Woodrow Wilson once said, “The method of political science is the interpretation of life; its instrument is insight, a nice understanding of subtle, unformulated conditions.” This quote by Wilson explains that political science allows one to better understand and define valuable issues in the world as they question the political behavior of others. Throughout, the semester we have studied three comparative approaches used in political science in order to gain knowledge about the great issues of different time periods using political development, political culture, and political institutions approaches. After studying and evaluating three comparative approaches the best two approaches that are the most useful for political scientist and students
…show more content…
Studying political institutions is studying the process of creating, enforcing, and applying laws and the actions of legislatures and political parties are very important. Comparative politics allows one to evaluate the strengths and weakness of various systems to our own system. Studying political institutions of the first world countries was really useful because it allowed me to better understand the way the government in our nation works compared to other nations and determining which one is more stronger. In the article “The Case for a Multi-Party U.S. Parliament”, Professor Christopher S. Allen believes that the United States presidential system contains many flaws. I agree with Professor Allen for various reasons such as if we had a parliamentary system then we can overcome the institutional blockages such as confusion of roles and costly campaigning cost and have a better and effective form of government. When studying the political institutions I was able to understand that our government has flaws because the parliamentary system was better. For example, as stated by Professor Allen, “In parliamentary systems these two functions are performed by two different people” (as cited in Allen 142). These lines explain that in the parliamentary system two different individuals handle the job of being head of …show more content…
As stated in the article, “Changing Values, Economic Development and Political Change”, “…the central element in the rise of modernity was the movement away from traditional religious… a shift from ascriptive status to impersonal, achievement-based roles… Traditional value systems must be shattered in order for modern economic development to take place. In a society undergoing rapid economic expansion, social mobility is acceptable- even a virtue” (Inglehart 382). This line by Inglehart reveals that prior to the Industrial Revolution, people in pre-industrial economies were placed according to their social status, which was hereditary. In addition, culture encouraged people to accept the way of life they had rather than revolting for a better life. As a result, these type of value systems helped keep a social system in pre-industrial societies rather than encouraging economic growth. However, in this quote it helps reveal the differences that had occurred as modernity raised. As a result, mobility was encouraged where people were allowed to be who they wanted rather than being placed in a hierarchy system which was crucial for the lower class. In a traditional society a center of one’s life was just respect for the church,
Studying political institutions is studying the process of creating, enforcing, and applying laws and the actions of legislatures and political parties are very important. Comparative politics allows one to evaluate the strengths and weakness of various systems to our own system. Studying political institutions of the first world countries was really useful because it allowed me to better understand the way the government in our nation works compared to other nations and determining which one is more stronger. In the article “The Case for a Multi-Party U.S. Parliament”, Professor Christopher S. Allen believes that the United States presidential system contains many flaws. I agree with Professor Allen for various reasons such as if we had a parliamentary system then we can overcome the institutional blockages such as confusion of roles and costly campaigning cost and have a better and effective form of government. When studying the political institutions I was able to understand that our government has flaws because the parliamentary system was better. For example, as stated by Professor Allen, “In parliamentary systems these two functions are performed by two different people” (as cited in Allen 142). These lines explain that in the parliamentary system two different individuals handle the job of being head of …show more content…
As stated in the article, “Changing Values, Economic Development and Political Change”, “…the central element in the rise of modernity was the movement away from traditional religious… a shift from ascriptive status to impersonal, achievement-based roles… Traditional value systems must be shattered in order for modern economic development to take place. In a society undergoing rapid economic expansion, social mobility is acceptable- even a virtue” (Inglehart 382). This line by Inglehart reveals that prior to the Industrial Revolution, people in pre-industrial economies were placed according to their social status, which was hereditary. In addition, culture encouraged people to accept the way of life they had rather than revolting for a better life. As a result, these type of value systems helped keep a social system in pre-industrial societies rather than encouraging economic growth. However, in this quote it helps reveal the differences that had occurred as modernity raised. As a result, mobility was encouraged where people were allowed to be who they wanted rather than being placed in a hierarchy system which was crucial for the lower class. In a traditional society a center of one’s life was just respect for the church,