Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:20:39.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensions of Political Systems: Factor Analysis of A Cross-Polity Survey*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Phillip M. Gregg  and
Arthur S. Banks
Phillip M. Gregg
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Arthur S. Banks
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the publication of David Easton's The Political System, it has become increasingly common for political scientists to speculate as to the basic factors which may be common to all political systems and which, in their varying manifestations, determine the unique styles of political behavior within each. Efforts to identify the basic political phenomena and their complex relationships have generated a variety of cross-national conceptual schemes and propositions. Some authors speak of structural and functional requisites, some refer to equilibrium conditions for system maintenance. Others, employing more traditional concepts, refer to power, legitimacy, ideology, instability, consensus, influence, and bargaining. Regardless of the form these efforts assume, they all posit the existence of factors or dimensions which are common to all political systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 602 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 New York, 1953.

2 For an attempt to integrate the structural and functional approaches with the systems approach, see Almond's, introductory essay in Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S. (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 3–64Google Scholar.

3 The terms “factor” and “dimension” are here used as equivalent, non-technical concepts. Henceforth the former will be employed in reference to the mathematical result (the columns of variables' loadings in the factor matrix) of the factor analytic calculations; the latter will refer to the phenomena of the real world which the factor delineates.

4 For a brief history of factor analysis, see Harman, Harry H., Modern Factor Analysis (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 3–11Google Scholar.

5 Thurstone, L. L., Multiple Factor Analysis: A Development and Expansion of the Vectors of the Mind (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1947), pp. 55–56Google Scholar.

6 Cattell, Raymond B., “The Dimensions of Culture Patterns by Factorization of National Characters,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 44 (10, 1949), pp. 443–469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Berry, Brian J. L., “Basic Patterns of Economic Development,” Atlas of Economic Development, ed. Ginsburg, Norton (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 110–119Google Scholar and “An Inductive Approach to the Regionalization of Economic Development,” Essays on Geography and Economic Development, ed. Ginsburg, Norton (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 78–107Google Scholar. For a collateral, but less ambitious study by a sociologist, see Schnore, Leo F., “The Statistical Measurement of Urbanization and Economic Development,” Land Economics, Vol. 37 (08, 1961), pp. 229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Rummel, Rudolph J., in General Systems Yearbook, Vol. 8 (1963), pp. 1–50Google Scholar.

9 Schubert, Glendon, “The 1960 Term of the Supreme Court: A Psychological Analysis,” this Review, Vol. 56 (03, 1962), pp. 90–107Google Scholar.

10 Alker, Hayward R. Jr., “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly,” this Review, Vol. 58 (09, 1964), pp. 642–657Google Scholar.

11 Rudolph J. Rummel, Harold Geutzkow, Jack Sawyer, and Raymond Tanter, Dimensions of Nations (forthcoming); Russett, Bruce M., “Delineating International Regions” Empirical Studies in International Relations, ed. Singer, J. David (New York, the Free Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

12 Banks, Arthur S. and Textor, Robert B., A Cross-Polity Survey (Cambridge, The M.I.T. Press, 1963)Google Scholar. A somewhat related effort is Russett, Bruce M., et al. , World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar. The compilers of the Handbook, however, set themselves the task of assembling a large number of interval-scaled data series which are ecologically relevant to political research, but which are not, in the main, substantively political in character.

13 Banks and Textor, op. cit., p. 6.

14 Since each of the Survey variables is discussed in the Survey itself, it seems unnecessary to provide a set of definitions for purposes of the present article. For those unfamiliar with the Survey, one variable that appears in Table I may, however, require specification. “System Style” refers to the degree of “mobilization” (to attain political or social objectives) present in the system.

15 In an earlier factor analysis involving all 57 polychotomous characteristics of the Survey and an eleven-factor solution, four non-political factors (“Economic Development,” “Size,” “Population Density,” and “Religion”) emerged. The remaining seven factors closely resembled those reported on below. The four nonpolitical factors correspond to factors identified by Berry, op. cit.; Rummel et al., op. cit.; and Russett, op. cit.

16 The numbers in parentheses in Table I indicate the Survey raw characteristics from which the variables have been derived. Thus variables 22–24 are all derived from Survey Raw Characteristic 26 (Constitutional Status).

17 Rummel, op. cit.

18 Russett et al., op. cit., pp. 101–104.

19 Lawley, D. N. and Maxwell, A. E., Factor Analysis As a Statistical Method (London, Butterworths and Co., 1963), p. 1Google Scholar.

20 Thurstone, op. cit., pp. 66–67. The asterisk refers to the following footnote in the revised edition of Thurstone's original work: “Since this chapter was written, the demonstration has been made, and is described in Chapter XV.”

21 This technique is explained by Harman, op. cit., in ch. 9, ”Principal-Factor Solution.”

22 Kaiser, Henry F., “The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor Analysis,” Psychometrika, Vol. 23 (09, 1958), pp. 187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carroll, John B., “Biquartimin Criterion for Rotation to Oblique Simple Structure in Factor Analysis,” Science, Vol. 126 (29 11, 1957), pp. 1114–1115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

23 Calculations were performed by the Indiana Research Computing Center's IBM 709. The MESA-3 program employed was developed by John B. Carroll at Harvard, coded by R. A. Sandsmark at Northwestern, and revised by Norman Swartz with the assistance of Gary Flint at Indiana.

24 Henrysson, Sten, Applicability of Factor Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences (Stockholm, Almquist and Wiksell, 1960), pp. 86–88Google Scholar.

25 Rummel et al., op. cit. and Russett, op. cit.

26 Berry, op. cit.

27 Due to an artifact of coding procedure taken over directly from the Survey, the variable “Ex-Spanish Dependency” exhibits an unusually high missing data component. For this variable, in addition to normal missing data attrition, only ex-colonial dependencies were assigned substantive codings, some 40 countries being regarded as “irrelevant” to the coding category.

28 Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York, 1955), p. 264 ff.Google Scholar

29 Almond and Coleman, op. cit., pp. 522–567.

30 Kornhauser, William, The Politics of Mass Society (Chicago, 1959)Google Scholar.

31 Rummel has initiated an examination of “causes” of domestic conflict but has encountered a lack of relevant survey data. See Rummel, Rudolph J., “Testing Some Possible Predictors of Conflict Behavior Within and Between Nations,” Proceedings of the Peace Research Society, Vol. 1 (1963)Google Scholar. A useful pilot study in this regard is Gabriel Almond, A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Cf. Binder's, Leonard neo-Weberian typology in Iran: Political Development in a Changing Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1962), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

33 Almond and Coleman, op. cit., p. 33 ff.

34 Russett, op. cit., develops a very useful method for applying the factors as comparative scales.

35 We have not actually calculated factor scores in order to compare nations on the factors. The loadings of the areal grouping variables do, of course, provide insight as to what nations might be expected to correlate most strongly with the various factors. However, the loadings of the areal grouping variables lose their meaning when the nations are quite heterogeneous with respect to the dimension that the factor taps. On this point, see Lawley and Maxwell, op. cit., pp. 88–92.

36 For an excellent discussion of the methodological status of typologies in the social sciences, see the remarks of Hemple, Carl G. in “Symposium: Problems of Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences,” Science, Language, and Human Rights (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952), I, 65 ff.Google Scholar

37 Almond and Coleman, op. cit., p. 33 ff.

38 We have not named those factor clusters which are not readily interpreted or which duplicate other clusters.

39 Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1956), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

40 Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (New York, 1963), p. 203 ff.Google Scholar

41 Almond and Coleman, op. cit., pp. 53–55.

42 Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 63 ff.Google Scholar

43 Rummel, , “The Dimensions of Conflict Behavior Within and Between Nations,” p. 24Google Scholar; Tanter, Raymond, “Dimensions of Conflict Behavior Within Nations, 1955–60: Turmoil and Internal War,” Proceedings of the Peace Research Society, Vol. 3 (1964)Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.