Comparative Political Systems
Reflection Paper
Calvin Chan & Peter Chen
Introduction
Political systems play an important role in the business potential of a country, therefore
fueling growing interests in the field of comparative governments across all academia. Through
our examination and critique of two articles written by American political scientist Gabriel A.
Almond, we aim to better understand the relationship between politics, different systems of
governance, and any societal implications they might have.
In Almond’s first article “Comparative Political Systems,” he writes that existing
classifications of political systems has been found to be inadequate (1956). For instance, regional
classification is based merely on geographical characteristics and not on the characteristics of the
political systems (Almond, 1956). The most common structural classifications (e.g. democracydictatorship and parliamentary-presidential systems) also fail to provide insight in terms of
comparative purposes (Almond, 1956). As a result, Almond proposed that political systems
should be classified as follows: the Anglo-American, the Continental European, the PreIndustrial and Totalitarian. In this critical reflection, we will examine the foundations of
Almond’s typology on comparative political systems and propose potential applications to the
study of international business.
A decade after the publication of the assigned article, Almond’s “Political Theory and
Political Science (1966)” takes a different approach in examining the systematic and figurative
trends of political studies within social sciences. Instead of looking at the social-geographical
political considerations listed above, Almond compares changes at the core level – through the
minds of the political scientists and thinkers. He compares major changes to common thought
patterns where political implications are built from, mainly the shift of “political theory” to
“political science.” The articles begin with a comprehensive comparison of past historical
approaches to comparing political systems, and points out a present disconnect between “theory”
and “science.” Along this trend, he argues that there is a “danger of becoming alienated from our
special professional culture and from the powerful motivation which comes from having a
significant part in the solution of the ultimate problem of man’s enlightenment.”
Classifications & Terminology
In determining essential properties of political systems, Almond took a sociological
approach in this first article. He proposes that political systems are “systems of action”, where
they cannot be described simply by their “legal or ethical norm (Almond, 1956).” Rather,
political systems should be examined through their actions and their impacts on the actions of
others. These actions derive from interactions between interdependent units or roles (e.g.
government parties, pressure group, and media), where changes in one role affect changes in the
others (Almond, 1956).
Another important concept is that political systems have a “legitimate monopoly of
physical coercion over a given territory (Almond, 1956).” While political systems are concerned
with protecting freedom and welfare, they are able to do things that other social systems cannot
accomplish legitimately. As a result, political systems can be defined as “the patterned
interaction of roles affecting decisions backed up by the threat of physical compulsion (Almond,
1956).”
The final concept we would like to draw attention to is the orientation to political action
or political culture, which is the set of meaning and purposes embedded in political systems that
involves “cognition, intellection and adaptation to external situations, as well as values of the
general culture (Almond, 1956).” It is important to note that political cultures are not bounded by
a given political system or society (Almond, 1956). Even though the above concepts are limiting,
we believe that they serve as an important basis of understanding political systems and the
implications they may have on international business.
Classifying Systems: The Anglo-American
The political culture of the Anglo-American is characterized to be homogeneous with the
ultimate goals of freedom, mass welfare and security (Almond, 1956). However, different roles
stress different values at the expense of others, where electors sell their votes in exchange for
differentiated as each role pursues specialized purposes but in an organized manner (Almond,
1956). There is also a high degree of stability of functions where political division of labor is
complex. For instance, bureaucracies function as bureaucracies and armies as armies (Almond,
1956). Finally, there is a diffusion of power and influence that resulted from mass
communication, education, and representation by interest groups (Almond, 1956).
Classifying Systems: The Pre-Industrial
Characterized as a sharp contrast to the Anglo-American, the Pre-Industrial political
system described as mixed political culture and systems where there is an atmosphere of
instability and violence (Almond, 1956). The political cultures of the Pre-Industrial include the
traditional cultures, Western-rational culture, and a mixture of both (Almond, 1956). The role
structure is describe to have a relatively low degree of differentiation where political interests
tend to be spontaneous and short-termed, resulting in no stable division of political labor
(Almond, 1956).
Classifying Systems: Totalitarian
The political culture of a Totalitarian political system is described to be synthetically
homogeneous, where authority is achieved through “conformity and apathy” that resulted from
monopolized modern technology of communication and violence (Almond, 1956). The
Totalitarian role structure is characterized by the predominance of the coercive roles and
functional instability of the power roles (Almond, 1956)
Classifying Systems: The Continental European
The political culture of the Continental European is found to be a mixture of sub-cultures
that includes the pre-industrial, the middle class and the modernized, where further
fragmentation exists in each of them (Almond, 1956). The role structure is characterized by a
lack of exchange and compromise; instead, political actors attempt to transform the political
market into something other than a bargaining agency (Almond, 1956).
Critique of Almond’s Typology
Through comparing political cultures and role structures, Almond does accomplish his
intent to classify political system in a more extensive manner. However, in his critique of
structural classifications, we find his typology to be quite similar to the democracy-dictatorship
spectrum.
Almond’s typology has also been criticized for being confusing and lacking in logic, as it
uses very different, but broad, criteria for his classifications (Kalleberg, 1966). From his fourfold
category, we can see that two of them are classified based on geographic locations, one is based
on economic position and one is based on political criteria (Kalleberg, 1966). While we do agree
that there are geo-political implications, today’s globalizing world has shown that influences
transcend across borders – and even oceans. While his systems may have had greater merit in a
more secluded and separated world, it is potentially diluted in present times. As a result,
Almond’s typology fails to provide a mutual exclusive set of categories (Almond, 1956).
Finally, in what seems to be an attempt to include as many countries as possible, we find
Almond’s typology to be quite broad. While it does illustrate general characteristics of political
systems, it is not adequately applicable to all countries. Countries differ so immensely, whether it
is political, cultural, social or economic; four broad classifications cannot encompass the
dynamisms of today’s political spectrum. The world’s political landscape can no longer just be
considered left, right, or somewhere in between; perhaps we should look inside and out to
determine real implications on doing business in different political systems. Generalizations and
the over simplification of complex theories will risk losing future findings.
Trends, Scope & Limitations
Gabriel Almond’s second article looks at the development of political science as a
specialized discipline. He identified certain trends that he sees as critical to the future of his
studies. The first trend is the enormous growth of the number of political theorists. Although this
may not be inherently bad, the majority (nine of out ten) of these emerging are American
(Almond, 1966). This reflects the dominant American influence at the time of publication.
Branching off of the first trend, Almond takes into consideration of the large proportion of young
thinkers, particularly young men. They are assumed to be intellectually and professionally more
innovative. Being trained in newer approaches, they are better adaptive to intellectual currents of
the times (Almond, 1966).
The last trend, which encompasses the first article as well, is the age of scientific
revolution during the decade in which these articles were published. To supplement quantitative
thinking, new surveys, technologies, and other logical methods can be incorporated. Perhaps the
most important inclusions are other social sciences. By looking at the sociological, psychological
and anthropological relations within political science, further directives can be made. More
importantly, social scientists can better look at the implications of social relations within the
business world.
Overall, Almond is critical of the progression of emerging political theorists. Using a
powerful metaphor from a scripture, he compares political science’s current directives, and even
his own theory, to “suggestion therapy” (Almond, 1966). Like suggestion therapy, where one is
relaxed to stage of acceptance, he believes that there is a disconnection between “theory” and
“science”. The difference between humanists and behaviourists, along with the “intoxication of
new technologies”, and the explanatory power of insights from other disciplines has obscured the
“mission” of political sciences (Almond, 1966). To conclude, Almond believes that our
motivation and directives will inevitable be diluted.
A limitation of Almond’s theory, that we have identified, relates back to the fundamental
study itself. Social sciences may be dialectic in many of its theory due to the ambiguity of
theoretical approaches. Unlike biological and physical sciences, the relation between politics,
social ideas and the global paradigm are often validated through academia citations.
Furthermore, both of these articles are outdated. They fail to take into account future
directives, whether predictable at the time or not. Since the last half a century, the shift in global
and regional political dynamism has been immense. Global and economic powers are not shifting
away from Western Europe and America to countries like China and India; the thought of which
would have been unimaginable when Almond was writing the first article.
Comparison & Relations
Almond draws heavily from historical context to clearly ground his theory. He begins by
comparing ancient theories; from Plato and Aristotle to Polybius and Cicero. Historical political
theorists did not systematically separate structure from function. These classical theorists built
their ideas through a political sociology and psychology approach, thus resulting in a normative
political theory and not a theory of process. Later political systems are far more explicit,
therefore making the bases of political classification more sociological rather than political.
The latter article also draws closely to the separation-of-power doctrine, which relates to
the democratic stability and regimes’ true democratic nature. The separation of powers principle,
which was developed in Ancient Greece and Rome, calls for the equal distribution of power
through different branches of government (i.e. legislative, executive and judiciary) (Almond,
1966). Almond believes that the separation-of-powers theory was the “dominant paradigm” of
political science, and has now been replaced by the system’s paradigm (Almond, 1966). This
transition in thought becomes the basis in which the four classifications from the first article are
drawn. Almond goes beyond the separation-of-powers theory by putting more emphasis on the
social and cultural aspects of politics. He looks at the informal structures that also make up the
political system.
Implications on the Factbook
Through our comparison and critique of Almond’s theories and notions, we wish to use it
as a comparative guide to examining the political systems within our assigned Factbook
countries, Germany and Great Britain. This will give us a better and more comprehensive
understanding of how sociological and anthropological concepts are applied to comparisons of
the similar but systemically different political systems of the two countries.
First of all, Germany and Great Britain are both rich in history and resources. The
countries’ composition of different layers of political and economic influence gives us plenty to
ponder about. Upon further research, we would like to determine the difference between Great
Britain’s unitary parliamentary/constitutional monarchy system and Germany’s federal
parliamentary/constitutional republic governing systems. Through this, we can give insight on
the implications of doing business within the political landscape of these two countries.
As of now we are leaning on further establishing the importance of historical influences
on both of the country. We wish to understand the greater implications of Britain’s monarchy
system on the industry we have chosen. Furthermore we will look into Germany’s economic
prominence, and inevitably its political power, in the European Union today. Once again, further
research must be done for any conclusive findings. It is important to note that, while we do see
the value of such comparative studies, we are also aware of its limitations and will take them into
consideration.
Works Cited
Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative Political Systems. The Journal of Politics, 391-401.
Almond, G. A. (1966). Political Theory and Political Science. THe American Political Science
Review, 869-879.
Kalleberg, A. L. (1966). The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Note on the Comparative
Study of Political. World Politics, 69-82.