Premium
Why study political cycles?
Author(s) -
BÜRKLIN Wilhelm P.
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
european journal of political research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.267
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1475-6765
pISSN - 0304-4130
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1987.tb00868.x
Subject(s) - perspective (graphical) , social system , economics , positive economics , politics , inertia , stability (learning theory) , mathematical economics , econometrics , statistical physics , epistemology , sociology , mathematics , computer science , social science , physics , political science , classical mechanics , law , philosophy , geometry , machine learning
. Throughout the history of social science, cyclical theories have had an intrinsic fascination for the explanation of social change. Confronted with the manyfold deviations and fluctuations of social development which could not be explained by linear‐evolutionary, let alone equilibrium theory, cyclical concepts claim to improve theory building. These concepts are based on the assumption that empirical deviations from a trend should not be handled as random error but can be interpreted substantially. Correspondingly the change from equilibrium to cyclical theory demarcates the changed perception of social systems from static to dynamic stability. Therefore the newer concepts, however, no longer thematize holistic changes of a social system but componential changes within a system. This article discusses the problems arising from this changed perspective, in terms of definition and statistical assessment of cycles. Further, three groups of micro‐level explanations causing cyclical development are discussed: predator‐prey and saturation concepts and theories of institutional inertia.