Byeon J Political system.pdf

8/17/2019 Byeon J Political system.pdf

1/9

SystemsResearchand Behavioral Science

Syst. Res.22, 223^231 (2005)

DOI:10.1002/sres.639

& Research Paper

A Systems Approach to EntropyChange in Political Systems

Jong Heon Byeon*

Department of Ethics Studies, Jeju National University of Education, Jeju, Korea

It is the relative balance of both adaptability and level of political support that determinethe entropy of a political system as a whole. When the level of political support is low, the

entropy of the political system increases. The entropy is higher if the system cannot copewith environmental stresses. Although these ideas remain fairly abstract, we canindirectly measure the relative state of the entropy in a given system. First, adaptabilitydetermines the outer entropy change of the system, which refers to the capability of thesystem to survive in the face of environmental fluctuations. This depends on suchqualities of the system as proper use of knowledge and information, flexibility of thesystem, and timely boundary control. Second, the level of spontaneous political support isthe critical factor affecting the inner entropy change of the system. It can typically beassessed by examining the specific indicators or items in terms of threefold levels of apolitical system. Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords entropy; political system; adaptation; political support; complexity; variety;

boundary control

INTRODUCTION

Through the mid-20th century, there had beenincreased attempts to apply systems perspectivesto the analysis of various human systems.Indeed, in many research fields, the systemsapproach had turned out to be the optimal andmost powerful tool for systematic analysis. Forexample, many theorists in sociology havegenerally referred to the state of a system in

terms such as system integration, system order,functional prerequisite and system maintenance.This trend naturally stimulated the beginning of the systems movement. In the first conceptualframes of this movement, systems were justregarded to be goal seeking and self-regulatoryor controllable from outside. This phrase of systems movement was primarily concernedwith equilibrium and stability and with theirmaintenance through control of negative feed- back loops (De Greene, 1994).

However, facing the ever-increasing complex-ity of the systems we are interested in, theseconcepts no longer seemed to be adequatelyrigorous for dealing with complex phenomena,

Received 12 September 2003Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 1 April 2004

* Correspondence to: Jong Heon Byeon, Department of Ethics Studies, Jeju National University of Education, 4810 Whabuk 1 Dong, Jeju,Korea 690-061. E-mail: [email protected]


2/9

and the older descriptive phrases finally showedtheir limitations as scientific terminology. In thisvein, the second wave of the systems movementhas mainly focused on the use of such terms asentropy, non-equilibrium, instability, and theemergence of new patterns and structures. In this

stage of the movement, systems are usuallyconsidered to be evolving or self-organizing intosomething new, not just functioning.

In this paper, I propose to apply the concept of entropy to the analysis of dynamic change inpolitical systems. The concept of entropy has been seen as a foundational concept in manycurrent research trends, especially in contempor-ary systems theory. Although the term entropyoriginated in the field of thermodynamics, it has both theoretical and statistical interpretations, aswell as widespread applications in other dis-

ciplines. As we know, the simplest definition of entropy is disorder. It is the tendency for anyclosed system to move toward a chaotic orrandom state in which there is no furtherpotential for energy transformation or work.The disorder, disorganization, lack of patterning,or randomness of organization of a system isknown as its entropy (Miller, 1965, p. 195).

The aim of this paper is to clarify what is meant by the entropy of a political system and apply thedefinition to the analysis of dynamic change inpolitical systems. To do this, basically, it issuggested that entropy change in a politicalsystem is affected by both inner political supportlevel and outer adaptation ability of the system. Inother words, the entropy of a political system isregarded as a function of inner political supportand outer adaptation process over time. A politicalsystem will be identified as a set of interactions,abstracted from the totality of social behavior,through which valued things are authoritativelyallocated for a society (Easton, 1965, p. 98).

THE USE OF ENTROPY

A large number of useful terms and conceptshave been transported into other disciplinesfrom their original discipline. Often such trans-ported concepts have been interpreted differ-ently in their new manifestations. Some of these

new meanings may be seen as positive adapta-tions to a new environment. However, manyterms seem to suffer from what has been called‘concept degradation’, meaning simply that theterm has lost conceptual sharpness, clarity orprecision (Bailey, 2001). Furthermore, it is true

that there has been a tendency for researchers inthe discipline where the term originated to see itsapplication in new fields as unwise. In spite of such negative stances, however, it is certain thatmany concepts will continue to be exported farfrom their original fields; entropy is just one of these.

The word entropy could fairly be termed oneof the greatest buzzwords of 20th-centuryscience. The use of the word has evoked inlaymen an aura of mystery and arcane knowl-edge (Corning and Kline, 1998, p. 274), and has

been widely debated by academics. Indeed, therehave been a number of books and articlesdevoted to applications of entropy outside of itsoriginal applications in thermodynamics(Wicken, 1987; Brooks and Wiley, 1988; Coningand Kline, 1998). Since its original inception byClausius in classical thermodynamics, entropyhas witnessed a series of subsequent incarna-tions. In particular, in the realm of social science,Bailey (1990, 1994) introduced the notion of social entropy and Rhee (1999) applied the termentropy to the analysis of political systems.

According to Bailey (1990), entropy hasreplaced the age of equilibrium. The concept of equilibrium is not sufficient to fully describe thecomplexity of social phenomena; the termentropy and its applications, on the other hand,can grasp the dynamic process of social complex-ity because we are indeed seeing generic entropyphenomena in society. Thus he suggests it isnecessary to use the term entropy, as long as it isqualified by a prefix, as in ‘social’ entropy. It canthen be differentiated from Clausius’ entropy, or

Boltzmann’s entropy, or biological entropy, orany other entropy concept which lacks a certainprefix.

Following the path in general systems theory(Miller, 1978; Rothstein, 1958; Wiener, 1961),social organization can be explained in terms of entropy state. The concept of social entropyrecognizes that entropy processes exist in social

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 22, 223^231 (2005)

224 Jong Heon Byeon


3/9

organizations such as corporations or factorieswhere work is done. But the entropy processes insuch open systems as social organizations do notinexorably follow the second law of thermody-namics. On the contrary, the overall systementropy may actually decrease over time. It is a

kind of paradigm shift that breaks through thenegative Weltanshauung followed by the secondlaw of thermodynamics.

In open systems, according to Prigogineand Stengers (1984), the flows of energy fromenvironments can lead to entropy decreasesgreater than the entropy increases that areinternally generated. This means that socialorganizations can be dissipated in the absenceof inflow of new energy, just as heat systems arequickly dissipated without the addition of newenergy. An organization that is totally isolated

from all information and energy inputs willquickly degrade, just as will the classical thermo-dynamic closed systems. The whole process of the continual decrease in order in social organi-zations seems sufficiently parallel or similar tothat occurring in a simple heat system. Thus,social entropy, like Clausius’ entropy, appears to be a particular case of a generic process. Whetherin Clausius’ entropy or social entropy, we candistinguish both given entropy state at a parti-cular time and the more general process of entropy increase or decrease over time.

In terms of systems theory, political systemsare regarded as adaptive as well as open to theirenvironment. According to Easton (1965, pp. 17–18), it is useful to interpret political life as acomplex set of processes through which certainkinds of inputs are converted into certain typesof outputs. Political life can be regarded as asystem of behaviour imbedded in an environ-ment to the influences of which the politicalsystem itself is exposed and in turn reacts. It isclear that political systems cannot be interpreted

as existing in a void. They must be seen assurrounded by environments, lying exposed toinfluences deriving from the other systems inwhich empirically they are imbedded. If they dosurvive environmental buffetings, political sys-tems must have the capacity to respond todisturbances and thereby to adapt to the condi-tions under which they find themselves. In this

vein, a political system can be viewed as an openand adaptive system.

According to Rhee (1999), open adaptivepolitical systems are dissipative and negentropic.One of the important features of the thermo-dynamic composition of dissipative structure is

the negentropic potentiality. Negentropy, and itsopposite, entropy, are irreversible thermody-namic processes. Entropy refers to the universaltendency of thermodynamic structures to evolveirreversibly toward a stage of maximum disordercalled thermodynamic equilibrium. But for dis-sipative systems to sustain their growth, theymust not only increase their negentropic poten-tial, but they must also eliminate the positiveentropy that naturally accumulates over timeand that degrades the system’s internal structur-ing (Harvey and Reed, 1996, pp. 302–303).

Even if internal entropy does increase within apolitical system, transfers of information andenergy/matter from the environment candecrease entropy, so that total system entropymay remain constant or even decrease over time.Thus, an understanding of the political system interms of entropy change would provide atheoretical basis supporting the process of self-transformation or self-organization towardshigher states of systems stability and complexity.Entropy production in the political system is justsuch a function: if a political system is perturbed,its entropy production will increase, but thesystem reacts by returning to the state at whichits entropy production is lowest. In terms of entropy analysis, the hallmark of the politicalsystem as open and adaptive is the irreversibleintake of low entropy from the environment andthe return of high entropy to the environment as aresult of work done in the system (Byeon, 1999).This means that any notation pertaining to the behaviour of the political system must reflect ex-changes between the environment and the sys-

tem, and focus on the entropy change over time.

ADAPTATION IN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Definition of Adaptation in Systems

One of the most remarkable features of a livingsystem is the ability to exhibit what is called

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER

Copyright 20 05 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 22, 223^231 (2005)

Entropy Change in Political Systems 225


4/9

adaptation. After the work of Ashby (1956), it has been generally conceived that non-living systemscan also show adaptive behaviour. What are wereferring to by adaptation? While this term is noteasy to define, it is usually taken to refer to behaviours which allow a system to survive

changes in its environment. In other words,adaptation is a response to changes that actuallyor potentially reduce the efficiency of a system’s behaviour. Such change may be either internal(within the system itself) or external (in itsenvironment).1 Typically, systems respond tochanges in different ways. Sometimes they take apassive strategy, changing their behaviour so asto perform more efficiently in a changingenvironment. At other times they adapt moreactively, changing their environment so that theirown present or future behaviour will be more

efficient. These two types of adaptation can, of cause, both be employed.

In this paper I will use the term adaptation tomean the overall responsive behaviours of asystem to changes in its environment. It can besaid that a system is adaptive if and when thereare changes in its environment which reduce itsefficiency in pursuing the purposes that define itsfunctions, and it reacts or responds by changingits own state and/or that of its environment so asto increase its efficiency with respect to thosepurposes. Thus adaptation is the ability of asystem to modify itself or its environment inresponse to environmental disturbances thatthreaten the system’s efficiency.

Political systems have purposes of their own,contain subsystems that have purposes of theirown, and are usually parts of larger systems thatcontain other human systems (Easton, 1965). Inthis regard, political systems have often beenmodelled in terms of open, living organisms withthe ability to adapt and evolve over time (Byeon,1999). Once we conceive of political systems from

this perspective, it becomes clear that they canexhibit the adaptability to cope with variouschanges in the environment and they will showdifferent system states in accordance with theresults of adaptation to changes.

Adaptation in Political Systems

As noted above, a political system is able to copewith environmental changes in pursuing itspurposes. When a system exhibits adaptabilityin various ways, the system is able to control theentropy process and reserve available politicalenergy to perform its own goals efficiently. For apolitical system, changes in the environmentmay be rapid and of short duration, or slow andof long duration. Needless to say, a political

system should be able to handle either type of change to adapt efficiently and thus keep overallentropy from approaching the critical range. Thefollowing elements are important for a politicalsystem to be able to show adaptability to changesin its environment.

Accumulation of Information and KnowledgeThe means by which a system deals withinformation and knowledge is one of the criticalvariables determining the adaptability of anygiven system. Biological evolution is a processof accumulating useful genetic information.Accordingly, the best measure of evolutionaryprogress is the ability to store and processinformation in the brain and central nervoussystem (Ayres, 1994, p. XV). Social evolution is,similarly, a process of accumulating usefulcultural information that is used for social pur-poses, passed on via social processes, and storedin artifacts as well as in people’s memories. In both cases, the term useful can be understood tomean that which assists adaptation and growth.

In the biological world, the build-up of adaptation-useful information is reflected in theincreasing number and variability of species, theincreasing complexity of organisms and ecosys-tems, the increasing information-carrying capa-city of genes, and the trends toward larger brains, longer lives, and a greater ability to mo-dify the natural environment in ways favouring

1Ackoff(1999, p. 58)classifies four types of adaptation. (1)Other–otheradaptation: a system’s reacting or responding to an external change bymodifying the environment. (2) Other–self adaptation: a system’sreacting or responding to an external change by modifying itself. (3)Self–other adaptation: a system’s reacting or responding to an internalchange by modifying the environment. (4) Self–self adaptation: asystem’s reacting or responding to an internal change by modifyingitself. As we know, Ackoff’s other–self adaptation is the most commonone.



226 Jong Heon Byeon


5/9

survival and propagation. Likewise, the ten-dency toward increasing adaptability in humansystems is reflected in the increasing importanceof creating, storing, processing and transmittinginformation, and the acceleration of the accumu-lation of knowledge with time. It is the use of

information and knowledge that permits indivi-duals and institutions to look toward and planfor the future. For adaptation and evolutionin human systems, accumulation of knowledgeand information-handling capability plays acritical role.

In trying to best use information and knowl-edge, political systems share adaptive chara-cteristics of living organisms. The argumentproposing similar adaptive paths for livingsystems and political systems in terms of usefulinformation and knowledge can be drawn

from the obvious analogies between biologicalorganisms, communities, ecosystems andhuman systems (Miller, 1978). In this regard,the adaptive path of a political system can becharacterized by increasing abilities to sensethe state of the environment, to assess its risksand opportunities, and to learn and takeappropriate responses. Accordingly, if a politicalsystem keeps the proper adaptive track usinguseful information and knowledge, it can controlthe overall entropy process.

Variety and ComplexityA second element that is required for theadaptation of a political system is flexibility.The flexibility of a system usually stems fromvariety and complexity. Thus, it is necessary for apolitical system to possess a certain degree of variety and complexity to cope with environ-mental changes. Increased complexity and ambi-guity in environments (a kind of contingency)demand variety and increased complexity of thesystem itself. Only systems that are properly

organized to manage complex contingencieseffectively and to accommodate such environ-mental restraints or ambiguity with greaterflexibility can adapt and survive.

Ross Ashby (1956) has explained mathemati-cally why a system must have a minimumamount of variety to be a dominant system.According to Ashby’s law, in order to achieve

control the variety in the control system must beequal to or larger than the variety of theperturbations. Only variety can cope with vari-ety. A simple illustration comes from chess, inwhich a queen can defeat a bishop or castle because she has a greater variety of moves. In

organization theory, which stresses a function of efficient relationships between the system andcertain contingencies, variety is one of the keyfactors for adaptation of a system (Blau andSchoenherr, 1971). For example, system inertia,usually caused by a lack of variety, can beregarded as a kind of adaptation failure (Satry,1997). The inertial behaviour resists adaptationand thus places the system at risk when theenvironment changes.

To completely control the effect of changes inenvironment, a political system must be able to

produce at least as many counteractions aschanges. The variety of a political system must be at least as great as the variety of environ-mental changes. In this vein, a political systemmust have a sufficiently large variety of actionsin order to ensure sufficiently small impact onthe system state from changes in environment.Since the variety of perturbations that a politicalsystem can potentially be confronted with isunlimited, it should always try to maximize itsinternal variety (or diversity), so as to beoptimally prepared for any foreseeable or unfor-eseeable contingency of entropy increase.

Complexity is another factor promoting adapt-ability in a system. According to Laszlo (1972),systems of high complexity have shown richnessin adaptability. More complex systems are morelikely to adapt successfully to environmentaldemands. Political systems with several differentpolitical institutions are much more likely toadapt to various demands. As Luhman (1982,p. 164) suggested, more complex political sys-tems have a better chance of adapting to

increasingly more complex environments. Thus,in turn, they have better prospects for maintain-ing their complexity. From similar viewpoint,Huntington (1968, p. 11) argued that more highlydeveloped political institutions were required tomaintain the Athenian political community as it became more complex. Like biological systems,through increasing complexity political systems





6/9

seek to control environmental and internalchanges in such a way that they do not becomeentropic.

Following these arguments, functional variety(or diversity) and increasing complexity in apolitical system seem to favour the adaptation

process. Further, they necessarily favour thecreation, accumulation and transmission of information and knowledge by systematicmechanisms. This in turn results in an increasein both the rate and focus of the adaptability of the system. Thus, a political system mustconstantly increase its own degree of varietyand complexity in order to adapt to changes thatthreaten entropy increase.

Boundary ControlIn case flexibility of a political system is possible

only to a limited extent, flows of change itself from the environment should be, at least par-tially, controlled to keep the adaptive trackeffective. An overflow of too many disturbancesfrom the environment at one time can paralyse asystem. In order to keep the system adaptive tochanges, any changes themselves have to becontrolled actively in terms of system survival. Itis necessary here to note the importance of whatwe call a kind of active adaptation behaviour of asystem, that is, control of system boundary.

According to Klapp (1975), system boundariesdo not remain permanently open or closed. Itseems unwise to characterize a closed system asalways bad. The important thing for adaptationis that effort is made to find the best trade-off between too much variety and too much ban-ality. A fixed system, whether open or closed,cannot do this. At any level of system, the naturalpattern is alternation of opening and closing, andthe more alive a system is, the more alertly itdoes both. Closing is neither permanent nor, assome suppose, merely a setback to progress, but

evidence that the shutter of life is workingselectively. It can be assumed that a politicalsystem should regulate its boundary by closingand opening in order to effectively adapt tochanges in environment.

In a similar vein, Karl Deutsch (1966, pp. 221–228) stressed the importance of a politicalsystem’s control over the environment to pre-

clude the failure of the system. Such failure ismainly caused by an overload of environmentaldisturbances and a lack of system ability tocontrol it in time. Thus, in order to pursue itsown goals, a political system has to keep powerover its environment, refine the effectiveness of

information channels from the outside world,and control the flows of excessive changes fromthe environment. When the political system failsto do this, the system can become crippled,stagnant and imprisoned in an invisible rut of itsown making.

Autopoietic systems keep themselves alive bycontinually altering their structures to accom-modate environmental perturbations and toactively control the flows of changes. Becauseinteraction with the environment is inevitable, anautopoietic unity has to change. If its organiza-

tion cannot change, its structure must.2 Forexample, cells maintain their unities even as theymetabolize with their environments. They existas metastabilities through energy exchanges withtheir environments. In addition to acceptingcalories from their environments, cells selectivelyaccept ions such as sodium and calcium, whichthey incorporate as elements of regeneratedproteins and nucleic acids. In this way, cellsincorporate parts of their environments into theirautopoiesis. At the same time, they refuse toaccept other ions such as caesium or lithium,which would disrupt their autopoiesis.

Through their boundary control and therefinement of information channels from theenvironment, political systems have to controlthe flows of information and matter–energy toadapt to changes. In addition, the notion of autopoesis, an operationally closed system, isuseful for insight into the adaptability of politicalsystems. If we accept the idea of autopoesis, thepolitical system should be regarded as an activerather than reactive actor, working to mould

environment. Thus it can be assumed that if apolitical system fails to control its boundaryefficiently and/or does not manage to selectivelycontrol inflows from the environment, thesystem cannot effectively adapt to changes and

2According to Maturana and Varela (1984), three elements can bedistinguished in the existence of an autopoietic unity: its fluctuatingenvironment, its invariant organization, and its variable structure.



228 Jong Heon Byeon


7/9

eventually the entropy of the system willincrease over time.

POLITICAL SUPPORT

In order to analyze the change of entropy in apolitical system, we also need to take intoaccount the relationship between the systemitself and members within the system. This refersto what I call the inner aspect of the entropy in apolitical system. In this regard, the concept of political support can be a useful analyticalfoundation for looking into the entropy changewithin a political system. While the adaptive behaviours of political systems share similaritieswith qualities of living systems, the term politicalsupport may manifest the crucial characteristic of

political systems that differentiates them fromother living systems. Thus, if we are to refer tothe overall entropy change of the political systemover time, we have to look at both politicalsupport and adaptability together. As suggestedabove, adaptability and the level of support in apolitical system are the two crucial aspects toconsider for analysis of the entropy change of asystem as a whole.

Demand and support have been considered ascritical variables to the stability of a politicalsystem (Easton, 1965; Rhee, 1982). Thus, in termsof entropic perspective, demand and support can be regarded as significant factors to determinethe inner overall entropy. However, in thispaper, I will mainly focus on support to explainentropy change within political systems, becausein such systems demand is not only closelyrelated to support but also in the end is supposedto be reflected or converted into support throughvarious channels. In this regard, political supportcan be a kind of indicator to show the change of entropy state within a political system.

In general, political support concerns thedegree to which members of a political systemapprove of the system that is processing variousdemands for them (Easton, 1965). Demands areassertions of what people want from the politicalsystem. Political support exists when a person orgroup acts in favour of or is favourably orientedtoward any part of the political system. Political

support may be externally expressed in activitiesconnected with organizations, and in demonstra-tions and parades. It may also be internal,consisting of an attitude or frame of mind suchas a sense of duty or loyalty. The amount of support actually given to the political system is

the net balance remaining after measuringsupport against opposition and indifference.The level of support may fluctuate a great dealand in turn may make a change in the innerentropy state of the system.

However, when we are referring to politicalsupport as one of the critical variables to explainthe inner entropy, we have to take into accountthe different objects of political support. In thisregard, the term political support has to be morespecific. In other words, political support needsto be understood as a multidimensional phe-

nomenon. We have to consider a conceptualframework distinguishing between the differentlevels or objects of political support. One of themost useful analytical frameworks was provided by David Easton (1965), who distinguished between support for the community, the regimeand the authorities.

Of course, these categories can be refined andexpanded more analytically since there aresignificant theoretical and empirical gradationswithin different parts of the regime. Followingthis line of thinking, some have expanded theseinto a fivefold framework distinguishing between political support for the community,regime principles, regime performance, regimeinstitutions and political actors (Norris, 1999).However, basically Easton’s threefold concep-tual framework is enough to reveal the impor-tance of support within a political system. Inapplying the simple threefold framework, wecan observe the close relationships between levelof political support and entropy change of thesystem.3

First we will consider diffuse support for thepolitical community, which is usually under-stood to mean a basic attachment to the nation beyond the present institutions of governmentand general willingness to cooperate politically.

3Here I have just made a small revision on the support of the regime,which focused on regime institutions instead of the regime itself ingeneral.





8/9

Conventionally, attachment to the nation ismeasured by items such as tapping a sense of belonging to the community, national pride andnational identity. Although there is often asignificant gap between our concepts and mea-sures, a shared consensus about many measures

has been developed in survey research. Suchfeelings as pride to be a citizen of a certainpolitical community and the willingness tovolunteer for military service are two specifics,for example, that serve to indicate degree of support for a political community.

A second consideration is support for regime,in particular, regime institutions. Measuring thesupport for regime institutions taps a kind of realistic view of the system. Included areattitudes towards governments, parliaments,the executive, the legal system and police, the

state bureaucracy, political parties and themilitary (Lipset and Schneider, 1987). It isimportant to measure generalized support forthe institutions. Assessment of support forregime institutions focuses on attitudes towardthe formal structures, not the specific incumbentoffice-holders. It emphasizes evaluations of theoffice of the presidency, parliament and politi-cians in general—that is, approval of the powerof the Presidency rather than support for GeorgeBush, and support for parties rather thanparticular party leaders, although in practicethe dividing line between the office and incum- bents is often fuzzy.

Finally, we can look at support for politicalactors or authorities, including evaluations of politicians as a class and the performances of particular leaders. This is most commonlymeasured by generalized trust for politiciansand public officials, and by evaluations of theperformance of particular presidents, primeministers, party leaders and representativesobtained via monitoring in regular opinion polls.

As we have noted, political support is not all of one piece and can be evaluated by specific itemsin terms of levels or objects of political support. If we are to analyze entropy variation in terms of fluctuations of political support, our analysisneeds to take into accountthese distinctions. If weare to mention the entropy increase of the political system, we should clarify what we

are referring to among these three levels orobjects.

In addition, we have to take into account thequality of the political support. It is of no use toinduce political support with force in order todecrease the entropy of the system. In other

words, spontaneous support for a politicalsystem is important to keep entropy from reach-ing maximum levels. As Jantsch (1975, p. 63)pointed out, entropy is usually high in a dicta-torial political system. It is not the degree of lawand order which is essential for decreasingpolitical entropy, but rather the degree to whichthe creativity of a political system’s individualmembers can contribute freely to the life of thesystem.

CONCLUSION

The starting point in evaluating the validity of entropy measurement (or change) in a politicalsystem must be agreement upon a theoreticaldefinition of the concept. It is almost impossibleto provide a definition of entropy in politicalsystems that will satisfy everyone; thus, I haveattempted only to provide a working definition. Ihave defined entropy in a political system as thewaste of political energy which can be used toactivate the essential variables of a politicalsystem. Here, political energy refers to thecapability of a political system to increasespontaneous support from political membersand to cope with environmental fluctuations. Inthis regard, it was assumed that the entropy of apolitical system is a function of inner politicalsupport and outer adaptation with time.

Indeed, it is the relative balance of bothsupport and adaptation of a political system thatdetermine the degree of entropy of the system asa whole. When the level of political support is

low, or when the system does not cope well withenvironmental stresses, the entropy is higher. Of course, any analyses of these relationshipsremain fairly abstract ideas. How do we deter-mine the degree of political support in eachsystem and how can we evaluate the adaptabilityof the system to environmental changes? Untilwe find direct measures of entropy in political



230 Jong Heon Byeon


9/9

systems, concrete answers will remain elusive.However, as I have suggested, the relative stateof the entropy of a political system can bemeasured indirectly.

Political support and adaptability are twodimensions of the entropy of a political system.

Firstly, adaptability refers to the capability of thesystem to handle environmental fluctuations,determining the outer entropy change of thesystem. This depends on such qualities of thesystem as proper use of knowledge and informa-tion, flexibility of the system, and timely bound-ary control. Secondly, the level of spontaneouspolitical support is the critical factor affecting theinner entropy change of the system. It can typi-cally be assessed by examining specific indica-tors or items in terms of threefold levels orobjects of political support in a political system.

REFERENCES

Ackoff R. 1999. Ackoffs Best: His Classic Writings on Management. Wiley: New York.

Ashby R. 1956. Introduction to Cybernetics. Wiley:New York.

Ayres R. 1994. Information, Entropy, and Progress: A NewEvolutionary Paradigm. AIP Press: New York.

Bailey K. 1990. Social Entropy Theory. State Universityof New York Press: Albany, NY.

Bailey K. 1994. Sociology and the New Systems Theory:Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.

Bailey K. 2001. Towards unifying science. SystemsResearch and Behavioral Sciences 18: 41–62.

Blau P, Schoenherr R. 1971. The Structure of Organiza-tions. Basic Books: New York.

Brooks D, Wiley E. 1988. Evolution as Entropy: Toward aUnified Theory of Biology. University of ChicagoPress: Chicago.

Byeon JH. 1999. Non equilibrium thermodynamicapproach to the change in political systems. SystemsResearch and Behavioral Science 16(3): 283–291.

Corning P, Kline S. 1998. Thermodynamics, informa-tion and life revisited—Part 1: ‘To be or entropy’.Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15(4): 273–

295.De Greene K. 1994. The challenge to policymaking

of large-scale systems evolution, instability, and

structural change. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6(2):161–188.

Deutsch K. 1966. The Nerves of Government: Modelsof Political Communication and Control. Free Press:New York.

Easton D. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life.Wiley: New York.

Harvey D, Reed M. 1996. Social science as the studyof complex systems. In Chaos: Theory in theSocial Sciences: Foundations and Applications, KeilLD, Elliot E (eds). University of Michigan Press:Ann Arbor, MI.

Huntington S. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies.Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.

Jantsch E. 1975. Design for Evolution: Self-Organizationand Planning in the Life of Human Systems. GeorgeBraziller: New York.

Klapp O. 1975. Opening and Closing: Strategies of Information Adaptation in Society. CambridgeUniversity Press: London.

Laszlo E. 1972. Introduction to Systems Philosophy:

Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought.Gordon & Breach: New York.Lipset S, Schneider W. 1987. The Confidence Gap:

Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.

Luhman N. 1982. The Differentiation of Society. Colum- bia University Press: New York.

Maturana H, Varela FG. 1984. The Tree of Knowledge.Scherz Verlag: Bern.

Miller JG. 1965. Living systems: basic concepts.Behavioral Science 10: 193–237.

Miller JG. 1978. Living Systems. McGraw-Hill: New York.Norris P (ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for

Democratic Governance. Oxford University Press:New York.

Prigogine I, Stengers I. 1984. Order out of Chaos.Bantam: New York.

Rhee YP. 1982. The Breakdown of Authority Structure inKorea in 1960: A Systems Approach. Seoul NationalUniversity Press: Seoul.

Rhee YP. 1999. Dynamics and Complexity of PoliticalSystem. Ingansarang: Seoul.

Rothstein J. 1958. Communication, Organization, andScience. Falcon’s Wing Press: Indian Hills, CO.

Satry M. 1997. Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 31: 171–193.

Wicken J. 1987. Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Informa-tion: Extending the Darwinian Program. Oxford Uni-

versity Press: New York.Wiener N. 1961. Cybernetics (2nd edn). MIT Press:

Cambridge, MA.




Byeon J Political system.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Byeon J Political system.pdf