Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

186 W. J. M. Mackenzie
Ideological. For many years (and particularly after the crises of 1918, 1933
and 1945) it was customary to base everything on ideological contrasts: totali-
tarian versus democratic, Fascist versus Liberal, communist versus capitalist
States. The assumption on both sides was that the Revolution left a gap with no
bridge, that there were two incompatible (and not comparable) sorts of political
institution.
This view is by no means dead: indeed, it suggests a topic of primary in-
portance - how does ideology (in the short run or in the long run) influence the
politics of a State? The question indicates a complex nest of questions, and it
is technically hard to make it ‘researchable’. There is perhaps a consensus that
it is an important question and an open question. But work of significant
scientific value has so far been done only at a ‘micro’ leveL23
Ecological. We are left therefore with the‘ecological’ analysis of States. Accept-
ing the validity of State form as defining political entities for the purpose of
our study, can one establish any non-political classification of 130 or so States
or quasi-States, such as to create a taxonomy which groups States for purposes
of comparison on dimensions indicated by non-political variables ? Can one
then measure, however crudely, the contribution of each variable to political
stability and political change?“
There are serious technical difficulties; first, because of the unreliability
and incompleteness of statistical data, secondly, because of the problems of
assessing and summing various factors statistically - it is hard to design a table
which does not show Kuwait (rich only in oil revenues) to be more fluent
than the United States of America, and this is merely an extreme case.
It is illuminating to be forced to face these technical difficulties: but others
remain. Perhaps the chief are these:
I. In spite of their efforts and denials, Russett and his associates have in
effect established a ‘league table’ or ‘ladder’ of success, implying that where
other conditions are better government is better. This is not a conclusion that
should be drawn, and mature scholars do not draw it; it gives weight quite
improperly to factors for which statistics exist against those not measured in
this way. But casual readers (and this includes practising politicians) cannot
make the necessary adjustments for themselves.
2. The figures available measure economic and social prosperity, but they do
not measure ‘culture’; and no-one has yet ventured to suggest statistical means
of placing ‘cultures’ in order of merit. In spite of protests, a league table of econo-
mic and social indicators tends to be regarded as a league table not only of
consumption but of culture also, and thus to favour views about culture which
few scholars would accept, in a cool hour.25
Nevertheless, these indicators offer the best instrument of classification which
we have, and they can be helpful if judiciously used. It is important to bear in
mind that no single categorization will serve for all purposes. On some indica-
tors the USA and the USSR are close together, a unique pair of super-powers, but
on others they are contrasted. Similarly China and India can be linked for
some purposes, contrasted for others. For some purposes, the Pacific States of
Australia and New Zealand can fairly be brought into comparison with the