Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The systems approach, emerging in the post-World War II era, revolutionized the study of political science by borrowing concepts from biology and general systems theory. It views politics as a complex system with interconnected parts, emphasizing interdependence and feedback loops. Morton A. Kaplan, a prominent figure in this school of thought, proposed a specific systems model in his 1957 work, *System and Process in International Politics*. However, Kaplan’s model, while rooted in systems theory, is often considered a departure from its fundamental precepts due to its deterministic nature, focus on national capabilities, and hierarchical view of the international system. This answer will explore the core differences between Kaplan’s model and the broader systems approach, arguing that Kaplan’s formulation, while influential, represents a significant deviation from the original intent of systems thinking in political science.
Understanding the Systems Approach
The systems approach, pioneered by thinkers like David Easton, views political life as a system of interacting parts. Key characteristics include:
- Holism: The system is more than the sum of its parts; understanding requires examining the whole.
- Interdependence: Components within the system are mutually dependent. Changes in one part affect others.
- Feedback Mechanisms: Systems respond to inputs (demands and support) through outputs (policies and actions), creating feedback loops.
- Boundary Maintenance: Systems have boundaries that define their scope and distinguish them from their environment.
- Adaptation: Systems are capable of adapting to changing environments.
Easton’s model, for instance, focuses on the political system as a ‘black box’ converting inputs into outputs, emphasizing the process of political decision-making rather than specific ideological or structural factors.
Kaplan’s Systems Model: A Behavioral Approach
Kaplan’s systems model, outlined in *System and Process in International Politics*, differs significantly. He identified six major subsystems within the international system:
- National Subsystem: Composed of a state’s internal political, economic, and social structures.
- Diplomatic Subsystem: Formal and informal interactions between states.
- Economic Subsystem: International trade, finance, and economic cooperation.
- Communication Subsystem: Flow of information between states.
- Intelligence Subsystem: Gathering and analysis of information.
- War Subsystem: The use of force in international relations.
Kaplan argued that these subsystems are interconnected and operate according to predictable patterns of behavior. He emphasized the importance of ‘national capabilities’ – a state’s economic, military, and demographic strength – in determining its role and influence within the system. He also posited a hierarchical international system, with a dominant power (a ‘superpower’) maintaining stability through a balance of power mechanism. He categorized international systems into six types based on the distribution of power and the prevalence of war.
Contrasting Kaplan with the Systems Approach
The core divergence lies in the level of determinism and the emphasis on behavioral patterns. While the systems approach generally allows for agency and unpredictable events, Kaplan’s model leans towards a more deterministic view, suggesting that states behave predictably based on their capabilities and the prevailing system structure. This contrasts with the systems approach’s emphasis on the complexity and emergent properties of political systems.
| Feature | Systems Approach (e.g., Easton) | Kaplan’s Systems Model |
|---|---|---|
| Determinism | Low – allows for agency and unpredictable events | High – emphasizes predictable behavioral patterns based on capabilities |
| Focus | Political processes and inputs/outputs | National capabilities and system structure |
| System Structure | Generally non-hierarchical; emphasis on interdependence | Hierarchical; dominance of superpowers and balance of power |
| Role of Actors | Actors are influenced by the system but also have agency | Actors’ behavior is largely determined by their capabilities within the system |
Furthermore, Kaplan’s focus on national capabilities and the war subsystem arguably reduces the complexity of international relations to a strategic calculation of power. The systems approach, in contrast, acknowledges the influence of non-state actors, international norms, and ideational factors. For example, the rise of transnational advocacy networks and their impact on human rights norms are difficult to explain solely through Kaplan’s framework.
Criticisms of Kaplan’s Model
Kaplan’s model has faced several criticisms:
- Overemphasis on Power: Critics argue that Kaplan overemphasizes the role of power and neglects other important factors, such as ideology, culture, and domestic politics.
- Static View: The model is often seen as static, failing to adequately account for systemic change and the emergence of new actors.
- Deterministic Bias: The deterministic nature of the model limits its ability to explain unexpected events and deviations from predicted behavior.
- Eurocentric Bias: The model is often criticized for being based on a Western-centric view of international relations.
The end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization have further challenged the relevance of Kaplan’s hierarchical view of the international system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Morton Kaplan’s systems model built upon the foundations of the systems approach, it significantly diverged from its core tenets. Kaplan’s emphasis on behavioral patterns, national capabilities, and a hierarchical international system introduced a level of determinism and reductionism that contrasted with the holistic, interdependent, and adaptable nature of the broader systems approach. Although influential in shaping the field of international relations, Kaplan’s model ultimately represents a specific, and arguably limited, application of systems thinking, rather than a faithful representation of its fundamental precepts. The evolving nature of global politics necessitates a more nuanced and flexible approach to understanding international systems, one that incorporates the insights of both the original systems approach and contemporary theories.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.