212Gellner, E. 111–12, 177Gemeinschaft 450gender 201–2, 201, 450

see also feminismGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) 156, 157General Motors 148general will 78, 113, 450genocide 136, 450Gentile 62George V 409Georgia 406German problem 151Germany 29, 134, 154

assembly 338, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 351

bureaucracy 390, 394, 395, 397

constitution 167, 317, 320, 322, 325

economic system 188

elections/voting 260, 263executive 362, 367, 368, 371,

372federalism 167, 169, 170group politics 295, 299, 304ideology 61military 403–4, 409–10multiculturalism 213, 214nationalism 61–2, 111, 120,

121parties 65, 273, 274, 287, 288police 417, 419political culture 207state 100, 101, 102

gerrymandering 330, 450Gesellschaft 450Ghana 121, 284, 407Giddens, A. 67, 275Gingrich, N. 349glasnost 242, 450global civil society 8global consciousness 217, 450globalization 27, 52, 60, 123, 127,

128, 143–9, 143, 177, 299, 450cultural 145, 240–1, 240, 448democracy and 148–9dynamics of 143–9economic 101, 144–5, 187,

449equality and 146–7global governance 156–60mass media and 233, 240–1political 103, 145, 455state and 102–4

Gobineau, J.-A. 200Godwin, W. 63Goebbels, J. 241–2Gorbachev, M. 58, 129, 194, 228,

242, 371, 408, 413, 432Gorz, A. 198Goulart, J. 413governance 6, 104, 450

global 156–60mass media and 238–40multilevel 104, 453post-sovereign 102

government 5–7, 25, 26, 61, 91–2,450

big 47, 352–3, 385, 446constitutional 46–7, 91, 447federal systems 29, 166–71gridlock 26, 450levels of 169limited 323, 452local 172–3open 348, 397, 436, 454overload 223parliamentary 171, 337, 455party 279, 285, 455presidential 362, 456prime-ministerial 368, 456responsible 338, 342, 457typologies 27–9unitary systems 171–5world 156

Gramsci, A. 44, 59, 95–6, 207, 208,222, 233

great power 130, 450Greece 34, 39, 407, 408green politics 16, 64–5, 195, 310Green, T. H. 48, 90Greenpeace 307Greer, G. 310

473

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 473

I N D E X

Griffiths, J. A. G. 319, 330gross domestic product (GDP)

29, 450group politics 294–307

corporatist model 299–300New Right model 300–1patterns of 301–7pluralist model 297–9see also interest groups

Gulf War 406Gunn, L. 432Gurr, T. 227

Habermas, J. 59, 87, 222–3, 223Haeckel, E. 64Haig, D. 409Hailsham, Lord 319, 338Hamas 141Hamilton, A. 82, 167, 168, 344Hann, A. 430Harrop, M. 254Hart, H. L. A. 326Hartz, L. 324Hawke, B. 266, 372Hayek, F. von 52, 100, 186, 191,

193, 431, 440Hazell, R. 320heads of state 359, 450

see also monarchy; presidentsHeath, E. 398Hegel, G. W. F. 8, 56, 59, 90hegemony 59, 96, 136, 138, 207,

450Heidegger, M. 9Held, D. 149Herder, J. G. 111, 206Herman, E. 233Herrnstein, R. 200Hertz, N. 299Herzen, A. 216hierarchy 50, 130–1, 450Hill, S. 209Himmelweit, H. T. 268Himmler, H. 417Hindu fundamentalism 66Hirst, P. 146historical materialism 56, 450history, end of 30, 31, 137Hitler, A. 61, 62, 74, 102, 120, 121,

221, 227, 325, 374, 376, 403,409–10, 428, 431

Hizbullah 141Hobbes, T. 28, 91, 93, 130, 327,

328, 339, 437, 438Hobhouse, L. T. 48Hobsbawm, E. 113Hobson, J. A. 48, 146Hogwood, B. 432homogenization 144, 450Hood, C. C. 434Horkheimer, M. 59, 223Hough, J. 390Howard, M. 332human imperfection 49–50human nature 450human rights 117, 135, 326, 451humanitarian intervention 135,

404, 451Hume, D. 14Humphreys, P. 268Hungary 35, 36, 193–4, 363Huntington, S. P. 32, 34, 136–7,

138, 217, 408

Hutton, W. 199–200hybridity 217, 451hyperglobalism 103, 146, 451hyperpower 134, 451

ideal type 18, 123, 220, 382, 389,451

idealism 128–30, 451neo-idealism 129, 454

identity politics 212–13ideology 21, 43–5, 45, 207–9, 429,

451bourgeois 207, 446concept of 44–5decision-making and 429–30end of 67–8voting and 268see also end of history;

individual ideologies; political culture

immigration 119, 200, 213, 218see also multiculturalism

immobilism 339, 451impartiality 451impeachment 362, 451imperial over-reach 140, 451imperialism 119, 122, 128, 132,

212, 451media 241

impossibility theorem 265incrementalism 427, 451India 27, 34, 66, 105, 110, 121,

141, 159, 197assembly 338, 345, 346bureaucracy 391, 395constitution 317, 322, 323,

325executive 362, 367, 368,

369–70federalism 168, 169judiciary/courts 332military 405, 412party 286

indigenization 144, 451individualism 33, 45–6, 52, 63, 96,

196, 441, 451new 61

Indonesia 121, 363, 412industrialism 195, 451industrialization 186, 296inequality see equalityinformation society 199, 237, 451Inglehart, R. 211initiative 251, 451institutions 16, 90, 336

group politics and 302–3, 304–5interest 294, 388, 451interest groups 237, 293, 294–307,

296, 301, 304–7, 353, 451associational 295–6bureaucracy and 388communal 295institutional 295military 405–7types of 294–6see also group politics

intergovernmentalism 145, 153,165, 451

international law 117, 129, 138,159, 328, 451

International Monetary Fund(IMF) 35, 103, 145, 149, 151,156, 157

internationalism 122, 129, 130,451

Internet 232, 240interventionism 303, 451Iran 38, 66, 122, 139, 402, 410Iraq 102, 122, 133, 135, 139, 159,

363, 404, 410, 437Ireland 320, 340, 346

see also Northern Irelandiron triangle 451Islam 38, 66, 122–3, 137, 241

Islamic states 38–9see also fundamentalism

isolationism 160, 451Israel 66, 137, 140, 317, 318, 344,

362military 403

issue 430, 451issue voting 268Italy 61, 185, 194, 242–3, 398, 431

assembly 338–9, 346, 350elections/voting 254, 258, 263executive/cabinet 368, 371fascism 29, 61–2, 121group politics 294nationalism 115, 116, 121, 177parties 273, 282, 286, 287, 288political culture 209

Jackson, A. 397Jaeger, M. 268Jahn, F. 120Janis, I. 429Japan 128, 141, 431

assembly 336, 338, 345–6, 348, 351

bureaucracy 387, 388, 391, 393, 394

constitution 37, 324–5economic system 188–9executive 367group politics 299, 302, 305parties 282, 286, 287police 415, 419policy process 433state 27, 100

Jaruzelski, General 408Jaspers, K. 9Jay, J. 82, 167Jefferson, T. 289Jervis, R. 429Jessop, B. 96Jewish fundamentalism 66Jihad 67, 241jingoism 119, 451Johnson, C. 226Johnson, L. B. 363, 377, 415Johnson, S. 4Jospin, N. 351, 366judiciary 328–32, 336, 452

judicial activism 331, 452judicial independence 329,

452judicial neutrality 329–30judicial review 330, 452policy-making and 330–2

junta 39, 407, 452justice 452

social 60, 101, 440, 458

Kagan, R. 136, 138Kant, I. 111, 128–9, 129Kautsky, K. 55

Keating, P. 372Kellner, P. 393Kennedy, J. F. 221, 343, 375, 417Kenya 121Kerin, J. 372Key, V. O. 267Keynes, J. M. 48, 156, 190, 431Keynesianism 60, 101, 190, 191–2,

452Khomeini, Ayatollah 38, 66, 122Khrushchev, N. 102, 371, 406, 410King, A. 223King, M. L. 176, 201, 307King, R. 416Kinnock, N. 281Kirchheimer, O. 274Kitchener, Lord 409Klein, N. 148, 309knowledge economy 61, 199Kohl, H. 372Kolko, G. 134Kosovo 135Kressel, N. J. 373Kristol, I. 138, 210Kropotkin, P. 26, 63, 178, 192Kuhn, T. 20, 21Kuwait 133, 135, 159, 220Kymlicka, W. 214–15

Laclau, E. 309Lafont, R. 111laissez-faire 452

capitalism 45, 47, 78, 189, 190

leadership 376–7Landauer, G. 178Lasswell, H. 11, 375Latin America 29–30, 35, 39, 116,

407see also individual countries

law 159, 325–8, 325, 452administrative 445common 318, 447constitutional 340, 447international 117, 129, 138,

159, 328, 451natural 326, 454positive 326, 456rule of 326, 414, 458

Lawrence, S. 416Le Bon, G. 375Le Grand, J. 436leadership 221, 353, 359–61,

372–8, 372, 452bureaucratic 361, 375–6ceremonial 360charismatic 374crisis 361laissez-faire 376–7policy-making 360popular 360spatial 239theories of 373–6transactional 377transformational 377–8, 431

League of Nations 117, 124, 129,156

Left 452Leftwich, A. 10legal positivism 326legislation 340–1legislature 165, 336, 337, 452

see also assemblies

474

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 474

I N D E X

legitimacy 46, 91, 165, 172,219–28, 219, 256, 324, 343,412, 452

see also authoritylegitimation crises 222–4Lenin, V. I. 12, 44, 53, 57, 80–1,

81, 95, 132, 146, 193, 225, 376,417, 431

Leninism 452democracy and 80–1

LePen, J. 119liberal democracy 30, 32–4, 46,

76, 82, 86, 383, 438, 452liberalism 44, 45–8, 129, 452

citizenship and 441civil/military relations and

408–9classical 47constitutionalism and 46–7democracy and 46economic 47, 449ideology of 44modern 47–8nationalism and 115–18politics and 9, 10representation and 46state 93see also liberal democracy

liberalization 33, 452Liberia 105, 137, 407libertarianism 328, 452liberty see freedomLibya 38, 122, 139, 363licence 452Lijphart, A. 33limited government 323, 452Lin Biao 408Lincoln, A. 72, 425Lindblom, C. 33, 82, 94, 298, 299,

427Lippman, W. 133List, F. 188Livingstone, K. 247lobby 305, 452local democracy 172, 452local government 172–3localization 144, 178Locke, J. 14, 28, 47, 66, 82, 93, 99Lovelock, J. 65Lukács, G. 58Lukes, S. 11, 208

McCarthy, J. 347McCarthy, J. D. 309McCarthyism 347, 453McDonaldization 145, 453McGovern, G. 281Machiavelli, N. 6, 7, 14, 130, 357Machiavellianism 452machine politics 281, 452MacIntyre, A. 179, 441McLuhan, M. 127Macmillan, H. 51, 431Macpherson, C. B. 47McWorld 240–1Madison, J. 82, 167, 170, 344Maistre, J. de 49Major, J. 209–10, 282, 370, 377,

433, 437majoritarianism 33–4, 452majority rule 73maladministration 395, 452Malawi 121

Malaysia 37, 38, 169, 346Malcolm X 112, 176, 201managerialism 383, 452mandates 74, 251, 252, 278, 452Mandela, N. 374manifesto 252, 452Mao Zedong 225–6, 226, 376, 401Maoism 226Marcos, F. 411Marcuse, H. 58, 59, 198, 208market 51, 185, 439–40, 452

free 440, 450social 188, 458

marketization 187, 453Marquand, D. 86, 101Marshall, A. 189Marshall, J. 331Marshall, T. H. 441Marx, K. 12, 14, 43, 44, 45, 53, 55,

57, 76, 80, 95, 102, 122, 132,146, 148, 192, 198, 206, 207,224, 225, 384

see also Marxism; Marxism–Leninism

Marxism 16, 17, 27, 55–9, 132–3,453

bureaucracy and 384–5, 393citizenship and 441democracy and 80, 86–7group politics and 298–9leadership and 375nationalism and 113–14, 122policy process and 430political culture and 207–8politics and 12–13revolution and 224–6state and 94–5, 96, 98see also historical materialism;

Marxism–LeninismMarxism–Leninism 35, 57, 81,

122, 132–3, 225–6, 329Maslow, A. 211mass media 232, 365, 453

assemblies and 343, 353, 354democracy and 235–8dominant-ideology model

233–4elite-values model 234–5globalization and 233, 240–1governance and 238–40group politics and 306–7market model 235pluralist model 233policy-making and 431theories of 232–5voting and 266

mass society 309, 453materialism 453

dialectical 17, 55, 56, 448historical 56, 450

Maurras, C. 120Mazzini, G. 115, 116, 151, 294Meinecke, F. 112, 114Menezes, J. de 416mercantilism 156, 453Mercosur 150meritocracy 46, 453meta-ideology 45, 453Mexico 62, 148, 168, 411Michels, R. 83, 84, 280, 383, 384Miliband, R. 96, 299, 343, 384militaries 295, 401, 402–13

control of 408–10

role of 403–8seizing of power 410–13see also civil–military relations;

under individual countries; militarism; military regimes; military–industrial complex

militarism 404, 453military regimes 39, 453military–industrial complex 406,

453Mill, J. 77, 427Mill, J. S. 9, 48, 79–80, 116, 172,

249, 289, 327, 382, 442Miller, W. L. 254Millett, K. 12, 64, 201, 310Mills, C. W. 83, 84, 298Milosevic, S. 328ministerial responsibility 391,

396, 453Mitterand, F. 173, 258, 351, 366,

418Mobutu, S. 284, 407models 19–21, 19, 453monarchy 28, 29, 220, 366, 453

constitutional 321Monbiot, G. 305monetarism 191, 453monetary policy 453monism 302, 453Monnet, J. 152Montesquieu, C.-L. 14, 28, 82,

111, 336, 358morality 325–6More, T. 26, 53Morgenthau, H. 130Morocco 220Morris, W. 53Mosca, G. 83, 84Moseley, O. 194Mouffe, C. 309Mugabe, R. 284Muhammad, E. 176Muller-Armack, A. 188multiculturalism 124, 144, 175,

201, 212–13, 215cosmopolitan 217drawbacks 217–19liberal 215–16models of 214–17pluralist 216–17

multilateralism 142, 156, 453multilevel governance 104, 453multinational corporations

(MNCs) 132, 148–9see also transnational

corporations (TNCs)multiparty system 34, 287–9multiplier effect 190, 453multipolarity 140–3, 141, 453Murdoch, R. 232Murray, C. 200, 436Mussolini, B. 61, 74, 102, 121, 221mutualism 63mutually assured destruction

(MAD) 131, 136

Namibia 121nanny state 52, 453Napoleon 221, 293Nasser, G. A. 374, 407–8, 429nation 109, 110–15, 110, 174, 453

as cultural community 111–12

as political community 113–15see also under individual

countries; nationalism; state

nation-state 6, 104, 116, 117–18,123, 130, 453

future for 123–4see also state

Nation of Islam 176National Association for the

Advancement of ColoredPeople (USA) 176, 296

National Front (FN), France 200,201

National Organization for Women(USA) 202

national self-determination 116,121, 453

National Socialism see Nazismnational unity 164National Women’s Political Caucus

202nationalism 53, 109, 110, 130,

453anticolonial 121–3black 112, 176–7chauvinist 120civic 216, 446conservative 118–19cultural 111–12, 112, 448ethnic 174, 175–6, 449expansionist 119–21integral 120, 451liberal 115–18pan-nationalism 121political 113–15popular 113types of 115–23

nationalization 102natural aristocracy 50, 454natural law 326, 454natural rights 77, 454nature, state of 93, 458Nauru 344Nazi Party 241–2, 295, 325, 417Nazism 29, 61–2, 120, 121, 200,

403–4, 453need 54negative freedom 324, 454negative rights 323, 454neocolonialism 454neoconservatism 51, 52–3, 138–9,

210, 454neocorporatism 84, 454neofunctionalism 152, 454neo-idealism 129, 454neoliberalism 51, 52, 454neo-Marxism 17, 58, 96, 133, 222,

454neopluralism 83, 94, 299, 454neo-realism 131, 454Nepal 321Netherlands 61, 288, 299, 304,

316, 345, 367Neumann, S. 274Neustadt, R. 363neutrality 17–18, 329, 384, 454new democracies 34–6, 35, 454New Guinea 159new institutionalism 16New Left 79, 308, 454new public management 391, 435,

454

475

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 475

I N D E X

New Right 49, 51–3, 86, 97,223–4, 434, 440, 454

anti-corporatism and 300anti-welfarism and 441bureaucracy and 385–6, 391,

393democracy and 86group politics and 300–1hegemonic project 223–4state and 96–7, 100see also neoconservatism;

neoliberalismNew Zealand 61, 112, 214, 258,

284, 305–6assembly 338, 344, 348, 350bureaucracy 391, 396constitution 317, 318policy process 435

Nietzsche, F. 373, 374Nigeria 39, 114, 121, 168, 177–8,

351, 407, 411, 412nightwatchman state 454Niskanen, W. A. 15, 97, 385Nixon, R. 233, 324, 331, 343, 363,

365, 375Nkrumah, K. 121, 284noblesse oblige 51, 454nomenklatura system 283, 454nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) 132, 141, 237, 296,297, 307

Nordlinger, E. 94, 408normative 13, 454North, O. 399North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) 103,150, 151

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)29–30, 103, 135, 145, 149–50,165

North Korea 37, 58, 122, 139North–South divide 147Northern Ireland 110, 173, 174–5,

319, 405, 417Norway 288, 306, 345, 371Nove, A. 194Nozick, R. 15, 52, 100nuclear weapons 138, 142

proliferation 138Nyerere, J. 121, 284

Oakeshott, M. 44–5, 210, 211objective 13, 454O’Douglas, W. 331Offe, C. 222Ohmae, K. 103, 143oligarchy 280, 454

iron law of 83, 280, 383Olson, M. 15, 300, 434Oman 317ombudsman 396, 397, 454O’Neill, T., Jr 163open government 348, 397, 436,

454order 90, 413, 454

domestic 404–5world order 133–43

organicism 50, 454Organization for Economic

Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) 144,145, 149

Organization of African Unity(OAU) 165

orientalism 38, 212Ostrogorski, M. 280Owen, R. 53ownership

common 54–5property 50

pacifism 454Paine, T. 46, 249, 250, 251, 315Pakistan 35, 38, 123, 159, 325,

336, 351, 412Palestine Liberation Organization

(PLO) 132pan-nationalism 121, 454Panama 118Papadopoulos, Colonel 39, 407paradigm 20, 21, 455Parekh, B. 216–17Pareto, V. 83, 84parliament 336–7, 455

legislative power 340–1parliamentary democracy 80,

455parliamentary sovereignty 319,

325, 455parliamentary systems 29, 169,

321, 337–9, 351, 358, 366–7parliamentary government

171, 337, 455see also assemblies; parliamentary

democracy; Westminster model

particularism 212, 455partisan dealignment 266, 279,

455party systems 34, 282–8, 455

dominant party 286–7group politics and 303multiparty 34, 287–9one-party 34, 283–4two-party 34, 267, 284–5see also political parties

paternalism 50, 455patriarchal state 97–9patriarchy 64, 98, 202, 455patriotism 110, 118, 119, 455peak associations 85, 455Peel, R. 413people 72–3perestroika 58, 194, 455performance see system

performancePericles 440permissiveness 52, 455Perón, J. 194Perot, R. 285, 289Peru 411Peter the Great 36Philadelphia Convention (1787)

167Philippines 351, 408, 411Pinkney, R. 411Pinochet, General 39, 407, 413planning 192, 455

central 193directive 192, 193indicative 189, 192

Plato 7, 12, 13, 26, 53, 71, 76, 326,443

plebiscitary democracy 75, 455Plekhanov, G. 55

pluralism 20, 21, 46, 82, 94,131–2, 233, 297, 455

corporate 85group politics and 297–9, 302mass media and 233moderate 287–8pluralist democracy 34, 82–3,

83, 86–7pluralist state 92–4polarized 288political 456value 216, 459

plurality 455Poland 35, 36, 351, 363, 408police forces 413–19

control of 418–19police states 417, 455roles of 414–17see also individual countries

policy 5, 255, 388, 425, 436, 455assemblies and 348–51bureaucracy and 387–8, 393fiscal 450

policy networks 6, 305, 393, 432,455

iron triangles 451policy process 426–37

evaluation 435–7formulation 432–4implementation 434–5initiation 430–2

polis 5, 76, 455political bias 17, 238, 446, 455political communication 241–4political culture 205, 206–11, 206,

279, 455group politics and 302mass media effects 238, 239see also civic culture; ideology

political economy 15political obligation 93, 455political parties 271, 272–82, 272,

352, 455antiparty parties 290, 445cadre parties 273caucuses 281constitutional 274–5decline of 289–90faction 272functions of 275–80group politics and 303integrative 274left-wing 275machine politics 281mass parties 274organization 280–2party democracy 280–2, 281party government 279, 285representative 274revolutionary 275right-wing 275types of 273–5see also under individual

countries; individual parties; party systems

political philosophy 13–14, 455political rights 441political science 14–15, 17–18, 456political socialization 113, 233, 456political spectrum 276, 277political stability 388–9political system 19–20, 26, 456

systems of classification 26–30,

31–2types of 30–9

politicization 397–8politics 3–22, 456

adversary 285, 350, 445definitions 4–13feminist view of 11–12Marxist view of 12–13science of 13, 14–15, 17–18,

456study of 13–21theories of 4–13, 15

polity 5, 28, 456Polsby, N. 298polyarchy 33, 82, 456

western polyarchies 32–4Pompidou, G. 366Popper, K. 16, 44populism 178, 378, 456Portugal 34, 316, 365, 408positive law 326, 456positive rights 323, 456positivism 326, 456post-Fordism 198, 211, 290, 456postcommunism 35–6postindustrial society 309, 456postmaterialism 211, 290, 456postmodernism 17, 67, 177, 268,

456postmodernity 67Poulantzas, N. 96Powell, C. 406Powell, E. 119power 5, 7, 10–13, 142, 456

balance of 130, 138, 445bureaucratic 392–9faces of 11great 130, 450hard 142, 450in executive 361–72in political parties 280–2legitimizing 219–22military 410–13separation of powers 34, 82,

169, 321, 336, 337, 339, 362, 390, 458

soft 140, 142, 458world 156see also bipolarity; multipolarity;

unipolaritypower politics 130, 456pragmatism 45, 49, 456preemptive attack 139, 456presidential systems 29, 339–41,

362–6presidential government 362,

456semi-presidential 363, 365, 458see also assemblies

presidentialism 369, 456presidents 362–6, 456

see also under individualcountries; individual presidents;presidential systems

Pressman, J. 435pressure groups 294, 456

see also interest groupsprime ministers 366–70, 456

prime ministerial government368, 456

see also under individualcountries; individual primeministers

476

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 476

I N D E X

prisoners’ dilemma 15, 16privatization 391, 456progress 46, 456proletariat 56, 57, 198, 225, 456

dictatorship of 95, 102, 448propaganda 241–3, 242, 343, 456property ownership 50, 56proportional representation 34,

255, 256, 260, 456protectionism 149, 151, 457Proudhon, P.-J. 63, 165, 166, 178,

256Przeworski, A. 32public choice 15, 97, 300, 426, 457

bureaucracy and 385–6military and 406see also rational choice

public goods 457public interest 264, 457public/private divide 7–9, 91

feminist critique of 8Puerto Rico 402Pulzer, P. 267Putin, V. 365Putman, R. 209, 210

qualified majority voting 153, 457quangos 173, 359, 391, 392, 457Quebec 110, 171, 175, 214Qutb, S. 66

race 112, 200–1, 200, 457racialism (racism) 16, 62, 115,

120, 200, 457institutional 416, 451

radicalism 457Rao, C. R. 370rational choice 15, 274, 385, 457

party politics and 277voting and 267–8

rationalism 44, 457rationalization 383Rawlings, J. 407Rawls, J. 15, 48, 60, 93, 100Reagan, R. 118, 134, 170, 210, 223,

281, 301, 331, 365, 375, 377,399

Reaganism 51realism 130–1, 457

neo-realism 131, 454reason 46rebellion 405, 457recall 251, 457redistribution 48, 60, 457referendums 74, 169, 250, 320,

457see also democracy; initiative;

plebiscitaryreform 457regimes 26, 30–9, 457

East Asian 36–7military 39, 453see also political system

regionalization 103, 144, 149–56,149, 150, 457

relativism 438religious fundamentalism see

fundamentalismrepresentation 46, 74, 248–53,

248, 457assemblies and 341–2delegate model 249–51elections 255

mandate model 251–2parties 276–7proportional 34, 255, 256, 260,

456resemblance model 252–3theories of 248–53trustee model 249

repression 224, 408, 411, 412, 457republicanism 28, 457reserve army of labour 99, 457responsibility 342, 418, 457

collective 447individual 451ministerial 391, 396, 453

responsible government 338, 342,457

revisionism 53, 457revolution 18–19, 224, 411, 457

proletarian 56, 57social 53theories of 224–8see also individual revolutions

rhetoric 343, 457Rhodes, R. 6Ricardo, D. 186, 188, 189Richardson, J. 433Right 457rights 99, 323, 458

bills of 34, 167, 323, 446citizenship 441civil 441divine 327, 448human 117, 135, 326minority 214–15natural 77, 454negative 323, 454political 441positive 323, 456social 441

risk society 148Robespierre, M. 337Romania 35, 36, 405, 417Roosevelt, F.-D. 158, 170, 329,

331, 363, 365, 374, 398, 428Rose, R. 223, 364Rousseau, J.-J. 9, 73, 76, 78–9, 79,

93, 110, 113, 151, 205, 264,337, 442

rule of law 326, 414, 458ruling class 83, 86, 198, 458Russell, B. 127Russia 27, 29, 35–6, 62, 141, 225,

228democracy 27executive 358, 363, 365media 242military 405, 406–7, 408parties 282–3perestroika 58, 194, 455see also USSR

Rwanda 115, 159, 178

Sabatier, P. 429Sadat, A. 407–8Saddam Hussein 102, 139, 227,

376, 410, 413, 438Said, E. 212, 213Saint-Simon, C.-H. 151, 192Sandel, M. 179, 441Saro-Wiwa, K. 413Sartori, G. 282, 287Saudi Arabia 38, 220, 317, 321Scammel, M. 232

Schlesinger, A. 363Schmidt, H. 372Scholte, J. A. 102, 143Schopenhauer, A. 373Schumacher, E. F. 179, 195Schuman, R. 152Schumpeter, J. 33, 84, 253, 274,

442science 13, 14–15, 16, 17–18, 458scientism 16, 458Scotland 114, 174–5, 177, 319secularism 66, 458security, collective 129, 158, 447Seliger, M. 45semi-democracies 35, 458semi-presidential system 363,

365, 458Sen, A. 217separation of powers 34, 82, 169,

321, 336, 337, 339, 362, 390,458

separatism 171, 458Serbia 36, 120, 136, 407Shari’a law 38, 66, 458Sierra Leone 105Siéyès, E.-J. 344Simon, H. 427Singapore 37, 240, 336Singh, A. 370Skinner, B. F. 17Skocpol, T. 228Slovakia 36Slovenia 36Smith, A. 112, 186, 188, 189Smith, J. 281social capital 191, 210, 458

decline in 209–11social class 54, 56, 197–200, 197,

458see also bourgeoisie; class

consciousness; proletariat;ruling class; underclass

social contract 93, 156, 458social democracy 59–60, 458social justice 60, 101, 440, 458social market 188, 458social movements 294, 307–10,

308, 458new 290, 308–10

social reflexivity 67, 458social rights 441social structure 195–202socialism 53–61, 184, 191–4,

458democracy and 75economic system 193ethical 65market 193–4, 194, 452nationalism and 122state 185, 193, 458see also communism; Marxism;

social democracysocieties 196Socrates 12Somalia 105, 137, 159Sorensen, G. 104Soros, G. 148South Africa 114, 117, 200, 286,

344South Korea 37, 105South Yemen 122South-East Asian Treaty

Organization (SEATO) 149

sovereignty 28, 91, 131, 165, 458economic 103, 449parliamentary 319, 325, 455political 112, 131pooling of 104popular 251, 456see also state

Soviet Union see Russia; USSRSpain 34, 62, 173–4, 177, 288, 316,

320, 336, 408, 411spatial leadership 239Speer, A. 376spin 243–4, 243, 458spoils system 397Spooner, L. 100Sri Lanka 178Stalin, J. 57–8, 57, 102, 193, 227,

371, 375, 376, 410, 428Stalinism 35, 295, 375, 458

economic 57–8state 5–7, 27, 89–105, 91, 458

capitalist 94–6collectivized 101–2competition 101, 104, 105, 447definition 90–2developmental 100–1empowerment of 322globalization and 102–4, 130leviathan 96–7market 104–5minimal 99–100, 453patriarchal 97–9pluralist 92–4postmodern 104rogue 137, 458role of 99–102social-democratic 101theories of 92–9totalitarian 102transformation of 104–5weak 105, 137, 460welfare 101, 104, 460see also nation-state

state of nature 93statism 62, 102, 196, 458status 197, 221, 458Stirner, M. 89Stoker, G. 10subjective 458subsidiarity 154, 458Sudan 38, 114, 123, 159, 178suffrage 459Sun Tzu 130superpowers 134, 459supranationalism 119, 153, 459supraterritoriality 103, 459surplus value 56sustainability 195, 459Sweden 185, 194–5, 286, 288, 299,

303–4, 306, 316, 338, 344, 391cabinet 371police 418–19policy process 433

Switzerland 34, 73, 110, 169, 345Syria 139system performance 437–43

citizenship performance 440–1democracy performance 441–3material performance 439–40stability performance 437–8

systems analysis 20, 298systems theory 17, 226, 459

revolution and 226

477

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 477

I N D E X

Taiwan 37, 105, 141Tajikistan 406Taliban 38, 66–7, 139Talmon, J. L. 44, 79Tanzania 121, 284terrorism 136, 296, 404, 406

war on terror 136–40, 137, 377, 404, 437

Thailand 35, 37Thatcher, M. 52, 118, 119, 153,

209, 221, 223, 266, 274, 282,301, 303, 350, 369, 370, 372,374, 377, 378, 397, 399, 428,431, 433, 437

Thatcherism 51, 369, 378, 459theocracy 37, 459theory 20–1, 20, 459think tanks 237, 459third way 60–1, 61, 185, 194–5third world 29–30Thompson, G. 146Thoreau, H. D. 25, 307three worlds typology 29–30Thucydides 130tiger economies 37, 101, 105,

188–9, 459Titmuss, R. M. 440Tito, J. 193Tocqueville, A. de 26, 80, 209,

226–7, 227, 271, 294toleration 46, 215, 459Tönnies, F. 178Toryism 51, 459totalitarian democracy 74–5, 74,

79, 459totalitarianism 29, 35, 102, 309,

403, 459Tracy, D. de 44tradition 49, 209, 221, 459traditional authority 220transnational corporations (TNCs)

102–3, 124, 141, 148–9, 149see also multinational

corporations (MNCs)Travers, T. 436tribalism 117, 459tripartitism 299, 459Trotsky, L. 58, 283, 375, 385, 392Truman, D. 298Truman, H. 364trustee 249Tucker, B. 100Turkey 39, 336, 351, 408Turner, B. 209

Ukraine 124underclass 199–200, 459unicameralism 34, 344, 459uniformity 164unilateralism 136, 160, 459Union for the New Republic

(France) 278unipolarity 133–6, 134, 459unitary systems 29, 171–5United Kingdom 14, 28

assembly 337, 338, 340–2,

345–6, 347, 348, 350, 354bureaucracy 387–98central–local relations 171,

172–3, 174–5constitution 27, 316–20, 323,

325democracy 33, 73economic system 186, 187,

191elections/voting 254, 256,

257–8, 260, 263, 267European Union and 153executive/prime minister/cabinet

367, 368–9, 370, 371, 372group politics 294, 300–6ideology 49, 51, 61, 67judiciary/courts 329, 330, 331,

332military 403, 404, 405, 409multiculturalism 213nationalism 114, 118, 119,

174–5, 177, 200parliamentary system 337, 338,

340–1, 349parties 273, 278, 281, 282, 284,

285, 287, 289police 413, 415, 416–17, 419policy process 433, 435political culture 206, 209–10,

238, 239social structure 199–200spin 243–4state 100, 101see also Northern Ireland;

Scotland; WalesUnited Malays National

Organization (UMNO) 38United Nations 103, 117, 124,

129, 141, 145, 158–60, 165, 321United States of America 14, 15,

26, 29, 31, 128assembly 336, 339, 341–3,

345–8, 349, 352black politics 176–7, 201bureaucracy 364, 387–90, 394,

396, 397, 398centre–local relations/federalism

165–71, 172constitution 28, 167, 169, 316,

317, 320, 322–5, 331democracy 34, 73, 77, 82, 83,

138economic system 186–7, 191elections/voting 254, 255, 267executive/president/cabinet

340, 358, 362–5, 371expansionism 134foreign policy 136–40, 160globalization and 147group politics 294, 299–306hegemony 138ideology 49, 51, 52, 61, 66judiciary/courts 329, 330,

331–2military 138, 142, 404, 405,

406, 409

multiculturalism 213, 214, 215nationalism 112, 114, 116,

118New Deal 331parties 273, 278, 280–1, 284,

285police 415–16, 417, 419policy process 428, 433, 434,

435–6, 437political culture 206–7, 210presidential system 339–40,

342–3spin 243state 100war on terror 136–40Watergate crisis 233, 324, 397World Trade Center attack

136, 240see also Cold War

universalism 212, 459USSR 26, 29, 30, 36, 57–8, 80,

133–4, 178, 392, 439assembly 341, 349–50bureaucracy 358, 387, 389–90,

395constitution 321, 322, 324decision-making 428economic system 193, 194elections/voting 254executive 371federalism 168group politics 295, 302judiciary 329military 406, 410, 413parties 273, 275police 417policy process 432state 101, 102see also Cold War; Russia

utilitarianism 16, 77, 427, 459utility 77, 459utopia 27, 459utopianism 27, 128, 459

value 17, 459Asian 37, 445hidden 17pluralism 216, 459

vanguardism 283, 459Venezuela 255Verba, S. 206–7veto 153, 459Vietnam 121, 122Vietnam War 121, 140, 363–4,

406Virginia School 15, 385Volksgeist 111, 459voting 73–4, 248, 265–8

dominant-ideology model268

issue 268party-identification model

266–7plural 80qualified majority voting 153,

457

rational-choice model 267–8sociological model 267theories of 266–8see also elections; electoral

systems

Wagner, R. 111, 121, 373Wales 112, 114, 174–5, 177, 319Waltz, K. N. 131war 128–9, 403–4, 403, 460

civil 404, 446just 128

war crimes 328war on terror 136–40, 137, 377,

404, 437warlordism 105Warren, E. 331, 365Warsaw Pact 29–30Washington consensus 157Washington, G. 409Watergate crisis, USA 233, 324,

397Watson, J. B. 17weak states 105, 137, 460weapons of mass destruction

(WMD) 138, 142, 460Weber, M. 5, 17, 18, 91, 198,

219–22, 220, 376, 381, 382–4,389, 392

welfare 48, 61, 98, 101, 200,223–4, 439

welfare state 101, 104, 460fiscal crisis of 223, 450

welfarism 60West 34, 137

see also individual countrieswestern polyarchies 32–4Westminster model 33, 337, 460

see also parliamentary systemsWildavsky, A. 434, 435Wilson, H. 377, 398Wilson, W. 116–17, 129, 347, 364,

375Wollstonecraft, M. 63, 64women’s movement see feminismworkfare state 61World Bank 29, 141, 145, 149,

156, 157World Court 158world order 133–43World Trade Organization (WTO)

103, 104, 145, 151, 157world-system theory 147

xenophobia 115, 460

Yelstin, B. 349–50, 365, 406Yergin, D. 134Yugoslavia 36, 117–18, 136, 159,

178, 193–4, 218, 344

Zaire 159, 284, 407Zald, M. N. 309Zambia 122Zimbabwe 284Zionism 410, 460

478

0230_524974_27_Index.qxd 28/2/07 2:23 pm Page 478

contents...list of boxes xiii preface xvi acknowledgements xviii part 1 theories of politics 1 what...

Documents