Structural Functional Approach
There are many other than Easton who can be associated with general systems theory- like Almond
CONTEXT
• Deficiencies in Systems Approach
◦ Too general - no details about structures and processes within political system
◦ Too Static - not relevant for developing countries --> limited imp for CP
• Thus AIM : more universalist model --> useful for [Link] too
INFLUENCE
[ Davies and Lewis in their noted work writes: “structural functional analysis can be said to have
originated in the biological and mechanical sciences. Within the social sciences it was first used in
anthropology and was later developed and refined as a mode of sociological analysis, predominantly by
Talcott Parsons”.
The structural functionalism has also been elaborated by Talcott Parsons. In the fields of sociology and
structural functionalism the contribution of Parsons is still gratefully remembered by the students of
sociology and political science. Parsons has pointed out four important prerequisites of structural
functionalism and these we can treat as the main functions of structural functionalism.]
• from anthropologists like
to make it universalist
1. Malinowski
2. Radcliff brown
3. Talcot Parsons : pointed out four important prerequisites of structural functionalism and these
we can treat as the main functions of structural functionalism.
• Easton's Model
but it takes micro view instead of macro view
IDEA
• Given by
1. Gabriel almond in his book 'the politics of the developing areas '
Screenshot_2023-06-29-18-47-03-509… 187 kB
2. Bingham Powell
Screenshot_2023-06-29-18-49-36-513… 228 kB
1 of 4 17/09/23, 12:45
• Dynamic view of Political System
◦ Every sys/society has to perfom some essential functions w/o which it cannot exist.
◦ Structures-- perform these functions
◦ Structures performing func may vary in diff societies
• An improvement over Eastonʼs model as it is more detailed take some micro view and more
dynamic .
• It assumes that diff pol systems are at diff stages of dev
Comparative Model of Almond
Employing above concepts, Almond: all pol sys- whether adv or backward - have some universal
characteristics, on the basis of which comparison of these systems are possible. These characteristic are:
1. All pop sys - pop structures. Comparison - on the basis of degree of structural specialisation
2. Same functions in all sys. Diff kinds of structures - perform them in diff manners
3. All pol sys - multifunctional, no matter how specialized. Can be compared by looking at specificity
of functions
4. All pol structures are 'mixed' - no complete moder or primitive. Comparison on the basis of
dominance of one aspect over another
Characteristics of Political System:
Mention has been made that Almondʼs analysis has built-up a huge structure of general systems theory
and he has thrown light on the subject from different angle.
According to Almond all the political systems have in common four main characteristics:
1. There are simple and complex political systems in different parts of the globe. Almondʼs point is
that all the political systems have political structures.
Almond has admitted that the comparison between two types of structures may not be completely
relevant but they can be compared. Moreover, -the emergence of the new state systems in the Third
World encouraged Almond to devise a technique that will be helpful for comparison. Here lies the credit
of Almond.
2. There may be differences between the systems and structures but all the systems perform almost
same political functions. For the purpose of comparative analysis the frequency of the
performance can be studied.
3. The political structures may be specialised, non-specialised or may be primitive. But thorough
study of the various aspects has revealed that the structures are multifunctional which means
that though the functions specifically stated, in practice the structure performs other functions.
4. All political systems are mixed systems in the cultural sense. The culture of any political system is
the mixture of modern and traditional cultures. From the study of the cultures of various political
systems Almond has found that there cannot exist any all-modern and all-primitive cultures. Even
the cultures of primitive political systems are partially moulded by the developed cultures of the
2 of 4 17/09/23, 12:45
West.
Of course there may be difference of predominance of any particular culture on the cultural aspects of
another system. For example, during the British rule - Indian society got influenced, but also British
culture and society could not keep away from Indian culture.
These are the four main characteristics of all the political systems and by finding out the characteristics
Almond has made attempt to generalise the political systems.
Almond incorporated the Eastonian input-output-feedback framework too. But developed own
categories of inputs & outputs.
4 input functions :
i) participation if people in politics
iii) expressing interests and demanding action
iv) functions of pol parties, which aggregate interests & demands
ii) to ensure all the other three
3 outlut functions
i)
ii)
iii)
linked to three inst. of gov, namely legislature, executive and judiciary
3 of 4 17/09/23, 12:45
[ Adaptation and Change:
The core idea of Almondʼs structural functionalism is how the structures of the political system function
and how (through the functions and other ways) adjusts with other systems as well as with the
environment surrounding it. This, like Eastonʼs analysis, lays the foundation of general system analysis.
It has been held by Almond and many others that behind the building up of a general system there is
the very crucial role of adaptation and change. The two, of course, cannot be effectively separated. If
the political system adjusts (or adapts) itself with the new challenges emanating from the
environment, then that means that the political system has succeeded is adapting with the outer
conditions which we call the environment. in both Eastonʼs and Almondʼs general systems analysis
there is both adaptation and change.
Almond calls this adaptation or adjustment conversion process. The demands or claims coming from
other systems or from the environment do not remain unattended. Today or tomorrow they are
converted into decisions or policies. The demands, claims and supports for these are called inputs and
the decisions/policies are called outputs. This is the conversion process.]
CRITIQUE
• Almond borrowed the chief elements and aspects of his structural functionalism mainly from
sociology and specifically from Parsons. The problem is the term and concepts having abundant
relevance in sociology may not have the same in political science.
• just can be a model and not more than that:
◦ Some critics are of the view that he has thrown very little light on the structural aspects of
political systems. He has given them new nomenclatures. He calls state a political system,
institutions, structures etc. But by giving new names he has not been able to change the
character and functions of political system/state.
• Improvement : detailed view oThe political, cultural, economic and other elements, today, can
very easily create impact upon different states. This influence is never a one-way traffic.f pol sys
◦ but not all defects removed : not much analytical importance
• Marxists criticise it as ideologically inclined : The gravest charge against Almond is he has, in a
clandestine way, supported the existing structure of the capitalist system. He wants to establish
that the capitalist system, through its management and self-regulatory mechanism, can defend
itself. It is a better system in comparison with other systems.
impact of globalisation the world has become too small. Almost all the countries of this world have
come closer and no state can claim that it is outside the influence of other states. The political, cultural,
economic and other elements, today, can very easily create impact upon different states. This influence
is never a one-way traffic. the result is tht structural functionalism of Almond has received new
4 of 4 17/09/23, 12:45