difference between traditional amd morden method of cooperative politics
Answers
Answer:
The traditional approaches are mostly legal, institutional, historical, descriptive in nature, while the modern approach is scientific, rational and analytical. ... They compare the functions performed by different institutions. These approaches lack social, economic, cultural, behavioural factors
Answer:
Political Science
Difference between traditional and modern approach of Comparative Political
Traditionally, the study of comparative politics is entitled as ‘comparative
government’. It includes the study of political institutions existing in various states .In the 20th century the study underwent revolutionary changes. The traditional focus of the study of politics got replaced by new scope, methodology, concepts, techniques-popularly
known as modern view of the study of politics. Attempts were made by many political scientists to develop a new science of ‘comparative politics’. They adopted
comprehensiveness, realism, precision and use of scientific methods as the new goals for the study of comparative politics.
Major distinctions between the traditional and modern view of the comparative study
of politics are the following:
Mark me as Brainlest
Difference in scope: In traditional view, the scope of the study is limited. It emphasized mainly on the comparative study of formal political institutions.
In the modern view, the scope of comparative politics is much wider. It includes the analysis and comparison of the actual behavior of political structures, formal as well as informal.
Difference in approach: Traditionalists follow narrow and normative approach. It involves descriptive studies with a legal – institutional framework and normative – prescriptive focus. As against it, modernists stand for empirical, analytical studies with a process orientated or behavioural focus and they follow always scientific methodology.
Study of political environment is different: In traditional view it fails to give due place to the study of the environment of political institutions. But in modern view, it gives due importance to study of environments and infra structures of politics.
Focus of two views are different: Traditionalists ignore the importance of inter disciplinary focus, but modernists fully accept the importance of it and strongly advocates the use of such focus.
Goals are different: The objective of the traditional view of the comparative study of politics has been always the description of the ideal of political institutions in different states of the world. The goal of modernists has been always to predict the real structure of political institutions, in a most scientific way.
Traditional view is parochial, while modern view is global: Traditionalism is parochial oriented specially towards European political systems. Modern scientific view of the study of comparative politics is global and it includes the study of all political systems of the world – European and non European, Western and Eastern and developed as well as developing.
Theory building is also different: Traditionalist seeks to build of a theory of ideal political institutions. But modernists seek to build up a scientific theory of politics.
Though, the study of comparative politics is very old, yet it’s has increased its
importance only in recent times. In contemporary period all the political scientists accept that for a proper understanding of all political systems, a comparative study of their structures and functions in a most scientific way is essential.