Behaviouralism in politics implies a search for realism based on a scientific outlook. It refers to a break from the dominant concern with law, ideology and governmental institutions into an examination of all the structures and processes involved in politics and policy-making.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
GENESIS AND BACKGROUND:
Behaviouralism has been one of the most important developments in Political Science during the Twentieth Century. The study of political behaviour in the USA started when Graham Wallas and A.F. Bentley advocated the study of actual phenomenon of politics in 1908. Graham Wallas held that politics without the study of psychology of individuals was meaningless. As behaviour played an important role in political phenomenon, Bentley highlighted its significant role among groups.
He advocated his ideas at various conferences on political science during the 1920s. His effort was reinforced when an American journalist Frank Kent wrote a book titled ‘Political Behaviour’ in 1928. The President of the American Political Science Association Charles Merriam emphasised the need for looking at political behaviour during the 1925 conference.
During the next decade, many academics like Merriam, Lasswell and Truman started to strongly advocate the behavioural approach to political science. Herbert Tingsten wrote a book in 1937 titled ‘Political Behaviour: Studies in Election Statistics’, which considerably helped in popularising the term.
BEHAVIOURALISM AS A MOVEMENT:
Although stymied during the Second World War, the Behavioural Revolution re-entered the political science arena with full force after the war was over. Political scientists came under the influence of prominent sociologists like Mosca, Weber, Parsons, Merton, etc. and realised the urgent need for resolving social problems caused by the Second World War. This could not be done without examining the behaviour of concerned individuals.
Many scholars like Lasswell, Easton, Almond, Truman, Powell, Simon and Key joined hands to provide a fillip to this movement, because they were dissatisfied with the achievements of conventional political science. They conducted many praiseworthy research-works on the topic.
Committees set up by the American Political Science Association on ‘political behaviour‘ and ‘comparative politics‘ also did a commendable job in bringing about a behavioural revolution. This trend of rapid growth of Behaviouralism in politics continued for over twenty years after the end of Second World War. Nowadays it has become so important that the study of political issues remains incomplete without taking recourse to it.
BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH AS A THEORY:
According to Samuel J. Eldersveld, Behaviouralism may be defined as the “systematic search for political patterns through the formulation of empirical theory and the technical analysis and verification thereof”.
According to Heinz Eulau, “Modern behavioural science is eminently concerned not only with the acts of man, but also with his cognitive, effective and evaluative process. Behaviour in political field refers not simply to directly or indirectly observable political action, but also to those perceptual, motivational and attitudinal components of behaviour which make for man’s political identification, demands and his system of political benefits, values and goals”.
According to Robert Dahl, behavioural approach “Is an attempt to improve our understanding of points by seeking to explain the empirical aspects of political life by means of methods, theories and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to canons and assumptions of modern political science“.
David Truman contended that the new approach dealt with the verified principles of human behaviour, “through the use of methods similar to those of natural sciences”. Similarly, David Easton observed that despite shifts in emphasis, the underlying assumption of the behaviouralists is the same: to build “a science of politics modelled after the methodological assumptions of the natural sciences”.
According to the Committee on Political Behaviour of the American Political Science Association, “Roughly defined, the term political behaviour comprehends those actions and interactions of men and groups which are involved in the process of governing…It is rather an orientation, a point of view which aims at understanding all the phenomena of government in terms of the observed and observable behaviour of men… The ultimate goal of the student of political behaviour is the development of a science of the political process”.
According to Dwight Waldo, “Behaviouralism was not and is not a clear and firm creed, an agreed upon set of postulates and rules”. Some general characteristics of Behaviouralism are as follows:
(a) a movement of protest against the inadequacies of conventional political science, led by the American political scientists;
(b) it has made the individual the focus of attention in the study of political phenomena;
(c) it stresses the special importance of scientific outlook and objectivity in the study of political science;
(d) it is considered as a methodological revolution in political science;
(e) it emphasises on inter-disciplinary study of political science; the possible effects of social, cultural and personal factors on political behaviour should be taken into account, as the wider context in which political action occurs cannot be neglected;
(f) it aims to build a scientific theory with the help of observation and experimentation, which may predict things and be applied universally.
David Easton, an important exponent of the behaviouralist school of political science, has highlighted eight features of Behaviouralism. These are: regularities in human behaviour; a preference for verification and testing rather than taking things for granted; application of correct techniques for acquisition and interpretation of scientific data; emphasis on measurement and quantification for predicting a political result; belief in value-free study; belief in systematic study of political science, which should be ‘theory-oriented’ and ‘theory-directed’; insistence on ‘pure-science’ approach; belief that social and political phenomena cannot be studied in isolation and therefore an inter-disciplinary approach is crucial.
ACHIEVEMENTS OF BEHAVIOURALISM:
Vigorous attempts have been made by the behaviouralists to lift political science to the level of pure sciences like physics and chemistry. As a consequence, there has been significant increase in the use of empirical and quantitative methods as well as attempts to evolve conceptual frameworks, models, theories, meta-theories and paradigms. The achievements of Behaviouralism can therefore be traced in two main areas: research methodology and theory building.
The behaviouralists achieved significant success in developing and refining the tools and techniques of research in political science. Improvements in the areas of
(a) content-analysis,
(b) case-analysis,
(c) interviews and observations, and
(d) statistical applications have been particularly remarkable.
Most sophisticated quantitative techniques have been used in empirical research projects based on Behaviouralism. The behaviouralists also made significant headways in the area of rigorous and systematic comparative content analysis. Research in comparative politics has been facilitated considerably by undertaking cross-national investigations.
The methods of interviewing and observations in Behaviouralism have also led to a tremendous improvement in sophistication of research methodology. Increasing sophistication has been observed in the designing of survey questions and questionnaires as well as in the substantive aspects of interviewing.
The greatest refinement came in the sphere of sample survey, which became a basic instrument of social research in its own right. Remarkable improvements have also been brought about in the field of statistical applications. Developments in this area have led to the growth of ‘causal modelling’, whereby the path of causation within a system of variables can be tested.
The contribution of Behaviouralism towards theory-building, however, has not been significant. This is, because, it is mainly concerned with individual and group behaviour and focuses less and less on state, government and institutions. According to Parsons, the developments in the field of Behaviouralism in politics have been “a good deal more revolutionary in the realm of technique than in that of validated and expanded theory”.
CRITICISM OF BEHAVIOURALISM IN POLITICS:
Behaviouralists have been criticised mainly on the following grounds:
(a) Behaviouralism is concerned more with techniques than results;
(b) Behaviouralism is directed at pseudo-politics, as it advocates personal or private interests at the cost of universal interests;
(c) behaviouralists have neglected the effects of institutions on society and targeted their efforts mostly on behavioural aspects of individuals and groups;
(d) Politics can never be value-free as claimed by the behaviouralists;
(e) behaviouralists have been focusing mainly on static subjects rather than on current problems; they have ignored urgent problems because these did not suite their study;
(f) there are difficulties associated with the ever-changing behaviour of man and no correct prediction can be made about future behaviour of individuals and groups;
(g) behaviouralist approach to political science depends so much on other branches of social science like sociology and anthropology that the very identity, integrity and autonomy of political science is threatened;
(h) the behaviouralists place too much emphasis on political behaviour of man but do not apply their research to current problems;
(i) Behaviouralism provides only a limited knowledge about the political behaviour of man, but does not provide real knowledge to solve urgent problems facing the world.
The traditionalists among the political scientists have also levelled the following criticisms about Behaviouralism, some of which may overlap with those noted in the preceding paragraphs:
(a) behaviouralists assume a mechanical view of man motivated by self-interest alone; they ignore human values and norms;
(b) they ignore bigger issues of the world;
(c) they ignore theoretical aspects of the subject and is concerned about techniques only;
(d) human behaviour cannot be generalised as assumed by the behaviouralists;
(e) behaviouralists give more attention to statistical figures than human ideals;
(f) study of politics can never be value-free;
(g) the analysis of behaviouralists is defective because they consider American institutions as the best in the world and use Behaviouralism as a tool to prove the worth of those institutions.
POST-BEHAVIOURALISM:
In 1969, David Easton declared the end of behavioural revolution and the beginning of a new era in the study of politics, popularly called ‘Post-Behaviouralism’. As claimed by Easton, its main thesis is ‘relevance‘ and ‘action‘. The post-behaviouralist movement in political science has reopened the issue of fact-value separation.
It claims that facts and values are closely intertwined with each other and one cannot separate them in political science except under very trivial circumstances. According to this school of thought, political scientists need not abdicate the spirit of their discipline at the altar of science or any other empiricism.
DYNAMIC APPROACH:
The behaviouralists have argued that science had some ideal commitments and they shared those commitments of science. But the post-behaviouralists think that technical research and scientific knowledge as pursued by the behaviouralists should not be cut-off from the realities of life. It should be linked to urgent social problems with the aim of solving them. The approach of political scientists should be dynamic and their objective should never be mere stability or maintenance of status-quo, they opine.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.