The Typology of Regimes, by Samuel Finer [his 'History of Government'; our series Part 5]
[Introducing Section 2 ‘Typologies’]
[Followed shortly by Section 3. ‘The Types of Regime Outlined’]
2. The Typology of Regimes
This History is not meant to be a simple chronological account of the different ways in which men have been governed. It is an exercise in comparative government. This exercise is usually carried out synchronically, that is, by observing the similarities and the differences across different polities at one single point in time. This History carries it out diachronically, that is, identifies similarities and differences of various polities, across time.
Comparison requires classification; otherwise every unit of study is sui generis.
The trick is somehow to find a middle way that reduces the number of units—but not too far. This caveat is necessary because as this Section proceeds it will be seen that the number of criteria of a polity can be multiplied almost indefinitely. Even as it stands, the number of the variables used in my typology may seem excessive.
The rudiments of that typology were first outlined by me in 1983 [Perspectives in the World History]. Its essence is to class polities according to their predominant decision making personnel, what some refer to as their 'political élites'. Since this yields only a few and consequently over-broad classes, it becomes necessary to introduce further distinctions. Generally speaking, the primary basis of the classification, that is, by the character of its ruling personnel, tells us the nature of the top decision making process; while the further qualifications tell us more about the nature of what we might call their 'delivery systems', that is, the institutions by which they can make those decisions bite, that is, 'penetrate' the population.
2.1. The Typology Summarized
Territorial Dimension
City
Generic or National
Empire
Types of Polity
1. Decision making personnel
(a) The élite
(b) The masses
2. Decision implementing personnel
(a) Bureaucracies
(b) Armed forces
Now let us proceed further. Let us start with the decision making personnel and see how their broad types must be qualified. This yields the following:
2.1.1. The Decision Making Personnel:
Main Types of Polity
The Characteristic Political Processes of these Types
There is a broad one-to-one relationship between the type of polity and its characteristic processes of arriving at decisions. These involve: the number of personnel involved; the procedures, including whether they are orderly or disorderly; and the tasks as perceived by the ruler(s).
The Legitimation of these Types
Here again, there are broad one-to-one relationships between the type of polity and its claims to legitimacy (what have been called its political formulae). These formulae sometimes serve more than one types of polity, so the correspondence is broader than in the previous case.
Together, these three sets of criteria serve to round out the description of the main types of polity, but still do not go far enough. For inside each 'family' of polities, members differ from one another in respect of the scope of their governmental activities, and the procedures they must follow in order to give authoritative effect to them. It is a question of how far the government is constrained, substantively or procedurally, or how far it is not. We may call this the dimensions of control.
Hence:
The Dimensions of Control
(1) Level of relationships of control
A. Central government level ('horizontal' plane)
B. Central-to-local level ('vertical' plane)
(2) Nature of relationships of control
A. Scope of activities
Unconstrained
Constrained
B. Procedure for exercising activities
Unconstrained
Constrained
This set of variables qualifies the main type of polity.
But so far we have analysed only in terms of the decision making personnel. Polities are distinguished also by their decision implementing personnel. This adds yet another criterion to the analysis of types of polity as categorized so far.
2.1.2. Decision Implementing Personnel
These are the civil bureaucracy and the armed forces. Their various types will be distinguished later. Their existence or nonexistence and the various forms either of them may take will affect the 'penetration' capability of the authorities, and, particularly, their 'vertical' dimension, that is, their control over the local subdivisions and the field-units of the state.
Logically it is possible to envisage: (i) states without a bureaucracy and with a community-in-arms; (ii) states with a bureaucracy and, likewise, a community-in-arms; (iii) a bureaucracy and a standing army; and finally (iv) no bureaucracy, but a standing army.
In practice—at least as far as I can ascertain empirically—the last does not exist. And there is an excellent reason for it—a standing army requires a bureaucracy in order to obtain the men, money, and materials it needs for its upkeep. We shall not, therefore, consider this last logical case. Examination also shows that it is highly peculiar to find a bureaucracy but no standing army. As far as I know, this is confined to the early stages of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization. Hence the two standard forms are no (or little) bureaucracy and a community-in-arms; and a bureaucracy together with a standing army.
The normal relationship between the armed forces and the bureaucracy on the one side and the ruling authorities on the other is one of subordination. But this History, as well as contemporary experience, also attests a pathological condition. In it, the bureaucracy, or the army, effectively take over the decision making process from the authorities, who then play a nominal, though a necessary, legitimating role. This pathological relationship yields, in effect, two new types of regime: the bureaucratic and the military. But these will not be added to the main typology; they will be treated as perversions of the main types and the History deals with them ad hoc.
2.2. The Main Types of Polity
The main types of polity are identified and differentiated, in the first instance, by the nature of their ruling personnel. I recognize four pure kinds. These can be visually represented in a lozenge shape. At the apex comes what I shall call the Palace. At the base appears what I call the Forum. On the wings are, respectively, what I call the Church and the Nobility.
Fig. 1. The main types of polity
It is rare for any or each of these types of personnel to hold sway to the exclusion of the others, though it sometimes does occur. More often a polity is characterized by a mixed type of ruling personnel. The lines drawn across the lozenge show the major logical combinations of these, but this does not necessarily mean that they have existed in actuality. These logical combinations generate hybrid types of polity.
Hence the hybrid types can be formulated as:
Palace/Church
Palace/Nobility
Palace/Forum
Forum/Nobility
Forum/Church
Church/Nobility
Altogether, then, there are ten possible types of polity. But some of these are rarely if ever met with, while others are very common. …
[You have now reached the end of this Social Science Files exhibit.]
[To be followed shortly by Section 3 — ‘The Types of Regime Outlined’]
The Source of today’s exhibit has been:
S. E. Finer, The History of Government From the Earliest Times: Volume I, Ancient Monarchies and Empires, Oxford University Press 1997
For recent news about Social Science Files click on this link.
OUR PREVIOUS EXHIBITS OF FINER’S HISTORY
Social Science Files displays multidisciplinary writings on a great variety of topics relating to evolutions of social order from the earliest humans to the present day and future machine age.
‘The Heller Files’, quality tools for Social Science.