P O L I T ICS

THE BASICS

Now in its fifth edition, Politics: The Basics explores the systems,
movements and issues at the cutting edge of modern politics. A
highly successful introduction to the world of politics, it offers clear
and concise coverage of a range of issues and addresses fundamental
questions such as:

 Why does politics matter?

 Why obey the state?
 What are the key approaches to power?
 How are political decisions made?
 What are the current issues affecting governments worldwide?

Accessible in style and topical in content, the fifth edition has been
fully restructured to reflect core issues, systems and movements that
are at the centre of modern politics and international relations.
Assuming no prior knowledge in politics, it is ideal reading for
anyone approaching the study of politics for the first time.

Nigel A. Jackson has worked as a parliamentary agent for a UK

political party, for an MP and as a parliamentary lobbyist. Teaching
at the University of Plymouth, his research interests are in political
communication and political marketing, especially online.

Stephen D. Tansey has taught Politics at the universities of Ife,

Nigeria, Bournemouth, Exeter, and the Open University, UK, as well
as for the WEA. He is the author of Business, Information Technology
and Society (2002). He currently leads a Philosophy Workshop for
University of the Third Age, Poole, UK.
THE BASICS
ACTING EDUCATION
BELLA MERLIN KAY WOOD

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY ENERGY

NANCY STANLICK MICHAEL SCHOBERT

ANCIENT NEAR EAST EUROPEAN UNION (SECOND EDITION)

DANIEL C. SNELL ALEX WARLEIGH-LACK

ANTHROPOLOGY
PETER METCALF EVOLUTION
SHERRIE LYONS
ARCHAEOLOGY (SECOND EDITION)
CLIVE GAMBLE FILM STUDIES (SECOND EDITION)
AMY VILLAREJO
ART HISTORY
GRANT POOKE AND DIANA NEWALL FINANCE (SECOND EDITION)
ERIK BANKS
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
KEVIN WARWICK FREE WILL
MEGHAN GRIFFITH
THE BIBLE
JOHN BARTON GENDER
HILARY LIPS
BIOETHICS
ALASTAIR V. CAMPBELL GLOBAL MIGRATION
BERNADETTE HANLON AND THOMAS
BUDDHISM VICINIO
CATHY CANTWELL
HUMAN GENETICS
THE CITY RICKI LEWIS
KEVIN ARCHER
HUMAN GEOGRAPHY
CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE ANDREW JONES
SUMAN GUPTA
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
CRIMINAL LAW
PETER SUTCH AND JUANITA ELIAS
JONATHAN HERRING

CRIMINOLOGY (SECOND EDITION) ISLAM (SECOND EDITION)

SANDRA WALKLATE COLIN TURNER

DANCE STUDIES JOURNALISM STUDIES

JO BUTTERWORTH MARTIN CONBOY

EASTERN PHILOSOPHY JUDAISM

VICTORIA S. HARRISON JACOB NEUSNER

ECONOMICS (THIRD EDITION) LANGUAGE (SECOND EDITION)

TONY CLEAVER R.L. TRASK
LAW RELIGION AND SCIENCE
GARY SLAPPER AND DAVID KELLY PHILIP CLAYTON

LITERARY THEORY (THIRD EDITION) RESEARCH METHODS

HANS BERTENS NICHOLAS WALLIMAN

LOGIC ROMAN CATHOLICISM

J.C. BEALL MICHAEL WALSH

MANAGEMENT SEMIOTICS (SECOND EDITION)

MORGEN WITZEL DANIEL CHANDLER

MARKETING (SECOND EDITION) SHAKESPEARE (THIRD EDITION)

KARL MOORE AND NIKETH PAREEK SEAN MCEVOY

MEDIA STUDIES SOCIAL WORK

JULIAN MCDOUGALL MARK DOEL

METAPHYSICS SOCIOLOGY
MICHAEL REA KEN PLUMMER

THE OLYMPICS SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

ANDY MIAH AND BEATRIZ GARCIA JANICE WEARMOUTH

PHILOSOPHY (FIFTH EDITION) STANISLAVSKI

NIGEL WARBURTON ROSE WHYMAN

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY SUBCULTURES

JOSEPH HOLDEN ROSS HAENFLER

POETRY (SECOND EDITION) TELEVISION STUDIES

JEFFREY WAINWRIGHT TOBY MILLER

PUBLIC RELATIONS TERRORISM

RON SMITH JAMES LUTZ AND BRENDA LUTZ

THE QUR’AN THEATRE STUDIES (SECOND EDITION)

MASSIMO CAMPANINI ROBERT LEACH

RACE AND ETHNICITY WOMEN’S STUDIES

PETER KIVISTO AND PAUL R. CROLL BONNIE SMITH

RELIGION (SECOND EDITION) WORLD HISTORY

MALORY NYE PETER N. STEARNS
This page intentionally left blank
 POLITICS
THE BASICS
5TH EDITION

Nigel A. Jackson and Stephen D. Tansey

Fifth edition published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Nigel A. Jackson and Stephen D. Tansey
The right of Nigel A. Jackson and Stephen D. Tansey to be identified as authors of this
work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in
any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
First edition published 1995
Fourth edition published 2008
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978-0-415-84141-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-84142-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-75473-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Taylor & Francis Books
To the next generation – especially Eliot, Toby, Jon,
Sam, Mike, Emma, Freya and Jake.
This page intentionally left blank
 CONTENTS

Illustrations x
Preface xii
Acknowledgements xvii

1 Politics 1
2 Power 27
3 Systems 54
4 Ideologies 76
5 States 104
6 Global 133
7 Mechanisms 161
8 Policies 188
9 Challenges 216

References 241
Index 261
ILLUSTRATIONS

BOXES
1.1 Definitions of ‘politics’ 5
1.2 Assessing the use of methodology in politics 25
2.1 Propositions from pluralist, elitist and Marxist
models of power 36
2.2 Weber’s characteristics of bureaucracy 47
2.3 A rational-comprehensive model
of decision-making 48
5.1 Definitions of anarchism 105
5.2 Republican, autocratic and totalitarian states 107
5.3 Capitalism 111
5.4 The welfare state 111
5.5 Forms of representative democracy 113
5.6 Relations between levels of government 126
6.1 Definitions of globalisation 135
6.2 Globalisation: challenges to the nation state 136
6.3 North versus South: a major fault line
in international relations? 140
7.1 Political parties 174
7.2 Pressure or interest groups 177
7.3 The media 179
 ILLUSTRATIONS XI

8.1 Choice of social decision-making mechanism 191

8.2 Hogwood and Gunn’s model of the policy
process 197
8.3 Policy communities 199
8.4 Ten principles for re-inventing government 205
8.5 The three ‘E’s: efficiency, economy,
effectiveness 209

FIGURES
2.1 Sources of authority 42
4.1 Classifying ideologies 80
4.2 The circular model of ideology 81
7.1 The separation of powers 166
8.1 Levels of inter-organisational bargaining 201
8.2 Managing local public service provision 203

TABLES
1.1 Major contemporary approaches to politics 9
3.1 Political system characteristics 67
4.1 Attitudes to gender differences 92
5.1 The trend towards democracy, 1974–2000 110
5.2 Parliamentary versus presidential systems 114
5.3 The characteristics of different states 122
6.1 The main organs of the UN 145
6.2 International institutions 147
6.3 Multinationals and countries compared 156
7.1 Political marketing and New Labour 183
8.1 Civil Service employment 207
8.2 Marketable wealth in Britain 211
8.3 World population below the international
poverty line (2010) 211
9.1 The challenges facing democracies 229
9.2 The representative impact of the Internet 238
PREFACE

WHO THE BOOK IS FOR – AND WHAT IT IS ABOUT

This book is designed as a basic introduction to twenty-first-
century politics. We do not claim to be able to predict with certainty
the political shape of the new century. However, it is already clear
that many of the old perspectives of superpower rivalry and ideo-
logical warfare which dominated the Cold War seem to be of
reduced relevance. Issues such as ecology, new technology, Islam,
terrorism and the role of the what used to be described as the Third
World (referred to as ‘the South’ in this book) are likely to move to
centre stage. An introduction to politics that takes a parochial
single-country approach no longer seems sensible in an era of
increased international interdependence.
The readers we have in mind are without a systematic knowl-
edge of, or rigid attitudes towards, politics. This book is intended to
both enable such readers to make up their minds about politics and
understand more about the academic discipline of political science.
In particular, pre-university students, whether or not they have
studied politics at school, have found this book a useful indication
of the ground covered by university courses. The book has also
been found useful for undergraduates beginning courses in politics.
It has also formed the basis of short subsidiary courses in politics at
 PREFACE XIII

undergraduate, postgraduate and extra-mural level. However, we

hope that open-minded and intelligent older and younger readers
will also find much of interest in this approach. Nor would we have
any objection to the occasional practising politician quarrying
something useful from the work!
We have not taken the view that a ‘social scientific’ approach
requires the assumption of an attitude of detachment from the politics
of the day. But neither have we tried to sell a short-term political
programme. The approach here is to search for long-term principles
that can help guide political actions. ‘Politics’ has been taken to
mean the essential human activity of deciding how to live together
in communities. This activity has been put in a long-term and wide
geographical context. The focus is on the relatively prosperous
industrialised countries of the ‘West’, but this cannot be detached
from those of the rest of the world. Previous editions of the book
have sold all over the world and been published in Polish, Arabic
and Chinese. We hope that this edition too will be of interest to
readers worldwide. In considering such an ambitious agenda we
have drawn extensively on the work of many academics, whose
ideas have in many cases already been borrowed (often in
caricatured form) by politicians.
In a book designed to help readers make up their own minds
about politics, no attempt has been made to hide the authors’ lib-
eral and socially progressive point of view. This has inevitably been
reflected in such matters as the choice of topics for discussion. But it
is hoped that it gives a fair representation of all other major points
of view and an indication of where the reader can find accessible
versions of alternative perspectives at first hand.

HOW THE BOOK IS ORGANISED

The book begins with a discussion of the nature of politics and the
variety of academic approaches to its understanding. The next two
chapters illustrate how and why politics is exercised; the following
two chapters then survey competing ideas about the aims of that
political activity.
The next four chapters consider in more detail what and how
political decisions are reached. Chapter 5 reviews the variety of
different states and Chapter 6 views politics beyond domestic
XIV PREFACE

confines and considers international politics. Chapter 7 considers

the detail of how decisions are made, with Chapter 8 addressing
more specifically some particular areas of public policy making, the
limitations of public policy-making processes and the role of indi-
viduals in politics. The last chapter looks ahead to the key issues and
problems which liberal democracies face.
To assist users of the previous editions of the book, it may be
helpful to point out the major innovations in the fifth edition:

 We have restructured the chapters so that there are now nine

instead of eight. Power, global perspectives and challenges to
democracy each have a whole chapter.
 Each chapter now begins with clear learning outcomes and
hopefully explains why the chapter is important. We have
updated the material in the further reading section at the end of
each chapter.
 There is more explicit consideration of whether politics matters,
and the idea of anti-politics is assessed in Chapter 1.
 Chapter 1 also introduces the debates within American political
science concerning the so-called ‘perestroika’ movement.
 A new chapter, 2, addresses what power is and how it is exer-
cised and changes over time.
 In Chapter 3 we have sought to compare in more depth the
similarities and differences between different political systems.
 Chapter 3 also introduces the concept of deterritorialisation and
the idea of politics beyond territory.
 Chapter 4 has updated the literature and examples relating to
many of the ideologies. In addition we have addressed the Tea
Party movement in the US, which has arisen since our last edition.
 In Chapter 5 we provide more recent research on the trend
towards democracy and how the idea of totalitarianism is
evolving.
 Throughout, we have sought to offer more international examples
reflecting the greater influence of international relations within
the study of politics. In addition, we have a chapter, Global,
designed to solely address relations beyond states.
 In Chapter 6 we look at specific international organisations in
more depth. We have also considered the creation or otherwise
of a non-Western study of politics.
 PREFACE XV

 We have introduced a whole new chapter, Mechanisms, to

consider how government is operated. As a result we have more
on pressure groups, political parties and the media. Moreover,
since our last edition technology has played a greater role in
politics, so there is more on online politics.
 In Chapter 8 we have added more on the policy-making
process, such as the application of policy communities and net-
works. We have also added a section on non-Western policy
making.
 Our new last chapter, Challenges, seeks to look at the problems
which liberal democracies currently face.
 In Chapter 9 we consider the implications on democracy of new
technologies.

This new edition, in addition to obvious changes following such

developments as the first coalition government in the UK for over
70 years and the two-time election of Barack Obama in the US,
has been further amended to strengthen its international references
both for the benefit of its many international readers (including
readers of editions in Polish and Chinese) and to counter the
parochialism of many introductory courses and books in Britain.

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

There are many ways to attempt to introduce students to a dis-
cipline, and in this book we have chosen to concentrate on intro-
ducing some of the major arguments within politics and the
concepts associated with them. Logically we have begun with the
methodology and boundaries of the discipline. Complete novices to
the subject may find this introductory chapter of limited interest at
first and can be forgiven for skipping through the second half of the
chapter at first reading.
Students already started on a politics course should find that this
broader perspective on their studies stimulates more thought than
many more detailed and limited textbooks. It should prove useful
especially at the beginning of such courses and by way of revision at
the end. It is also intended to help those contemplating such courses
to decide whether or not politics is the appropriate subject for
them. By encouraging an evaluation of the reader’s own political
XVI PREFACE

position and analysing many basic political concepts as part of a

sustained argument, we hope to encourage a critical and individual
approach which is more valuable than a more ‘factual’ approach
both in the examination room and in practice.
A feature of the book which readers should find particularly
useful is the definition of key concepts found in boxes at intervals
in the text. Students will quickly find that any work they submit
which does not clearly define its terms will obtain an unfriendly
reception, and, conversely, such definitions contribute greatly to
clear analysis and communication.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally, a word of thanks to students on various politics and public

sector management and public relations courses at Plymouth and
Bournemouth universities – with especial mention of Rory Shand
for his thoughts on power – and the WEA and U3A, for their
comments and suggestions on this material.
In addition to the help from colleagues and friends acknowl-
edged in earlier editions, this latest edition has also benefited from
useful comments and suggestions by a number of readers and the
work of our editor at Routledge, Siobhán Poole, and her colleagues
has been much appreciated. The amendments to the fifth edition
are primarily the work of Nigel Jackson. The blame for infelicities
and errors remains, of course, with us.
This page intentionally left blank
 
POLITICS
1

THIS CHAPTER …
discusses what politics is and the ways in which scholars have
attempted to understand it. The first serious professional teachers
(Greeks such as Plato (427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC))
made politics the centre of the curriculum. In the twenty-first
century, academics are still seeking to explain politics ‘scientifically’.
This chapter discusses the meaning, importance and problems of
such an enterprise.
Much of our understanding of politics is what we may refer to as
formal politics, such as debates, meetings and elections, which are
indeed part of politics. However, this chapter, in seeking to provide
a clearer understanding of what is politics, addresses both its formal
and informal components. The concept, and practical application,
of politics also includes a host of constraints and opportunities
which shape our everyday lives, even if we are not overtly aware of
them. Politics is ubiquitous.
By the end of the chapter students will be able to:

 understand why politics is important at both a systemic and

individual level;
 assess the meaning of politics;
2 POLITICS

 identify how politics can be studied;

 evaluate the different approaches to the study of politics.

DOES POLITICS MATTER?

This book, and the vast majority of political science literature, is
based on the assumption that politics does matter, but not everyone
automatically agrees. Weldon (1953) notes that while for some
politics is a ‘hurrah’ word, for others it is a ‘boo’ word. This implies
that politics can be interpreted essentially as a dirty expression.
More recently, Tansey (2010) has noted that while the orthodox
view is that politics is either a desirable or neutral activity, this is not
true for all. We can suggest that any hostility towards politics can be
referred to as an undercurrent of anti-politics, and Tansey cites the
first poem by Carol Ann Duffy as British Poet Laureate, Politics
(2009), as an example of this. Expressions of anti-politics feeling
such as Duffy’s can possibly be explained by the context of extensive
media coverage given to scandals involving UK politicians.
An alternative view to anti-politics is what can be termed
de-politicisation. This is not so much an antagonistic view of politics
as an observation of where politics does not, or an author feels
should not, exist. For some this is an unintended outcome of aid to
the developing world. Thus Ferguson (1990: xv) suggested that the
impact of development aid to Lesotho was ‘everywhere whisking
political realities out of sight’, with issues discussed in purely tech-
nical rather than political or policy terms. Issues that Ferguson
believed should have been based on overt political discourse
became an implicitly technological process. A different, and norma-
tive, approach to de-politicisation emphasises that politics has no
role to play in some human activities. For example, Jayasuriya
(2002) talks of a post-Washington Consensus that seeks to take the
destabilising effects of politician-based bargaining out of the market.
This approach suggests that politics has no role to play in the global
economic system. De-politicisation is a critique of the boundaries of
politics, but unlike anti-politics is not a critique of politics per se.
Bernard Crick in his essay In Defence of Politics (2000) set out to
justify politics by saying what it is, and suggested that the negotiating
processes of politics are the only practical alternative to government
by coercion. This implies that while the practice of politics may
 POLITICS 3

often be imperfect, it is the main bulwark against anarchy. A more

functional reason for why politics matters is its impact on policy
choices and societally important acts (Castles and McKinlay, 1979;
Schmidt, 1989). The outcome of discourse, and the political process,
may explain why some countries prosper and the different access
people have to services such as education and health. The shape of
government and decisions on policy, resource allocation and indi-
vidual rights and responsibilities will dramatically differentiate the
daily life expectations and opportunities of a person living in
Buenos Aires (Argentina) from those of a person in Abuja (Nigeria).
It is not just big policy issues, standards of living or freedom of
choice that politics affects. Many of your friends might say, ‘I am not
interested in politics’, without realising the impact it has on them
every day.
Suppose you are a 17-year-old living in the United Kingdom,
working at a McDonald’s, and hoping for a university place in the
autumn. Waking up you realise that Parliament has legislated to con-
vert what was a local time of 6:30 to 7:30. Turning on the local radio
station, whose franchise was granted by a QUANGO (quasi autono-
mous non-governmental organisation), you may hear the weather
forecast from the government-financed Meteorological Office. After
hearing a few music tracks (legislation outlines the royalties that must
be paid to authors and performers by the radio station), you drag
yourself out of bed (legally mattress materials must be non-flammable),
down to your breakfast cereal (ingredients listed on packet in due form
by another law). If you unwisely reach for a cigarette, the government/
European Union has insisted on a health warning on the packet and
levies a tax on it. Once you pass through your front door, the
impact of government continues via, for instance, air-quality
controls, traffic regulations and spending on local government.
The bigger issues that might affect you are shaped by government
policy. How is higher education funded? Does the state provide or
do you have to pay your way – and if the latter, can you afford it?
Is university attendance for an elite, or is much wider participation
encouraged? If you are looking for employment your prospects
may depend on how the economy has been managed. Your
continued employment with McDonald’s could be influenced by
government policy towards foreign companies and the extent and
effectiveness of health education campaigns.
4 POLITICS

So far we have only considered you and the government.

Suppose on reaching the kitchen your father snaps at you: ‘Can’t
you clear up the pizza cartons you and your friends littered the
place with last night?’ Arguably this is a political situation too. Within
the family, fathers are sometimes thought to have ‘authority’ –
some sort of legitimate power over children. As a 17-year-old, you
might react negatively on the grounds that you are no longer a
child to be given orders. This situation can be seen as a clash of
wills in which only one can prevail. And wider politics might
complicate the matter: in some countries your father is your legal
guardian until you are 18.
Similarly, when you arrive at McDonald’s it may well be you
discover that the assistant manager is busy establishing in the eyes of
the area manager that she can do a better job than her boss. Here
we have a struggle for power in which people within the organi-
sation may take sides (form factions, as political scientists might
say) – in short, we have organisational politics.
It soon becomes clear that ‘politics’ is used in at least two senses.
In the narrowest conventional (dictionary) usage – what governments
do – politics affects us intimately every day. In the wider sense –
people exercising power over others – it is part of social relationships,
be they kinship, occupational, religious or cultural. Like it or not, you
are, as Aristotle suggests, an inherently political animal.

WHAT IS POLITICS?
The word has its origins in ancient Greece and comes from the
Greek word politikos, which means pertaining to citizens. Aristotle is
responsible for our association with the polis or city state. From the
outset, therefore, the concept of politics linked people with gov-
ernment. However, as noted by Sartori (1973), the term ‘politics’
virtually disappeared from common usage for nearly two millennia.
Rather, terms such as ethics, power, rights, law and justice – which
may be components of politics – were employed, and it was not
until the early seventeenth century, as Sartori identifies, that the
term politics was used again.
If we try to define ‘politics’ more formally and precisely, we run
into the sort of problems which will be found to recur again and
again in this book. One of these is associated with whether we are
 POLITICS 5

talking about politics as a human activity or politics as an academic

activity – or, in American terminology, politics or political science.
The search for truth about how human beings exercise power
might be thought to be completely separate from actually seeking
to exercise that power. In practice, political ideas are some of the
most important weapons in the politician’s armoury. Attempts to
ignore this are either naïve or a deliberate attempt to present a
controversial political ideology as a political fact.
We shall deal with the exercise of power in more depth in the
next chapter, but here we will consider critically the meaning
and implications of some of the standard academic definitions of
politics (Box 1.1).

BOX 1.1 DEFINITIONS OF ‘POLITICS’

The science and art of government; the science dealing with the
form, organisation and administration of a state or a part of
one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states.
(Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
a way of ruling divided societies by a process of free discussion
and without undue violence.
(Bernard Crick, 2000)
who gets what, when, how.
(H. Lasswell, 1936)
man moving man.
(Bertrand de Jouvenal, 1963)
… the authoritative allocation of value.
(David Easton, 1979)

responding to conflict with dialogue.

(Charles Blattberg, 2009)

Money is power. Money is politics.

(Kirshner, 2003)

The definitions in Box 1.1 show considerable differences. Most

political scientists’ definitions of politics are much broader in scope
6 POLITICS

than the first, dictionary, definition which focuses on the state

(although admittedly ‘part of a state’ could be interpreted widely).
In effect, they largely endorse the view suggested above: that politics
is about the social exercise of power, rather than just the state.
However, this may reflect the natural ‘imperialism’ of academics on
behalf of their own discipline. Sociologists might argue that ‘man
moving man’ would be more appropriate as a definition of their
concerns.
Consider also, though, the unit of analysis, in terms of which
these definitions are couched. Lasswell and de Jouvenal appear to
be thinking primarily in terms of individuals exercising power,
Crick focuses upon whole societies, the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary talks about governments. Blattberg focuses on the alter-
native to violence for solving public conflicts. Easton links the
concept of formal authority to the exercise of power. Contrary to
the de-politicisation approach we noted above, Kirshner makes an
overt connection between politics and the management of money.
This reflects a split between individualistic and collectivist theories.
There is a growing sense that politics in the established Western
democracies is struggling. This unease has been referred to as a
democratic deficit, political alienation or civic disillusionment. The
possible explanations for such changes are examined by Gerry
Stoker (2006), but the argument is that citizens have been increas-
ingly ‘turned off’ by traditional political behaviour, such as voting
in elections. This has manifested itself in a decline in partisanship or
a lessening sense of identifying with key political actors and struc-
tures. It has been suggested that, increasingly, politically active
citizens have ignored the coalitions and compromises offered by
the existing political elite and have instead turned to single-issue
pressure-group activity. However, this apparent decline in traditional
partisan electoral politics in some countries does not automatically
indicate a decline in the importance of politics; it may just presage a
change in the nature of politics.
Another aspect of the democratic deficit has been identified by
Lax and Phillips (2012), who looked at state-level support of 39
policies. They found that only in half of them was policy congruent
with the majority will and there was thus a deficit with half the
policies. In these examples political professionalisation, ideology and
party policy was of more importance than public or interest-group
 POLITICS 7

opinion. However, we should not necessarily assume this is a major

criticism of democracy: it would be unrealistic to expect all
decisions to reflect policy-specific opinion.
We shall address power in Chapter 2, but we note here its
impact on the meaning of politics. Maurice Duverger (1972: 19)
argued that ‘The two-faced god, Janus, is the true image of power’.
In other words, both conflict and consensus are essential elements
in the creation of a political situation. The imposition of the inter-
ests of one person (or group) on others by force, without any
element of consent, seems far from what most people understand
by ‘politics’, as Crick (2000) argues. On the other hand, a situation
(perhaps unlikely) in which a group in total agreement (as to goals
and methods) proceed to achieve more and more of their objectives
does not sound like a political process either.
Thus, ‘politics’ encompasses a broad range of situations, in which
people’s objectives vary but where they work together to achieve
the aims they have in common as well as competing when aims
conflict. Both co-operation and competition may involve argu-
ment, negotiation and coercion. Politics may often be more an art
than a science, and the art of politics may often be to seek out the
potential of alliances rather than stress antagonisms between differ-
ing groups.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS

One of the joys, and frustrations, of the study of politics is the
variety of approaches to the subject adopted by academic writers.
This is a joy in that you will be introduced to a rich spectrum of
writing, ranging from classic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle,
through radical sociologists such as C. Wright Mills (1956) and
Pareto (1976), to modern social scientists wielding statistical tests of
significance to analyse huge volumes of computerised data. For
example, Grimmer and Stewart (2013) explain how they use
computer-automated analysis of weblogs, press releases and con-
gressional speeches. It is frustrating in that the conclusions of such
writers cannot be simply accumulated to form a certain body of
knowledge representing the political scientist’s view of politics.
Students of politics must sift through varied sources and accept
what seems to them to be relevant and valid.
8 POLITICS

The remainder of this chapter attempts to provide tools to help

the student do this ‘sifting’ and explain why writers on politics
differ so radically. We shall be outlining the boundaries of political
study and also highlighting some of the schisms within the dis-
cipline. We shall look at three main approaches to the study of
politics and, within these, various schools of thought. This can only
be a sort of preliminary crude map of the terrain to be covered, not
a rigorous analysis of what kinds of writing on politics is possible or
series of watertight divisions. However, two writers within a
‘school’ generally have more in common, and are more likely to
agree on what has already been established and perhaps refer to
each other, than two writers in different schools.
The three main contemporary academic approaches to the study
of politics can be described as ‘traditional scholarship’, ‘social science’
and ‘radical criticism’. With an element of exaggeration they might
also be thought of as the British, American and French approaches.
‘Traditional scholars’ often approach matters on a rather piece-
meal basis, looking at one specific country, political institution,
theoretical concept or writer in depth, often with the tools and
preconceptions of another academic discipline – especially history
or philosophy. Thus, the core of the politics curriculum in Britain,
at least until recently, has been the study of individual political
institutions in their historical context; the great political philosophers;
and what was misleadingly titled ‘comparative government’. The
latter was, in practice, largely the separate study of American,
French and Soviet government and politics. In continental Europe,
politics has often been a subsidiary part of departments or faculties
of law, sociology or history.
‘Social scientists’ would denounce the traditional approach as
‘idiographic’ (a word derived from ‘ideogram’ – a personal mark or
signature), espousing instead a ‘nomothetic’ or generalising
approach in which the endeavour of scholars of politics must
ultimately be to derive general theories or laws about the nature of
political behaviour. Thus a typical American-style curriculum pre-
sents political science as one of a group of related social science
disciplines, including sociology and economics, all using modern
computer-orientated methods of ‘analysing data’ scientifically.
‘Radical critics’, while not denying the need to produce useful
generalisations from the study of politics, have denounced the
 POLITICS 9

conservative bias of US-dominated political science. Their primary

allegiance has appeared to be to a general doctrine calling for the
radical change of existing (Western) societies. Most frequently this
has been a variety of Marxism, but similar criticism can be produced
from an ecological, theological or feminist perspective.
The basis of the distinction being drawn is mainly in terms of
what writers see their task to be, the methods they employ, the
level and type of their analysis, and the values they espouse, rather
than the details of specific theories advanced. Where writers from
different approaches and schools deal with what is apparently the
same topic (e.g. ‘democracy’, ‘elections’, ‘society’), their concerns
and assumptions are often so different that no real dialogue can be
said to have occurred. Table 1.1 offers an overview of these major
approaches and schools.

Table 1.1 Major contemporary approaches to politics

Traditional Social science Radical
Task Piecemeal explanation Science of politics Radical social change
Methods Descriptive, historical, Quantitative or Ideological criticism
philosophical analysis theorising illustrated
Values Liberal Democratic Pro-US democracy Anti-establishment
and ‘development’
Levels of Political, philosophical Political and social Multi-level
analysis and psychological
Scope Individual institutions US or area studies Global and historical
or countries
Content Constitutional Pluralism Class/Gender/
consensus disturbed by Species conflict
cataclysmic events
Schools (a) Liberal-institutional (a) Functionalist (a) Marxist
(b) Historical (b) Economic (b) Feminist
(c) Philosophical (c) Systems (c) Ecologist
(d) Religious
Fundamentalist
(e) Post-modernist
Typical Constitutional Political culture Contradiction
concepts Convention Market Patriarchy
Great Man Feedback Jihad
Source: Adapted from Tansey (1973)
10 POLITICS

Before we explore each of these three approaches in more depth

we offer a health warning: each of them reflects a primarily
Western culture – there is not yet a distinctive African, Asian and
South American approach to politics. We shall explore this point in
more depth in Chapter 6, but it is worth noting here that if you are
studying politics beyond the North American and European heart-
land of the discipline, you need to take into account differing
context, culture and historical practices.

TRADITIONAL SCHOLARSHIP
The first academic writers on politics – Plato and Aristotle, whose
works are still studied in detail in most British universities – were
unaccustomed to the modern practice of compartmentalising
knowledge into separate disciplines. They combined insights from
history and current affairs with discussions of big moral issues such
as ‘What is the best form of government?’ This somewhat ‘eclectic’
approach (combining insights from various different sources)
was also adopted by some of the more readable classic writers in the
nineteenth century such as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Bryce
(1838–1922) and de Tocqueville (1805–1859). These writers saw
the rise of democracy as the major political development of their
time and sought to analyse not only the idea but also its emerging
reality in different countries.
Commentators on ‘political theory’ have tended to divide into
two main camps. One group comprises the philosophers who see
their main task as the elucidation of political concepts (such as
justice and democracy), with at least an eye to their relevance to
contemporary concerns. A second group consists of the historians of
ideas who are concerned with tracing the evolution of writings on
politics, the intent of the writers of these texts and their influence
on events.
Those who have written on ‘political institutions’ have often
been less explicit in their theoretical intent, but writers such as
Ridley (1991), Rhodes (1997) and Liu (2011) have articulated the
rationale and assumptions of much of this writing. In established
and relatively stable democracies like Britain and the United States,
much of what we call politics centres around important governmental
institutions like assemblies, elections, government departments and
 POLITICS 11

local government. The study of how these institutions have evolved

and the rules and practices surrounding them and consideration of
how they may be improved is clearly of the utmost importance.
However, the sceptical and the ambitious may combine to throw
doubt upon the academic credentials of such activities. Is the result
really ‘knowledge’ which can be legitimately examined in uni-
versities or merely pragmatic common sense which can be used by
those who agree with its (conservative and liberal) assumptions? To
meet such objections there has been the development of more
methodologically aware ‘new institutionalism’, of which Peters
(1999) discerns no less than seven varieties. The sceptical will con-
tinue to argue that the operations of representative institutions are
merely a deceptive mask for the real politics of exploitation (see
‘radical criticism’ below), while the ambitious see scientifically
established theories as the only acceptable basis of knowledge.
We note one trend which is challenging this approach, namely
the growth of international relations courses. This reflects increasing
global economic, political, technological and social developments
which mean that single countries cannot solve all the issues facing
them on their own. This is inherently placing the study of politics
within a broader perspective. Such courses, while not overly called
politics, are essentially about politics between and beyond the state.
The study of politics does not remain static.

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The proposition that our knowledge of politics should be scientifi-
cally derived seems, at first sight, undeniable. The application of
scientific method in many other spheres (e.g. physics, biochemistry
and astronomy) has yielded not only a broad consensus regarding
the truth of various scientific ‘laws’ but also practical results in the
shape of space travel and ‘miracle’ drugs. If the application of
systematic observation, computerised analysis of data, the testing
of hypotheses through experiment and the painstaking building of
small bricks of fact into enormous edifices of knowledge can work
in one sphere, why not in another?
The problems of creating a valid science of politics seem, how-
ever, to be so enormous that they place the whole project in some
doubt. They include problems of value conflict, of complexity, of
12 POLITICS

method and of philosophy. Not all political science can be objective:

some is clearly normative, positing a particular view, often reflecting
the nature of the political society that the author is writing in or
what they want their society to become. For example, it is no
surprise that the work of Professor John Makumbe (1949–2013), an
activist in the opposition MDC-T looked at political events in
Zimbabwe (Makumbe, 2003) from a different perspective to that of
the ruling ZANU PF government. Such normative analyses pro-
vided by Makumbe are not always neutral; rather they are part of
the political process. So what he said and wrote about the
Zimbabwean political system could have an impact on it by shaping
the opinions of other political practitioners and citizens.
It is tempting to dismiss conflicts of value as irrelevant to scien-
tific investigation. The conventional argument is that science is
morally neutral (‘value-free’) but can be used for good or evil.
Thus, the structure of the atom is the same everywhere, whether
our knowledge of this structure is used to destroy civilisations, fuel
them, or merely understand their most basic constituents.
It is easier to apply knowledge of biochemistry to creating
individual health than it is to use knowledge of politics to create a
healthy society. This is because there is more agreement on what an
ill person looks like than on what an ill society is. As a result, in
social analysis it is impractical to create a ‘value-free’ vocabulary
acceptable alike to social democrats, neo-liberals, Marxists and
feminists. For example, creators of the Internet such as Tim
Berners-Lee wanted information freely available online, but this
idea is now challenged by the different values of those who want to
control access to such information for political or economic reasons.
A social democrat might observe a form of e-representation in
operation (Jackson and Lilleker, 2012). A neo-liberal may see only a
series of businesses asserting their commercial interests (McLaughlin
and Pickard, 2005). A Marxist may identify how the Internet helps
capitalism by encouraging commodification (Fuchs and Dyer-
Witheford, 2012). Meanwhile a feminist might suggest that the
dominant culture of the Internet ignores the politics of gender
inequalities (Adam, 2005). The same ‘fact’ could be interpreted in a
variety of different ideological or normative ways.
Typically, science is seen as characterised by the testing of
hypotheses, through experiment. The experimental method is largely
 POLITICS 13

closed to political scientists since they do not possess the power to

dictate to whole human societies how they should behave. In any
case, experiments require identical control groups for comparison
which, it is arguable, cannot be created. Although there has been an
attempt to use ‘natural experiments’ as a means of assessing political
participation, elections and political psychology, Sekhon and
Titiunik (2012) note that the treatment and control groups may not
be comparable. It is possible to control what information the treat-
ment sample have access to, say knowledge of a political event, but
it is much more problematic to ensure the knowledge the control
group might have of it. Some small-scale laboratory simulations of
human power situations have been attempted with interesting
results (e.g. Milgram, 1965), but the applicability of the results of
these to whole societies is disputable.
Statistical manipulation of existing sets of data about human
societies may be a partial substitute for experimental techniques, but
it could be argued that few convincing data sets exist. Attempts at
marshalling these include those of the World Handbook of Political
and Social Indicators (Taylor and Jodice, 1983) and the Country
Indicators for Foreign Policy Project at Carleton University,
Canada (www.carleton.ca/cifp). One very basic problem for inter-
national data sets is that many countries do not have reliable
population figures; for example, Nigerian census figures have been
politically contested because of their influence on the ethnic bal-
ance of power. It is also difficult to compare financial values
in different currencies because of artificial exchange rates and
differences in purchasing power.
Scholars committed to a scientific approach to politics have
sought to overcome this problem by collecting quantitative data
about political behaviour. Classically this has been done through
social surveys which may be carried out on a large scale by market
research firms or on a smaller scale by researchers themselves. For
example, Jansen et al. (2013) created a quantitative data set from the
questionnaires of 188 national studies to assess the impact of party
ideology on the strength of class voting.
Modern statistical analysis enables the researcher to make judge-
ments regarding the existence, or not, of significant associations
between variables. There is a logical gap between a statistical
association and a causal relationship, which is what such researchers
14 POLITICS

generally aspire to establishing (see Johns, 2002). On a philosophical

level it has been argued that the sort of causal explanation that
would be perfectly satisfactory in physical science would be unsa-
tisfactory in explaining social phenomena – social explanations need
to explain the motives of the persons involved, not just predict
successfully what will happen (Runciman, 1969). Additionally, if
we accept that human knowledge and motivation are an important
part of each political system, every advance in political knowledge is
potentially available to the members of the systems we study. The
knowledge we produce by analysing political systems becomes
potentially a part of those systems and may, of course, upset any
predictions we make about them (Popper, 1960).
Such considerations often lead to an emphasis on more qualitative
methods of investigation, such as participant observation, in-depth
interviews, case studies, textual deconstruction and focus groups.
The stress in such investigations is often on contextualising and
understanding the meaning of events to participants (see Devine,
2002). Such methods are more frequently applied by traditional or
radical scholars – especially postmodernists.
One recent interesting trend has been an attempt to combine
natural science research with political science. For example, Frienda
et al. (2013) tested over 5,000 respondents on false memories, the
respondents being asked about their memories of three true and
one fabricated political event. The fabricated event was accom-
panied by a photographic image purportedly depicting that event.
Approximately half the participants remembered that the false event
happened, with 27 per cent suggesting that they saw the event
happen on the news. This however is more an example of psy-
chology within the political sphere than political science per se.
Another example of this hybrid between science and political
science research has involved behavioural genetics, the so-called
‘genopolitics’, which explores the influence on political behaviour
of a person’s genes. One of the best-known pieces of research in
this field was by Alford et al. (2005), who suggested that genes more
than environment shape whether a person views themselves as a
liberal or conservative. Fowler and Dawes (2008) suggested that a
gene, MAO-A, existed which had an effect on the likelihood of
someone voting or not. However, in assessing the work on ‘geno-
politics’ Charney and English (2012) suggest that the analysis has
 POLITICS 15

been too simplistic, that it is unlikely that single genes alone are
the key to understanding voting behaviour, ideology and policy
views.

SCHOOLS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Perhaps the most influential group of ‘political scientists’ are those
stemming from Gabriel Almond and the deliberations of the
Committee on Comparative Politics of the American Political
Science Association in the 1960s. Although much criticised on
theoretical grounds, the terminology and approach adopted by
these ‘functionalist’ writers is still widely prevalent in empirical
studies of American, British and comparative politics.
In a vastly influential early work, Almond and Coleman (1960)
argued that we should speak of:

‘Political System’ instead of ‘State’

‘Functions’ instead of ‘Powers’
‘Roles’ instead of ‘Offices’
‘Structures’ instead of ‘Institutions’
‘Political Culture’ instead of ‘Public Opinion’
‘Political Socialization’ instead of ‘Citizenship Structure’.

Their argument was that by studying the processes necessary to

maintain any political system in a variety of environments, rather
than focusing on conventional liberal democratic institutions, they
were creating a conceptual vocabulary that was the basis for a
‘probabilistic science of politics’.
This attempt has been highly successful in that thousands of
writers have employed the vocabulary suggested. Unfortunately,
there is little evidence that the vocabulary is used any more pre-
cisely than its ‘old-fashioned’ predecessors (Sartori, 1970) or that
the assumptions implicit in the approach are any less arguable than
(or, indeed, very different from) the liberal institutional approach.
For instance, there has been no substantial agreement on what
functions are necessary to maintain a political system (Dowse, 1972)
or on the desirability of understanding politics in terms of the
maintenance of the stability of existing sovereign states. Luard
(1990) argues for a global perspective.
16 POLITICS

A good illustration of some of the problems of employing this

newer vocabulary is to consider the concept of ‘political system’.
This is used rather loosely by most of the functionalists to indicate
that politics is not merely limited to traditional constitutional
institutions but encompasses the influence on them of social and
economic conditions within a country. As Nettl (1966) has pointed out,
this usage often assumes that the system is an entity that exists and
carries out some defined role – such as ‘the allocation of value’.
Alternatively, the idea of system may be used more as a conscious
analogy with engineering systems, as with Deutsch (1963), who sees
the political system as a steering mechanism for society – a flow of
information through decision-making mechanisms which can be
improved. This idea has been updated by Buechler (2000), who
takes into account a more global approach to present a world-systems
theory, one which reflects the growing importance of transnational
social movements and the corresponding loss of hegemony by
nation states.
Systematic sociological thinkers such as Talcott Parsons (1957)
see that ‘functions’ are highly theoretical processes analytically
distinguished from a messy empirical reality. The difficulty then
becomes seeing what predictions such a theory is making. The
‘emptiness’ of system theory is perhaps most clearly seen if the
writings of David Easton (1979) are considered. Easton states that
‘political system’ is a purely analytical concept which can be applied
to any collection of entities the theorist finds convenient. He then
suggests the possibility of the system responding to ‘input’ from the
outside ‘environment’ by ‘outputs’ which in turn may affect the
environment so as to stabilise it. In such a case a stable ‘homeostatic’
system has been achieved. However, such an outcome is by no
means inevitable – the problem then is to know when such an
analysis is appropriate, and when a breakdown of the system might
occur. Thus, many writers now claim to be adopting a ‘system’
approach, but it is often unclear whether they believe that political
systems are observable entities, analytical frameworks, useful analogies
or a problem-solving device.
By way of contrast, let us consider a more recent and perhaps
trendier group of political scientists – the ‘rational choice’ theorists.
They have adopted an alternative approach which, instead of starting
with the behaviour of whole societies, focuses on the behaviour of
 POLITICS 17

individual political ‘actors’. Mainstream economists have analysed

markets starting with the behaviour of individual consumers and
entrepreneurs who are assumed to rationally pursue their own
interests (maximise utility or profit). The behaviour of individual
voters, bureaucrats or legislators can be considered in the same way
(Downs, 1957; Tullock, 1965; Himmelweit et al., 1985). For
example, Aldrich (1993) suggests that rational choice by looking at
costs and benefits can explain in which situations citizens are more
or less likely to vote. Stokman and Zeggelink (1996) extended the
basic principle of rational choice at individual level to apply a
mathematical approach to understand the development of policy
within policy networks. As with economics, it is not asserted that
all actors are rational. The assumption is only that the system func-
tions on the basis that most actors will be rational and that irrational
actors will cancel each other out.

BOUNDARIES AND SCHISMS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

Marsh and Savigny (2004) estimate that 75 per cent of the world’s
political scientists work in US universities; therefore, it is there
that we need to identify and assess any conflict between different
approaches.
Over a 150-year period, Dryzek (2006) suggests, there has been
at least four phases in the history of political science in the US. In
the first, statism – from the mid-nineteenth century through to the
early twentieth century – the focus was on the state as the central
player in politics. However, US society was not as static as this
approach implied, and from the early twentieth century pluralists
such as Harold Laski suggested that different and competing power
centres existed. From the 1950s pluralism was challenged by those
who, like Dahl, took a behavioural approach, which was scientific
in nature. The last distinct phase which Dryzek identifies is the
New Political Science, in which writers such as Bachrach focused
on the social problems and political crises of the time. Clearly, this
implies that there exist tensions within the study of political science.
This friction is especially to be found in considerations of the
correct methodological means of conducting political science
research. The orthodox view in US universities is judged to be a
rational choice approach, which encourages the collection of empirical
18 POLITICS

data through primarily quantitative methods. The rationale behind

this methodology is to create a more scientific approach aiming at
universal understanding. This orthodoxy is to be found not only
within US universities but also in the American Political Studies
Association (APSA), the body representing political scientists. This
perceived scientific hegemony was challenged in October 2000
when an anonymous Mr Perestroika sent out an email critiquing
both APSA and the teaching of political science in the US. This
email soon gained some support, and a loosely formed perestroika
movement evolved; indeed, it became successful enough to gain
positions on the decision-making bodies of APSA. The perestroikans
support a pluralist approach, applying a range of methodologies,
both qualitative and quantitative, and maintaining that political
science should focus more on providing contextual knowledge
within specific situations (Schram, 2003; Jacobsen, 2005). The
debate was not just about how to conduct research but also a
suggestion that those who followed a scientific approach actively
recruited and promoted those who saw the world through the same
prism. So that as Marsh and Savigny (2004) argue, the supporters of
the dominant positivist paradigm are the gatekeepers of the profes-
sion, who have control through key appointments and the type of
articles accepted in academic journals.
Anecdotally, one of the authors has witnessed an interesting
example of this debate in the UK. At a political science conference
addressing a general election, the vast majority of paper presenters
had used a quantitative methodology based upon the statistical
interpretation of questionnaires. There was an almost audible gasp
when one presenter got up and discussed voting behaviour based
on a series of detailed interviews with less than ten voters. At
the time this qualitative approach to psephology (the study of
elections) was extremely unusual. Interestingly, by the end of the
presentation the feedback was effusive and enthusiastic, and the
speaker was told how refreshing their paper was.
This whole debate about whether political science requires the
collection of mass data analysed by computer software programs or
can be smaller case studies assessed by the researcher in itself
demonstrates some of the political discussions we have addressed
earlier. One approach appeared to be dominant and able to exercise
power by appointing like-minded researchers and influencing the
 POLITICS 19

agenda through favourable journal output, but was challenged by

another. Amusingly, this suggests that the study of political science
is an example of pluralism in practice.
It would be too rigid to suggest an unbreakable divide; there
have clearly been shifts on both sides. Indeed, Roger Smith (2002),
although preferring political science to address issues of interest, does
recognise the value of scientific contributors. More overtly, Keating
(2009) suggests that there exists a third way, where it is possible to
work across disciplinary boundaries and so encourage the cross-
fertilisation of ideas. The future of political science should allow for
a range of methodologies, which would reduce the current schism.
One other boundary question exists, and it is a normative one:
namely, what is the relationship between the study of political
science and the practice of politics? The answer appears to be that
political science supports a democratic approach. The history of
democracy is tied up with the health of the study of political
science. Huntington (1988) believes that political science, by looking
at issues such as justice, order, liberty and responsible government,
helps democracy by generating understanding of political processes.
If he is correct this does raise the issue of whether political science
can be of value to non-democratic countries, though as we shall see
later the definition of democracy can be broad.

THEORIES, MODELS AND PARADIGMS

Faced with a thicket of rival approaches and theories, readers may
be tempted to demand who is right and who is wrong. However,
no simple, omniscient answer is available, so what may help clarify
matters is to try to separate out a number of activities that are
frequently confused in the effort to generate a science of politics.
To do so, we need to consider how scientists normally work.
Popper (1960) has convincingly argued that scientific laws are
useful general predictive propositions, which have been extensively
tested and not disproved. Few of the propositions advanced by
political scientists seem to meet this test, especially applying theo-
retical propositions to the real world of politics. However, some
more limited propositions might be regarded as testable hypotheses,
the production of which constitutes a preliminary to the creation of
usable theories.
20 POLITICS

It used to be thought that scientists derived their hypotheses for

testing from the observation of as many ‘facts’ as possible (the
‘positivist’ view of science). More recently it has been suggested
that most innovative hypotheses come from a combination of acute
observation and the application of ‘models’ of reality often derived
from another area of science. A ‘model’ is a simplification of reality
that enables us to suggest relationships between the things we
observe.
In politics, numerous different models have been, and still are,
applied. For instance, medieval thinkers tended to prefer an organic
model of the state – e.g. seeing the parts of a state as being like the
parts of the human anatomy. Easton/Deutsch’s application of a
cybernetic (information system) model in the age of the computer
thus becomes unsurprising in the ‘postmodern’ age.
Clearly, as Deutsch (1963) points out, models are not in them-
selves right or wrong, merely helpful or unhelpful. Choice of
models will depend on their relevance, economy and predictive
power – the latter encompassing ideas of rigour (do theories based
upon it give unique answers?); combinatorial richness (the number
of patterns that can be generated from it) and organising power
(can a model be applied in many different circumstances?).
Really successful models can be at the heart of what Kuhn (1970)
terms a scientific paradigm. Thus, the Newtonian model of matter
as a series of particles whose relationships could be described in
terms of a series of simple mathematical equations dominated
physics for several centuries. Evolutionary development proposed
by Darwin continues as the dominant paradigm in modern biology.
Despite the positivist view of scientific development referred to
above, Kuhn argues that most scientific endeavour (‘normal science’)
consists of the further application of existing models to new areas or
the explanation of apparent deviations from the dominant model in
terms derived from it. Nor should this be despised: a great deal of
modern technological and scientific progress has rested on this
process of ‘pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants’ – ordinary
knowledge workers amassing detailed information within the
dominant paradigm.
In these terms, political studies can be seen as an academic dis-
cipline in the pre-scientific stage, in which no dominant paradigm
has yet emerged. What are described here as ‘schools’ can be seen as
 POLITICS 21

aspirant paradigms. The main question that has to be asked is how

useful a source these are of models applicable to new situations, of
testable hypotheses, and of concepts for helpfully describing and
analysing events? Absolute truths cannot be found.

RADICAL AND POSTMODERNIST CRITICISM

One characteristic of a scientific theory is that it should be value-
free – there is no left-wing physics and right-wing physics, just
good physics and bad physics. Yet consideration of many approaches
put forward by political scientists reveals that the models upon
which they are based, the concepts they employ and the theories
they espouse frequently imply a clear set of values which others
might well wish to dispute. As we noted earlier, they are subjective
and normative, not objective, observations. For example, Almond’s
functionalist model seems to view politics as a matter of maintaining
political stability by enabling political interests in a system to be
conciliated (‘interest articulation and aggregation’). This is done by
a state that functions through a traditional liberal pattern of legal
rules (‘rule making, rule enforcement and rule adjudication’). The
model thus stresses values of ‘pluralism’ and consensus which may
be uncontroversial in the United States but less acceptable in sub-
Saharan Africa. Moreover, it creates a set of interesting challenges
for China’s political elite. Similarly, a glance at the individualistic
model put forward by the ‘economists’ reminds one of Margaret
Thatcher’s famous remark that ‘there is no such thing as society –
only individuals’. Such theories clearly imply a fashionable suspicion
of big government and stress the ‘profit motive’. Political models
and political science cannot be divorced from the culture and values
of the authors that subscribe to them.
The obvious alternative approach to political analysis stressing
individualism and consensus is the collectivist and conflict-orientated
view of politics put forward by Marxists. At this stage we shall
generalise, and the basic model, stemming back to Marx and Engels’s
Communist Manifesto (1848), is of a society divided into large
collectivities (classes) whose interests are in basic conflict. The only
long-term resolution of such conflicts, which stem from the basic
relationship of exploitation between the capitalist bourgeoisie
(the owners of the ‘means of production’) and the proletariat
22 POLITICS

(‘wage-slaves’), is through a socialist revolution. This analytical

approach may seem perfectly acceptable in some countries but
totally alien to others because of different norms and values.
A number of writers (Miliband, 1969; Gramsci, 1969) have
approached the analysis of modern politics through a variety of
Marxist models with, in some cases, enlightening results. Conventional
assumptions have been questioned and further economic and poli-
tical dimensions to problems exposed. In the Western world, for
instance, the cultural and media influence of capitalism has been
emphasised, while in the ‘third’ world the Marxist emphasis on the
international economic environmental influences (Williams, 1976)
seems much more realistic than analysis of political parties who are
liable to disappear overnight in a military coup (Sklar, 1963).
Two other approaches which have developed since the 1970s
and provide different frameworks are the green movement and
feminism. They are normally considered radical, often with links to
Marxism, though they can be critiques to both left and right
ideologies and have developed their own unique approaches. From
a green perspective politics is seen in a very particular light: as
Torgerson (1999) notes, nature is placed at the centre of its attention.
He suggests that the political focus goes beyond human concerns to
consider non-human interests such as individual species and the
planet as a whole. This means that a central tenet of this approach
has been to challenge the view that industrialisation is good. So
where both a Marxist and a liberal democrat would be interested in
achieving growth, though of different natures, the likely green
approach is to ask why should we have economic growth at all
since it will further harm the earth. This is a very different outlook
on politics, cogently expressed by Schumacher (1973) in Small is
Beautiful, where he suggests that modern economies based on
growth are unsustainable because of finite natural resources. A large
part of green politics is therefore based on a green economics, but
as noted by Cato (2012) there is also an ethical approach that
emphasises equality. However, as with the other approaches there is
not one single agreed view. Barry (1999) has identified at least two
different interpretations, a green ideological view which is utopian
in nature and a more pragmatic approach. The latter is more likely
to make compromises on the issue of economic growth. Jamison
(2001) has referred to this potential divide within green politics as a
 POLITICS 23

bifurcation – between the green politics of the industrialised north

which views science as the answer and a cultural critique of science
from Asian green politics. With the latter the concern is with the
effect on individual societies of environmental issues caused by two
centuries of Western industrialisation. With the former there is a
belief that a synthesis is possible between capitalism and sustain-
ability: green growth. Certainly, we see some Western governments
viewing the development of green technologies as the solution to
the problem of slowing economic growth and unemployment.
Radical feminists have questioned the assumptions implicit in
conventional political analysis (for a good introduction see Bryson,
2003). They too have seen society primarily in terms of an exploitative
relationship (‘patriarchy’) between collectivities (adult heterosexual
males versus the rest). (It should be emphasised that this is a
discussion of radical feminist writers – many feminists adopt a more
liberal and moderate stance.) Like later Marxists they have stressed
cultural and media aspects of political relationships, but also the
political aspects of personal relationships. Whereas conventional
analysis has looked at explicit political conflicts reflected in con-
ventional party divisions, these writers have seen potential (seismic)
splits repressed by conventional politics.
Lest the idea of repressed political divisions is dismissed out of
hand it is worth considering the case of Afro-Americans in the
United States. As recently as the 1950s in many parts of the US
they were deprived of basic human rights and discriminated
against. Although they lived in a ‘democracy’ and resented their
condition, sometimes even as the majority in their local community,
Afro-American concerns still did not even feature on the political
agenda. Starting from this situation, Bachrach and Baratz (1970) put
forward an interesting model of political activity, combining
insights from both the pluralist and Marxist models. They suggest
that an apparently free play of political interests in a ‘democratic’
system may coexist with suppressed conflicts in which the interests
of certain groups often fail to reach the political agenda. Policies
favouring suppressed groups, even if nominally adopted by
governments, will not be fully implemented by the machinery of
government. In short, what Schattschneider (1960: 71) calls a
‘mobilization of bias’ is built into the system against them. While
Bachrach and Baratz are mainly concerned with racial biases, clearly
24 POLITICS

these biases can equally well be those of gender, ethnicity or

religion.
The radical writers discussed do not necessarily dismiss the
enterprise of a science of politics – old-style Marxists frequently
claimed that ‘scientific’ socialism gave them a superior insight into
contemporary economy and society. They merely question the
assumptions on which contemporary analysts base their work.
However, postmodernist critics, influenced by philosophers such as
Wittgenstein and Foucault, throw doubt upon the possibility of an
impartial analysis of political behaviour. They stress that the very
language used to describe political events is the product of struggles
between different users of language and is ‘internally complex,
open, appraisive and fought over’ (Gibbins and Reiner, 1999: 7).
A good illustration of this is the contemporary concept of ‘a war
on terrorism’. Traditionally political science uses a vocabulary that
assumes the primacy of the nation state, and political conflicts based
upon producer interests. Postmodernist critics often stress the
impact of globalisation and consumerism in undermining these
assumptions (Gibbins and Reiner, 1999). A postmodern approach
would abandon the idea of a unitary study with a consensus on
methods, and encourage greater use of writing by a global network
of excluded and non-professional groups (Gibbins and Reiner, 1999).

CONCLUSION
This chapter suggests that it is relatively easy to understand why
politics matters, be it at a society level, the impact on the wider
economy or just how our everyday lives are influenced by it.
However, we have seen that there is no one single agreed defini-
tion of what politics actually means. It could include the formal
mechanisms of government, but also the informal relationships
between individuals and groups. This divide between the govern-
mental and society levels of politics is something we shall explore
further in the next chapter. It is not a surprise that there is no one
agreed approach to the study of politics, but, as Box 1.2 outlines,
the key differences concern the methodologies for understanding
politics. What we can say as students of politics is that the important
question is whether their methodology is appropriate, consistently
applied and helpful.
 POLITICS 25

BOX 1.2 ASSESSING THE USE OF METHODOLOGY

IN POLITICS
Is the approach employed appropriate to the problem in hand?
Are theories, concepts and models clearly defined and consistently
applied?
Are theoretical assumptions distinguished from empirically established
conclusions?
Is all the evidence on the issues examined?

There is good work published by writers of all persuasions.

Conversely, some authors seem only to look for evidence sup-
portive of their theoretical assumptions. In the present state of
knowledge, it will often be found that a combination of insights
derived from different approaches often throws the most light on
an issue.
What we shall see in later chapters is that politics does not exist
in a vacuum: context is important to understanding it. Politics is a
fluid concept which is based on behaviours and institutions set in
different environments, subject to a variety of stimuli and motivations.

FURTHER READING
Flinders, M. and John, P. (2013) ‘The future of political science’,
Political Studies Review, 11 (2): 222–227.
Hall, P. and Taylor, R. (1996) ‘Political science and the three new
institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44(5): 936–957.
Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis, London: Palgrave.
Heywood, A. (2013) Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hindmoor, A. (2011) ‘Major combat operations have ended?
Arguing about rational choice’, British Journal of Political Science,
41 (1): 191–210.
Leftwich, A. (1983) Redefining Politics, London, Methuen.
McLean, I. (2009) Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Quinn, T. (2012) ‘Spin doctors and political news manage-
ment: a rational choice exchange analysis’, British Politics, 7 (3):
272–300.
26 POLITICS

Wanna, J. (2002) ‘Commentary, APSA presidential address 2002,

politics as a new vocation: the future of political science’,
Australian Journal of Political Science, 38 (1): 141–148.
Zuckerman, A. (1991) Doing Political Science: An Introduction to
Political Analysis, Oxford: Westview Press.

WEBSITES
www.HaveYourSayOnline.net
UK political system for citizenship education.
www.apsanet.org
American Political Science Association; includes an explanation of what is
political science.
http://ejw.i8.com/polsciweb.htm
List of political science websites.
http://legacy.c-span.org/politics/default.aspx -
Cable channel offers articles and videos on US politics.
www.psr.keele.ac.uk
Richard Kimber’s excellent political science resources web page.
www.psa.ac.uk
Political Studies Association (UK); includes latest information and blog
postings.
http://ipsaportal.unina.it
International Political Science Association portal gives access to, describes and
assesses for accessibility and usefulness ‘the top 300’ international sources
on politics.
www.rockthevote.org/
Intersects popular culture with politics.
 REFERENCES

Abbott, W. (1918) ‘The origin of the English political parties’, The American
Historical Review, 24 (4): 578–602.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2001) ‘A theory of political transitions’, The
American Economic Review, 91 (4): 938–963.
Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. (2007) ‘Why is there no non-western international
relations theory? An introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,
7 (3): 287–312.
Acton, Lord (1887) Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, in A. Jay (ed.) (1996)
Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adam, A. (2005) Gender, Ethics and Information Technology, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Agnew, J. (1999) ‘Mapping Political Power Beyond State Boundaries: terri-
tory, identity and movement in world politics’, Journal of International Studies,
28 (3): 499–521.
Aidt, T. and Albornoz, F. (2011) ‘Political regimes and foreign intervention’,
Journal of Development Economics, 44 (2): 192–201.
Aitken-Turff, F. and Jackson, N. (2006) ‘A mixed motive approach to lobbying’,
Journal of Public Affairs, 6 (2): 84–101.
Aldrich, J. (1993) ‘Rational choice and turnout’, Journal of Political Science,
37 (1): 246–278.
Alford, J., Funk, C. and Hibbing, J. (2005) ‘Are political orientations genetically
transmitted?’, The American Political Science Review, 99 (2): 153–167.
Allardt, E. and Littunen, Y. (eds) (1964) Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems,
Helsinki: The Westermarck Society.
242 REFERENCES

Allison, G. (1987) The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis,
New York: Harper College.
Almond, G. (1956) ‘Comparative political systems’, Journal of Politics, 18 (3):
391–409.
Almond, G. and Coleman, J. (eds) (1960) The Politics of Developing Areas,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Andreski, S. (1968) The African Predicament: A Study in the Pathology of
Modernisation, London: Michael Joseph.
Arblaster, A. (2002) Democracy, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Arendt, H. (1959) The Human Condition, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
——(1967) The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2nd edn, London: Allen & Unwin.
Aristotle (1946) The Politics of Aristotle (ed. by Ernest Barker), Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Armijo, L. (2007) ‘The Brics countries as analytical category: mirage or insight’,
Asian Perspective, 31 (4): 7–42.
Axtmann, R. (2003) Understanding Democratic Politics, London: Sage.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1970) Power and Poverty, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Banfield, E. and Banfield, L. (1967) The Moral Basis of a Backward Society,
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Barnett, S. (2002) ‘Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?’,
The Political Quarterly, 73 (4): 400–408.
Barreto, M., Cooper, B., Gonzalez, B., Parker, C. and Towler, C. (2012) ‘The
Tea Party in the age of Obama: mainstream conservatism or out-group
anxiety?’, Political Power and Social Theory, 22 (1): 105–137.
Barrett, S. and Fudge, C. (1981) Policy and Action, London: Methuen.
Barry, J. (1999) Rethinking Green Politics, London: Sage.
Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (eds) (2005) The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd edn,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Behr, H. (2008) ‘Deterritorialisation and the transformation of statehood: the
paradox of globalisation’, Geopolitics, 13 (2): 359–382.
Bell, D. (1960) The End of Ideology, New York: Basic Books.
——(1973) The Coming of Post Industrial Society, New York: Basic Books.
Ben-Eliezer, U. (1993) ‘The meaning of political participation in a non-liberal
democracy: the Israeli experience’, Comparative Politics, 25 (4): 397–412.
Bennett, L., Wells, C. and Freelon, D. (2011) ‘Communicating Civic
Engagement: contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere’,
Journal of Communication, 61 (5): 835–856.
Berggruen, N. and Gardels, N. (2011) ‘The Future of Democracy’, Thinkery,
Winter: 55–69.
Bernstein, C. and Woodward, B. (1974) All the President’s Men, New York:
Simon & Schuster.
 REFERENCES 243
Beveridge, W. (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services, London: HMSO.
Blair, T. (1994) Socialism, London: Fabian Society.
Blattberg, C. (2009) ‘Political philosophies and political ideologies’, in
C. Blattberg, Patriotic Elaborations: essays in practical philosophy, Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Bloch, M. (1961) Feudal Society, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Blumenthal, S. (1980) The Permanent Campaign: Inside the World of Elite Political
Operatives, Boston: Beacon.
Bohannan, P. (1965) ‘Social and political organisation of the Tiv’, in
J. Gibbs (ed.), The Peoples of Africa, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Bramley, D. (2002) ‘Science, technology and politics’, Technology in Society,
24 (1/2): 9–26.
Branch, J. (2011) ‘Mapping the sovereign state: technology, authority and
systemic change’, International Organisation, 65 (1): 1–36.
Brandt, W. (1980) North-South: A Programme for Survival, London: Pan.
Braun, M. (2009) ‘The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union:
the role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs’,
Accounting, Organisations and Society, 34 (3/4): 469–487.
Brinton, C. (1965) The Anatomy of Revolution, London: Jonathan Cape.
Brown, W. (2003) ‘Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy’, Theory
and Event, 7 (1). Available online at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theo
ry_and_event/v007/7.1brown.html (accessed 12 December 2013).
Bryson, M., Duclos, P. and Jolly, A. (2010) ‘Global immunisation policy
making processes’, Health Policy, 96 (2): 154–159.
Bryson, V. (2003) Feminist Political Theory: an introduction, 2nd edn, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Buechler, S. (2000) Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Burnham, P. (2001) ‘New Labour and the politics of depoliticisation’, British
Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3 (2): 127–149.
Butler, A. (2000) ‘The Third Way project in Britain: the role of the prime
minister’s policy unit’, Politics, 20 (3): 153–160.
Cairney, P. (2011) ‘The new British policy style: from a British to a Scottish
political tradition?’, Political Studies Review, 9 (2): 208–220.
Campbell, P. (1965) French Electoral Systems and Elections Since 1789, rev. edn,
London: Faber & Faber.
Castells, M. (2002) The Internet Galaxy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——(2009) Communication Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castilho, M., Mendendez, M. and Sztulman, A. (2011) ‘Trade liberalisation,
inequality and poverty in Brazilian states’, World Development, 40 (4):
821–835.
244 REFERENCES

Castles, F. and McKinlay, D. (1979) ‘Does politics matter? An analysis of the

public welfare commitment in advanced democratic states’, European Journal
of Political Research, 7 (2); 169–186.
Castles, S. and Miller, M. (2003) The Age of Migration: international population
movements in the modern world, 3rd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cato, M. (2012) ‘Green economics: putting the planet and politics back into
economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36 (5): 1033–1049.
Charney, D. and English, W. (2012) ‘Candidate genes and political behaviour’,
American Political Science Review, 106 (1): 1–34.
Chen, C.-C. (2011) ‘The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered’,
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11 (1): 1–23.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (2002) Relationship Marketing:
Creating Stakeholder Value, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cohen, B. (1963) The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Colas, A. (2002) International Civil Society, Cambridge: Polity.
Coleman, S. (2005) ‘New mediation and direct representation: reconcept-
ualising representation in the digital age’, New Media and Society, 7 (2):
177–198.
Conaghan, C. and de la Torre, C. (2008) ‘The permanent campaign of Rafael
Correa: making Ecuador’s plebiscitary presidency’, The International Journal of
Press/Politics, 17 (3): 262–284.
Crick, B. (2000) In Defence of Politics, 5th edn, London: Continuum International.
Dahl, R. (1961) Who Governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
——(2000) ‘A democratic paradox? Scandinavian Political Science, 23 (3): 246–251.
Dal Bo, E., Dal Bo, P. and Snyder, J. (2009) ‘Political dynasties’, Review of
Economic Studies, 76 (1): 115–142.
Dalton, R. (1988) Citizen Politics in Western Democracies, Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House.
Deacon, D. and Golding, P. (1994) Taxation and Representation, London: John
Libbey.
De Goeda, M. (2008) ‘The politics of pre-emption and the war on terror in
Europe’, European Journal of International Relations, 14 (1): 161–185.
De Jouvenal, B. (1963) The Pure Theory of Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Derbyshire, J. and Derbyshire, I. (1991) World Political Systems: An Introduction
to Comparative Government, Edinburgh: Chambers Political Spotlights.
——(1996) Political Systems of the World, New York: St Martin’s Press.
Deutsch, K. (1963) Nerves of Government, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Devine, F. (2002) ‘Qualitative methods’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds),
Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave: 197–215.
 REFERENCES 245
Diamant, A. (1959) ‘Is there a non-western political process? Comments on
Lucian Pye’s “The non-western political process”’, Journal of Politics, 21 (1):
123–127.
Diamond, L. (2008) ‘The democratic rollback: the resurgence of the predatory
state’, Foreign Affairs, 4 March.
——(2012) ‘The coming wave’, Journal of Democracy, 23 (1): 5–13.
Dicey, A. (1959) Law of the Constitution, 10th edn, with introduction by
E. C. S. Wade, London: Macmillan.
Diez, J. (2013) ‘Explaining policy outcomes: the adoption of same-sex unions
in Buenos Aires and Mexico City’, Comparative Political Studies, 46 (2): 212–235.
Dilly, C. (1991) ‘Changing forms of revolution’, in E. Rice (ed.), Revolution
and Counter Revolution, Oxford: Blackwell: 1–15.
Djilas, M. (1966), The New Class, London, Allen & Unwin.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper & Row.
Dowse, R. (1969) Modernization in Ghana and the USSR, London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
——(1972) ‘Functionalism in political science’, World Politics, 18 (4): 607–622.
Doyle, M. (1986) ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, The American Political Science
Review, 80 (4): 1151–69.
Drezner, D. and Farrell, H. (2004) ‘The Power and Politics of Blogs’, paper
presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, September 2–5, Chicago.
Dryzek, J. (2006) ‘Revolutions without enemies: key transformations in
political science’, American Political Science Review, 100 (4):487–492.
Duff, A. (ed.) (1993) Subsidiarity within the European Community, London:
Federal Trust for Education and Research.
Duffy, C. (2009) Politics, The Guardian, 13 June. Available online at: www.guar
dian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/12/politics-carol-ann-duffy-poem (accessed 30
November 2012).
Duverger, M. (1972) The Study of Politics, London: Nelson.
Easton, D. (1979) A Framework for Political Analysis, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Eberhard, W. (1977) A History of China, 4th edn, London: Routledge.
Edelman, M. (1977) Political Language, London: Academic Press.
Edmundson, W. (2010) ‘Political authority, moral purposes and the intrinsic
value of obedience’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 179–191.
Edwards, L. (1927) The Natural History of Revolution, Chicago: University of
Chicago (reprinted 1970).
Elazer, D. (1972) American Federalism: a view from the states, New York: Crowell.
Etzioni, A. (1995) The Spirit of Community, London: Fontana.
Eysenck, H. and Kamin, L. (1981) Intelligence: The Battle for the Mind, London:
Pan Books.
246 REFERENCES

Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticisation and

Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finer, S. (1970) Comparative Government, London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press.
——(1976) The Man on Horseback, 2nd edn, London: Pall Mall Press.
Firestone, S. (1971) The Dialectic of Sex, New York: Bantam Books.
Fischer, J. (2005) Die Ruckkehr der Geschichte/Die Welt nach dem 11. September
die Erneuerung des Westens, Koln: Verlag Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
Fischer, M. (1980) Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Fisher, P. (2010) ‘State political culture and support for Obama in the 2008
Democratic presidential primaries’, The Social Science Journal, 47 (3): 699–709.
Flitcroft, K., Gillespie, J., Salkeld, G., Carter, S. and Trevena, L. (2011)
‘Getting evidence into policy: the need for deliberative strategies’, Social
Sciences and Medicine, 72 (7): 1039–1046.
Fogarty, M. (1957) Christian Democracy in Western Europe, London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge, Brighton: Harvester.
——(1982) ‘The subject and power’, Critical Inquiry, 8 (4): 777–795.
Fowler, J. and Dawes, T. (2008) ‘Two genes predict voter turnout’, Journal of
Politics, 70 (3): 579–594.
Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Friedman, M. and Friedman, R. (1980) Free to Choose, Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin.
Friedrich, C. (ed.) (1964) Totalitarianism, New York: Grosset & Dunlop.
Frienda, S., Knowles, E., Saletan, W. and Loftus, E. (2013) ‘False memories of
fabricated political events’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (2):
280–286.
Frissen, P. (1994) ‘The virtual reality of informatization in public administration’,
Conference on ICTs in Public Administration, London, 30 September.
Fuchs, C. and Dyer-Witheford, N. (2012) ‘Karl Marx @ internet studies’, New
Media & Society, November 26. Available online at: http://nms.sagepub.com/
content/early/2012/11/22/1461444812462854 (accessed 1 December 2013).
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press.
Gbadamosi, T. (1978) The Growth of Islam Among the Yoruba, 1841–1908,
London: Longman.
George, A. (1999) ‘Democracy and peace’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 23 (2):
273–280.
Gerth, H. and Mills, C. Wright (eds) (1948) From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gibbins, J. and Reiner, B. (1999) The Politics of Postmodernity, London: Sage.
Gluckman, M. (1965) Custom and Conflict in Africa, Oxford: Blackwell.
 REFERENCES 247
Golder, M. (2005) ‘Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2000’,
Electoral Studies, 24 (1): 103–121.
Goldman, E. (1915) Anarchism and Other Essays, New York: Mother Earth
Publishing Association.
Gore, C. (2000) ‘The rise and fall of the Washington consensus as a paradigm
for developing countries’, World Development, 28 (5): 789–804.
Gorovitz, S. (1976) ‘John Rawls: a theory of justice’, in A. de Crespigny, and K.
Minogue (eds), Contemporary Political Philosophers, London: Methuen: 272–289.
Gramsci, A. (1969) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International.
Grant, W. (2000) Pressure Groups and British Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Green, T. (1941) ‘Lectures on the principles of political obligation’, cited in
A. Milne (1962), The Social Philosophy of English Idealism, London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Greenleaf, W. (1983) The British Political Tradition, London: Methuen.
Gregg, B. (2012) ‘Politics disembodied and deterritorised: the Internet as
human rights resource’, in H. Dahms and L. Hazelrigg (eds), Theorising
Modern Society as a Dynamic Process (Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 30,
Bingley: Emerald): 209–233.
Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B. (2013) ‘Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of
automatic content analysis methods for political texts’, Political Analysis,
21 (3): 267–297.
Guttal, S. (2007) ‘Globalisation’, Development in Practice, 17 (4/5): 523–531.
Hamilton, A., Jay, J. and Madison, J. (1961) The Federalist Papers (ed. by Jacob
E Cooke), Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hart, A. (2010) ‘Death of the partisan? Globalisation and taxation in South
America 1990–2006’, Comparative Political Studies, 43 (3): 304–328.
Hayek, F. (1979) Law, Legislation and Liberty, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Heclo, H. (2000) ‘Campaigns and Governing: a conspectus’, in N. Ornstein
and T. Mann, The Permanent Campaign and its Future, Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings Institution: 1–37.
Held, D. (1991) (ed.) Political Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press.
——(2011), ‘9/11 and the end of the American century, 9 September 2011’.
Available online at: www.opendemocracy.net/david-held/911-and-end-of-am
erican-century (accessed 6 June 2011).
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global
Transformations, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Henry, A. (2011) ‘Ideology, power and the structure of policy networks’,
Policy Studies Journal, 39 (3): 361–383.
Hetherington, M. and Suhay, E. (2011) ‘Authoritarianism, threat and
Americans’ support for the war on terror’, American Journal of Political Science,
55 (3): 546–560.
248 REFERENCES

Heywood, J. (1991) ‘Political Science in Britain’, European Journal of Political

Science, 20 (3-4): 301–322.
Himmelweit, H., Humphrey, P. and Jaeger, M. (1985) How Voters Decide,
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hobhouse, L. (1964) Liberalism, New York: Oxford University Press (reprint
of 1911 edn).
Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Holland, T. (2005) Persian Fire: The First World Empire, Battle for the West,
London: Little, Brown.
Holliday, I. (2000) ‘Is the British state hollowing out?’ The Political Quarterly,
71 (2): 167–176.
Hood, C. (1976) The Limits of Administration, London: Wiley.
Hope, C. (2012) ‘A quarter of senior civil servants quit Whitehall under coa-
lition’, The Daily Telegraph, 13 April. Available online at: www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/politics/9203416/A-quarter-of-senior-civil-servants-quit-White
hall-under-Coalition.html (accessed 16 December 2013).
Horowitz, D. (1989) ‘Is there a third-world policy process?’, Policy Sciences,
22 (3/4): 197–212.
Horowitz, I. (1964) The Anarchists, New York: Dell Publishing.
Hughes, T. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1890–1930,
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Huntington, S. (1957) The Soldier and the State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
——(1988) ‘One soul at a time: political science and political reform’, The
American Political Science Review, 82 (1): 3–10.
——(1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century,
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Irving, R. (1979) The Christian Democratic Parties of Western Europe, London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Jackson, N. (2006) ‘Dipping their big toe into the blogosphere: the use of
weblogs by the political parties in the 2005 general election’, Aslib
Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58 (4): 292–303.
——(2008) ‘MPs and their e-newsletters: winning votes by promoting
constituency service’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14 (4): 488–499.
——(2009) ‘All the fun of the seaside: the British party conference season’,
E.Pol, 2 (1): 8–10.
Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. (2009a) ‘Building an Architecture of Participation?
political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain’, Journal of Information Technology and
Politics 6 (3/4): 232–250.
——(2009b) ‘MPs and e-representation: me, myspace and I’, British Politics,
4 (2): 236–264.
 REFERENCES 249
——(2011) ‘Tweeting, constituency service and impression management – UK
MPs and the use of Twitter’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 17 (2): 86–105.
——(2012) ‘The Member for Cyberspace: e-representation and MPs in the
UK’, in M. Sobaci (ed.), E-Parliament and ICT-based Legislation: Concept,
Experiences and Lessons, Hershey; PA: IGI Global: 64–79.
Jacobsen, K. (2005) ‘Perestroika in American political science’, Post-Autistic
Economics Review, 32 (5), article 6.
Jacques, M. (ed.) (1998) Marxism Today, Special Issue, London.
James, S. (2010) ‘The rise and fall of euro preparations: strategic networking
and the depoliticisation of Labour’s National Changeover plan’, British
Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12 (3): 368–386.
Jamison, A. (2001) The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and
Cultural Transformation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jansen, G., Evans, G. and Dirk de Graaf, N. (2013) ‘Class voting and left-right
party positions: a comparative study of 15 Western democracies, 1960–2005’,
Social Science Research, 42 (2): 376–400.
Jayasuriya, K. (2002) ‘Post-Washington Consensus and the new Anti-Politics’,
in T. Lindsey and D. Howard (eds), Corruption in Asia: Rethinking the
Governance Paradigm, NSW: Federation Press.
Johns, P. (2002) ‘Quantitative methods’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker
(eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave:
184–211.
Johnson, N. (1987) The Welfare State in Transition, Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Jones, M. (1960) American Immigration, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Karpik, L. (1978), Organisation and Environment, London, Sage.
Katzman, K. (2013) ‘Bahrain: reform, security and US policy’, Congressional
Research Service. Available online at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/95-
1013.pdf (accessed 12 June 2013).
Keating, M. (2009) ‘Putting European political science back together again’,
European Political Science Review, 1 (2): 297–316.
Keating, M., Cairney, P. and Hepburn, E. (2009) ‘Territorial policy communities
and devolution in the UK’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,
2 (1): 51–66.
Kellner, D. (2007) ‘Bushspeak and the politics of lying: presidential rhetoric in
the “war on terror”’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37 (4): 622–645.
Keman, H. (ed.) (2002) Comparative Democratic Politics, London: Sage.
Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1989) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in
Transition, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Kettell, S. (2008) ‘Does depoliticisation work? Evidence from Britain’s
membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism 1990–1992’, British Journal of
Politics and International Relations, 10 (4): 630–648.
250 REFERENCES

Kirshner, J. (2003) ‘Money is politics’, Review of International Political Economy,

10 (4): 645–660.
Kirton, J. and Bracht, C. (2013) ‘Prospects for the 2013 BRICS Durban
summit’. Available online at: www.brics.utoronto.ca/commentary/130322-
kirton-bracht-prospects.html (accessed 22 October 2013).
Kogan, M. and Hawkesworth, M. (eds) (1992) Encyclopaedia of Government and
Politics, London: Routledge.
Kotler, P. (1975) ‘Overview of political candidate marketing’, Advances in
Consumer Research, 2: 761–776.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lai, W. (2010) ‘Political authority: the two wheels of the Dharma’, Buddhist-
Christian Studies, 30: 171–186.
Lane, D. (2009) ‘“Coloured revolution” as a political phenomenon’, Journal of
Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25 (2/3): 113–135.
Lasswell, H. (1936) Politics Who Gets What, When, How? London: Peter Smith
(reprinted).
——(1963) The Future of Political Science, New York: Atherton Press.
Lax, J. and Phillips, J. (2012) ‘The democratic deficit in the states’, The
American Journal of Political Science, 56 (1): 148–166.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, L. and Gaudet, H. (1944) The People’s Election, New
York: Columbia University Press.
LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. and Norris, P. (eds) (2002) Comparing Democracies 2: New
Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, London: Sage.
Lee, M. (2012) ‘North Korea: on the net in world’s most secretive nation’,
BBC News. Available online at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20445632
(accessed 5 December 2013).
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001) Political Marketing and British Political Parties,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
LeGrand, J. (1982) The Strategy of Equality: Redistribution and the Social Services,
London: Allen & Unwin.
Lemarchand, R. (ed.) (1977) African Kingdoms in Perspective, London: Frank Cass.
Lenin, N. (1917) ‘The state and the revolution: Marxist teaching on the state’,
in K. Marx, F. Engels and V. Lenin (1960), The Essential Left: Four Classic
Texts on the Principles of Socialism, London: Unwin.
Lieb, D. (2004) ‘The limits of neo-liberalism: marginal states and international
relations theory’, Harvard International Review, 26 (1): 26–29.
Lilleker, D. and Jackson, N. (2011) Campaigning, Elections and the Internet: US,
UK, Germany and France, Abingdon: Routledge.
——(2014) ‘Brand management and relationship marketing in online envir-
onments’, in J. Lees-Marshment, B. Conley and K. Cosgrove (eds), Political
Marketing in the United States, London: Routledge.
 REFERENCES 251
Lin, K. and Rantalaiho, M. (2003) ‘Family policy and social order – comparing
the dynamics of family policy-making in Scandinavia and Confucian Asia’,
International Journal of Social Welfare, 12 (2): 2–13.
Lindblom, C. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’, Administrative Review,
19 (Spring): 79–88.
Lipset, S. (1979) The First New Nation: The USA in Comparative and Historical
Perspective, New York: Norton.
Liu, A. (2011) ‘Linguistic effects of political institutions’, Journal of Politics,
73 (1): 125–139.
Lovelock, J. (1979) Gaia, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luard, E. (1990) The Globalization of Politics: the Changed Focus of Political Action
in the Modern World, New York: New York University Press.
Lukes, S. (2005) Power: a Radical View, 2nd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lusoli, W. (2007) ‘E-citizens and representation: beyond the bleeding
obvious’, paper presented to OII workshop, Oxford, 14–15 June.
Mackintosh, J. (1966) Nigerian Government and Politics, London: George Allen
& Unwin.
Madison, J. (1788) ‘The structure of the government must furnish the proper
checks and balances between the different departments’, Independent Journal,
Wednesday, February 6 (The Federalist Papers, No. 51).
Makumbe, J. (2003) The Politics of Zimbabwe’s 1995 General Elections, Harare:
University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Mangham, I. (1979) The Politics of Organisational Change, London: Associated
Business Press.
Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Margolis, M., Resnick, D. and Levy, J. (2003) ‘Major parties dominate, minor
parties struggle: US elections and the Internet’ in R. Gibson, P. Nixon and
S. Ward (eds), Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? London: Routledge:
53–69.
Marsh, D. and Savigny, H. (2004) ‘Political science as a broad church: the
search for a pluralist discipline’, Politics, 24 (3):1 55–168.
Marshall, L. (1961) Sharing Talking and Giving: Relief of Social Tensions among the
!Kung Bushmen, Africa, March.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1962) Selected Works, 2 vols, Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House.
Mazzoleni, G. (2000) ‘A return to civic and political engagement: prompted by
personalised political leadership?’, Political Communication, 17 (4): 325–328.
McClellan, D. (1986) Ideology, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
McDonald, P. (2011) ‘Maoism versus Confucianism: ideological influences on
Chinese business leaders’, Journal of Management Development, 30 (7/8):
632–646.
252 REFERENCES

McGrew, T. and Lewis, P. (1992) Global Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
McKenzie, W. (1958) Free Elections, London: Allen & Unwin.
McKibbin, R. (1983) The Evolution of the Labour Party 1910–1924, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, L. and Pickard, V. (2005) ‘What is bottom-up about global
internet governance?’, Global Media and Communication, 1 (3): 357–373.
McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding the Media: the extension of man, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McNair, B. (2003) An Introduction to Political Communication, London:
Routledge.
Mead, W. (2011) ‘The Tea Party and American foreign policy’, Foreign Affairs,
90 (2): 28–44.
Medina, E. (2011) Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s
Chile, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mehta, V. (2012) The Sanjay Story, HarperCollins.
Mellor, N. (1990) ‘The Micronesian executive: the federated states of
Micronesia, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands’, Pacific Studies, 14 (1): 55–72.
Michels, R. (1915) Political Parties, New York: Constable (1959 reprint).
Milgram, S. (1965) ‘Some conditions for obedience and disobedience to
authority’, Human Relations, 18 (1): 57–74.
Miliband, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Society, London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson.
——(1983) ‘State power and class interests’, New Left Review, 138 (March/
April).
——(1984) Capitalist Democracy in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, C. Wright (1956) The Power Elite, New York: Oxford University Press.
Milne, A. (1962) The Social Philosophy of English Idealism, London: Allen &
Unwin.
Mitchell, D. (1959) Sociology: the Study of Social Systems, London: University
Tutorial Press.
Moloney, K. (2006) Rethinking Public Relations, London: Routledge.
Morgan, R. (1981) ‘Madison’s analysis of the sources of political authority’,
The American Political Science Review, 75 (3): 613–625.
Morison, S. and Commager, H. (1962) The Growth of the American Republic,
5th edn, 2 vols, New York: Oxford University Press.
Mosca, G. (1939) The Ruling Class (ed. and rev. by A. Livingston), New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mozaffari, M. (2007) ‘What is Islamism? History and definition of a concept’,
Totalitarianism Movements and Political Religions, 8 (1): 17–33.
Muller, J.-W. (2013) ‘Towards a new history of Christian democracy’, Journal
of Political Ideologies, 18 (2): 243–255.
 REFERENCES 253
Naim, M. (2012) ‘Mafia States’, Foreign Affairs, 91 (3): 100–111.
Nettl, P. (1966) ‘The concept of system in political science’, Political Studies,
14 (3): 305–338.
Neustadt, R. (1960) Presidential Power: the politics of leadership, New York:
Wiley.
Newman, D. (1998) ‘Geopolitics renaissant: territory, sovereignty and the
political world map’, Geopolitics, 3 (1): 1–16.
Ngcobo, N. and Cameron, N. (2012) ‘The decision-making process on new
vaccines introduction in South Africa’, Vaccine, 30 (1): C9–C13.
Norris, P. and Curtice, J. (2004) ‘If you build a political website, will they
come? The supply and demand model of new technology, social capital and
civic engagement in Britain’, paper delivered to the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.
Norton, P. (2005) Parliament in British Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
——(2008) ‘A 20-point Tory lead: despite or because of David Cameron?’,
paper prepared for the symposium on David Cameron and the
Conservatives, Centre for British Politics, University of Hull, 24/25
September.
Norton-Griffiths, M. (2010) ‘The growing involvement of foreign NGOs in
setting policy agenda and political decision making in Africa’, IEA Economic
Affairs, October: 29–34.
Nove, A. (1980) The Soviet Economic System, London Allen & Unwin.
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia, London: Blackwell.
Oakeshott, M. (1962) Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, London:
Methuen.
Ochieng, C. (2007) ‘Development through positive deviance and its
implications for economic policy making and public administration in
Africa: the case for Kenyan agriculture 1930–2005’, World Development,
35 (3): 454–479.
Office for National Statistics (2012) National Statistics website. Available at:
www.statistics.gov.uk.
Ornstein, N. and Mann, T. (2000) The Permanent Campaign and its Future,
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings
Institution.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Harmondsworth:
Middlesex: Penguin.
Ostrom, E. (2000) ‘The Future of Democracy’, Scandinavian Political Studies,
23 (2): 280–283.
Paliwala, A. (2013) ‘Netizenship, security and freedom’, International Review of
Law, Computers and Technology, 27 (1-2): 104–123.
Pareto, V. (1976) Sociological Writings (ed. by S. E. Finer), Oxford: Blackwell.
254 REFERENCES

Parkinson, D. (2003) ‘The Message Not the Medium’, VoxPolitics Bulletin,

reproduced in Netpulse 7(15): October 16 (www.PoliticsOnline.com).
Parsons, T. (1957) ‘The distribution of power in American society’, World
Politics, 10: 123–143.
——(1963) ‘On the concept of political power’, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 107 (3): 232–262.
Pateman, C. (1971): ‘Political culture, political structure and change’, British
Journal of Political Science, 1 (3): 291–305.
Peach, L. (1987) ‘Corporate responsibility’, in N. Hart (ed.) Effective Corporate
Relations, London: McGraw-Hill: 191–204.
Pennock, J. and Chapman, J. (eds) (1978) Anarchism: Nomos XIX, New York:
New York: University Press.
Perloff, R. (2008) The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the
21st Century, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perrin, A., Tepper, S., Caren, N. and Morris, S. (2011) ‘Cultures of the Tea
Party’, Contexts, 10 (Spring): 74–75.
Peters, G. (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science: the ‘New Institutionalism’,
London: Pitman.
Phalen, P., Kim, J. and Osellame, J. (2012) ‘Imagined presidencies: the repre-
sentation of political power in television fiction’, The Journal of Popular
Culture, 45 (3): 532–550.
Pierre, J. and Stoker, G. (2002) ‘Towards multi-level governance’, in
P. Dunleavy, A. Gamble, I. Holliday and G. Peele (eds), Developments in
British Politics 6, Basingstoke: Palgrave: 29–46.
Plasser, F. (2002) Global Political Campaigning: a Worldwide Analysis of Campaign
Professionals and their Practices, London: Praeger.
Polity IV Project (2013) Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2012.
Available online at: www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/inscr.htm (accessed
23 July 2013).
Popper, K. (1960) The Poverty of Historicism, 2nd edn, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
——(1962) The Open Society and its Enemies, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Posner, R. (2003) Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Poulantzas, N. (1973) Political Power and Social Classes, London: New Left
Review Books.
Prawer, J. and Eisenstadt, S. (1968) ‘Feudalism’, in D. Sills (ed.), International
Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, vol. 5, New York: Macmillan: 393–403.
Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1973) Implementation: How Great Expectations
in Washington are Dashed in Oakland or Why it’s Amazing that Federal
Programs Work at All, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
 REFERENCES 255
Puchala, D. (1997) ‘Some non-western perspectives on International
Relations’, Journal of Peace Research, 24 (2): 129–134.
Pye, L. (1958) ‘The non-western political process’, Journal of Politics, 20 (3):
468–486.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Qureshi, M. and Wen, G. (2008) ‘Distributed consequences of globalisation:
empirical evidence from panel data’, Journal of Development Studies, 44 (10):
1424–1449.
Rae, D. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Raustiala, K. (1997) ‘States, NGOs and international environmental organisations’,
International Studies Quarterly, 41 (4): 719–740.
Rawls, J. (1971) The Theory of Justice, London: Oxford University Press.
Rehfeld, A. (2005) The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation,
Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reischaur, E. (1956) ‘Japanese feudalism’, in R. Coulborne (ed.), Feudalism in
History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rhodes, R. (1994) ‘The hollowing out of the state: the changing nature of the
public service in Britain’, The Political Quarterly, 65 (2): 138–151.
——(1996) ‘The New Governance: governing without government’, Political
Studies, 44 (4): 652–667
——(1997) Understanding Governance, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Richardson, J. and Jordan, A. (1979) Governing Under Pressure: the policy process
in a post-parliamentary system, Oxford: Robertson.
Ridley, F. (1991) ‘Theory and methods in British public administration: the
view from political science’, Political Studies, 39 (3): 533–544.
Risse-Kappen, T. (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: non-state
actors, domestic structures and international institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Robinson, J. (1976) ‘Interpersonal influence in election campaigns: two
step-flow hypotheses’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 40 (3): 304–319.
Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovation, 4th edn, New York: Free Press.
Roscigno, V. (2011) ‘Power revisited’, Social Forces, 90 (2): 349–374.
Rose, J. (2011) ‘Kingship and counsel in Early Modern England’, The Historical
Journal, 54 (1): 47–71.
Rose, N. and Miller, P. (2010) ‘Political power beyond the state: problematics
of government’, British Journal of Sociology, 61 (1): 271–303.
Rose, R. (ed.) (1969) Policy Making in Britain, London: Macmillan.
256 REFERENCES

Rothkopf, D. (2009) ‘The BRICs and what the BRICs would be without
China’, Foreign Policy, 16 June. Available online at: http://rothkopf.foreign
policy.com/posts/2009/06/15/the_brics_and_what_the_brics_would_be_
without_china (accessed 22 October 2013).
Rowbotham, S. (1972) Women Resistance and Revolution: a History of Women in
the Modern World, New York: Random House.
Runciman, W. (1969) Social Science and Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rush, M. (2001) The Role of Member of Parliament since 1868: Gentlemen and
Players, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sabetti, F. (1984) Political Authority in a Sicilian Village, New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Sabine, G. (1951) A History of Political Theory, 3rd edn, London: G. Harrap.
Saeidi, A. (2001) ‘Charismatic political authority and populist economics in
post-revolutionary Iran’, Third World Quarterly, 22 (2): 219–236.
Said, E. (1987) Orientalism, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sampson, A. (2004) Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain in the
21st Century, London: John Murray.
Sandel, M. (1996) Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy,
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Sartori, G. (1970) ‘Concept misinformation in comparative politics’, The
American Political Science Review, 64 (4): 1033–1053.
——(1973) ‘What is “politics”?’, Political Theory, 1 (1): 5–26.
Saunders, P. (1995) Capitalism: a Social Audit, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Saward, M. (1997) ‘In Search of the Hollow Crown’, in P. Weller, H. Bakvis
and R. Rhodes (eds), The Hollow Crown: Countervailing Trends in Core
Executives, Basingstoke: Macmillan: 1–36.
Scammell, M. (2001) ‘The Internet and civic engagement in the age of the
citizen-consumer’, Political Communication, 17 (4): 351–355.
Schapiro, L. (1965) The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union, London:
Hutchinson.
Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People, New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Schier, S. (2011) ‘The presidential authority problem and the political power
trap’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41 (4): 793–808.
Schmidt, M. (1989) ‘Social policy in rich and poor countries: socio-economic
trends and political-institutional determinants’, European Journal of Political
Research, 17 (6): 641–659.
Scholte, J. (2000) Globalization: a Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Schram, S. (2003) ‘Return to politics: perestroika and post-paradigmatic political
science’, Political Theory, 31 (6): 835–851.
 REFERENCES 257
Schultz, R. (1980) Responding to the Terrorist Threat: Security and Crisis
Management, New York: Pergamon.
Schumacher, E. (1973) Small is Beautiful: a Study of Economics as if People
Mattered, London: Blond & Briggs.
Scott, J. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: an Anarchist History of Upland
Southeast Asia, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Seale, P. and McConville, M. (1968) French Revolution, Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin.
Seckinelgin, H. (2007) The International Politics of HIV/AIDS, London,
Routledge.
Sekhon, J. and Titiunik, R. (2012) ‘When natural experiments are
neither natural nor experiments’, American Political Science Review, 106 (1):
35–57.
Sell, S. (2003) Private Power, Public Law: the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shaoul, J. (2011) ‘Sharing political authority with finance capital: the case of
Britain’s public private partnerships’, Policy and Society, 30 (2): 209–220.
Sharma, R. (2012) ‘Broken Brics: why the rest stopped rising’, Foreign Affairs,
November/December. Available online at: www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/
138219/ruchiv-sharma/broken/brics (accessed 20 September 2013).
Simon, H. (1953) ‘Notes on the observation and measurement of political
power’, Journal of Politics, 25 (4): 500–516.
——(1959) ‘Theories of Decision Making in Economics and Behavioural
Science’, American Economic Review, 49 (3): 253–283
——(1977) The New Science of Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Singh, N. (2003) ‘Cold War redux: on the “new totalitarianism”’, Radical
History Review, 85 (Winter): 171–181.
Sklar, R. (1963) Nigerian Political Parties: Power in an Emergent Nation,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Skogstad, G. (2003) ‘Who governs? Who should govern? Political authority
and legitimacy in Canada in the twenty-first century’, Canadian Journal of
Political Science, 36 (5): 955–973.
Slowe, P. (1990) Geography and Political Power, London: Routledge.
Smith, G. (1989) Politics in Western Europe: a Comparative Analysis, Aldershot:
Gower.
Smith, R. (2002) ‘Should we make political science more of a science or more
about politics?’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 35 (2): 199–201.
Snallen, J. (2001) ‘ICTs, bureaucracies and the future of democracy’,
Communication of the ACM, 44 (1): 45–48.
Southern Electric (1994) Caring for Customers, Maidenhead: Southern Electric.
Spar, D. and La Mure, L. (2003) ‘The power of activism: assessing the impact
of NGOs on global business’, California Management Review, 45 (3): 78–101.
258 REFERENCES

Spence, M. (2011) ‘The impact of globalisation on income and employment’,

Foreign Affairs, 90 (4): 28–41.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents: London: Allen Lane.
Stoker, G. (2006) Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work, Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Stokman, F. and Zeggelink, E. (1996) ‘Is politics power or policy oriented?
A comparative analysis of dynamic access models in policy networks’, Journal
of Mathematical Sociology, 21 (1/2): 77–111.
Stone, D. (2008) ‘Global public policy, transnational policy communities and
their networks’, Policy Studies Journal, 36 (1): 19–38.
Suffian, T., Lee, H. and Trinidade, F. (1978) The Constitution of Malaysia: Its
Development 1957–1977, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. (2004) ‘Democracy and filtering’, Communications of ACM,
47 (12): 57–59.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of inter-group conflict’,
in G. Austin and S. Worsche (eds), The Social Psychology of Inter-group
Relations, Montery, CA: Brooks/Cole: 33–47.
Tansey, S. (1973) Political Analysis: A report on a project of syllabus development,
MSc report, Birkbeck College, London.
——(1989) Employers’ Reactions to the Youth Training Scheme, MPhil thesis,
University of Bath.
——(2002) Business, Information Technology and Society, London: Routledge.
——(2010) ‘Politics, political theory, political philosophy’, Thinking Philosophy
(U3A Philosophy Network), Summer: 11–14.
Tawney, R. (1938) Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin.
Taylor, C. and Jodice, D. (1983) World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators,
3rd edn, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Teegan, J., Doh, J. and Vachari, S. (2004) ‘The importance of nongovernmental
organisations in global governance and value creation: an international busi-
ness research agenda’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (6): 463–483.
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth
and happiness, London: Penguin.
Themistocleous, M., Azab, N., Kamal, M., Ali, M. and Morabito, V. (2012)
‘Location-based services for public policy making: the direct and indirect
way to e-participation’, Information Systems Management, 29 (4): 269–283.
Tilly, C. (1994) ‘The time of states’, Social Research, 61 (2): 269–5.
Toal, G. (1998) ‘Borderless worlds? Problematic discourse of deterritorialisation’,
Geopolitics, 4 (2): 139–154.
Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave, London: Collins.
Torelli, C. and Shavitt, S. (2010) ‘Culture and concepts and power’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (4): 703–723.
 REFERENCES 259
Torgerson, D. (1999) The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the
Public Sphere, London: Duke University Press.
Trotsky, L. (1945) The Revolution Betrayed, New York: Pioneer.
Tullock, G. (1965) The Politics of Bureaucracy, Washington, DC: Public Affairs
Press.
Vander Broek, A. (2009) ‘Ivy leaders’, 4 February. Available online at:
www.forbes.com/2009/04/02/politician-education-elite-leadership-ivy.html
(accessed 10 December 2013).
Verney, D. (1959) The Analysis of Political Systems, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Vincent, A. (1992) Modern Political Ideologies, Oxford: Blackwell.
Voltaire (1756) Essai sur l’histoire generale et sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations,
Paris.
von Brück, M. (2010) ‘Political authority: a Christian perspective’, Buddhist
Christian Studies, 30: 159–170.
Ward, S. and Lusoli, W. (2005) ‘From weird to wired: MPs, the Internet
and representative politics in the UK’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11 (1):
57–81.
Warren, M. and Castiglione, D. (2004) ‘The transformation of democratic
representation’, Democracy and Society, 2 (1): 5–22.
Weare, C. (2002) ‘The Internet and democracy: the causal links between
technology and politics’, International Journal of Public Administration, 25 (5):
659–691.
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: an outline of interpretive sociology (ed. by
G. Roth and C. Wittich), London: University of California Press (originally
published 1922).
Weldon, T. (1953) The Vocabulary of Politics, Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin.
Wheare, K. (1951) Modern Constitutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——(1963) Federal Government, 4th edn, London: Oxford University Press.
White, R. and Hooke, W. (2004) ‘Climate science, technology and politics: a
tangled web’, Technology in Society, 26 (2): 375–384.
Williams, G. (ed.) (1976) Nigeria: Economy and Society, London: Rex Collings.
Williams, P. (1964) Crisis and Compromise, Harlow: Longmans.
Wittfogel, K. (1957) Oriental Despotism, New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Wittman, D. (1991) ‘Nations and states: mergers and acquisitions; dissolution
and divorce’, American Economic Review, 81 (2): 126–129.
Woodcock, G. (1975) Anarchism, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Wray, M. (2009) ‘Policy communities, networks and issue cycles in tourism
destination systems’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17 (6): 673–690.
Wring, D. (2007) ‘Focus Group Follies? Qualitative research and British Labour
Party strategy’, Journal of Political Marketing, 5 (4): 71–97.
260 REFERENCES

Yazdani, S. and Dola, K. (2013) ‘Sustainable city priorities in Global North

versus Global South’, Journal of Sustainable Development, 6 (7): 38–47.
Youngs, G. and Widdows, H. (2009) ‘Globalisation, ethics and the “War on
Terror”’, Globalisation, 6 (1): 1–6.
Zakaria, F. (1997) ‘The rise of illiberal democracy’, Foreign Affairs, 76 (6): 22–43.
Zhu, Y. (2012) ‘Policy entrepreneur, civic engagement and local policy inno-
vation in China: housing monetarisation reform in Guizhou province’,
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71 (2): 191–200.