Abstract
This chapter pulls together varied aspects of France Bučar’s essays and considers how the noted Slovenian statesman, scholar, and activist employed “systems thinking” in his engagement of politics, economics and governance. It provides an overview of system dynamics feedback loops and considers strengths and weaknesses in applying Bučar’s conceptual frameworks to systems modeling practice and contemporary policymaking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I write this chapter as a relative novice on Slovenian history and politics, and any errors or shortcomings are likely shaped my background in the Americas and to a lesser extent, South Asia. On “systems thinking”, my methodological background is informed by Jay Forrester’s classic works in system dynamics literature, which explored industrial (1961), urban (1969) and global political economy (1971) realms. I deepened my understanding of economic cycles and environmental “limits to growth” with Mass (1975) and Meadows, Randers, and Meadows (2004), and much of my own work on violent mobilization and political insurgencies is shaped by Richardson (2005) and his systems engagement of social and political conflict.
- 2.
For background literature on Bučar’s political evolution and his status as one of the founding fathers of democratic Slovenia, see Plut-Pregelj and Rogel (2010) and Mujagić (2014). On Bučar’s impact as an intellectual leader for independence, see Cox (2005), Palsan et al. (2011) and Rupel (2005), among others. Finally, as articulator of Pan-European Slovenian nationalism, see Mihelj (2005) and Kirin and Račić (2017).
- 3.
“Mechanisms” refer to partial explanations and contingent causal theories that may or may not apply in a given time or place. In a systems view, the behavior of many mechanisms is dependent on “tipping points” (Gladwell 2006) in a competitive struggle between positive and negative “feedback loops” operating within the broader system.
- 4.
Richardson (2005, 10) stresses that “the structure of a system, that is, the way its elements are inter-connected in cause-effect relationships, is the key to explaining the system’s behavior pattern… (and yet) human decisions play an important role in feedback processes.”
- 5.
For Meadows (1999, 1), “leverage points” are “places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body…), where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything”. For systems modelers and policymakers, effective interventions are long-term projects that consider how actors, physical properties, and causal mechanisms fit together in a broader system.
- 6.
Sterman (2002) offers an excellent primer on systems thinking and “business dynamics” in practice.
- 7.
Other commonly cited themes betray a strong systems orientation in Bučar’s worldview. Examples of terms include “society” (repeated 319 times), “state” (268), “democracy” (160), and “equality” (111).
- 8.
Bučar would find much to critique in the popular research methods text of King, Keohane, and Verba (1994). Bučar’s theoretical orientation has been labeled as “post-positivist” (Kovač 2014), but his writing betrays a scientific openness, big picture view, and policy practicality that is reminiscent of (positivist) system dynamics scholars.
- 9.
Galbraith was comfortable engaging directly with the public and policymakers (including US President Kennedy), often more than fellow economists. The late Donella Meadows (1999), a pioneering figure in the system dynamics field, also cited the ideas of Galbraith (1967) in her oft-republished essay on “Leverage Points.”
- 10.
Polanyi (1944) famously warned of a popular “double movement” based on the embedded social relations of an economy. In systems parlance, we see a shared focus of the two authors on “balancing” factors in search of political-economic equilibrium.
Literature
Cox, J. K. (2005). Slovenia: Evolving loyalties. London: Routledge.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Cambridge, US: Wright-Allen.
Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gladwell, M. (2006). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Hamilton, M. D. (2017, February). Why Rebel? Unpacking the Mechanisms of Mobilization from Sri Lanka to Star Wars. Paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention in Baltimore, MD (22–25 February 2017).
Kim, D. H. (1993). Systems archetypes I: Diagnosing systemic issues and designing high-leverage interventions. Waltham: Pegasus Communications.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Prinction: Princeton University Press.
Kirin, R. J., & Račić, D. (2017). Claiming and crossing Borders: A view on the Slovene-Croatian border dispute. Društvena istraživanja, 25(4), 433–453.
Kovač, I. (2014). EU in the struggle for global governance: Geopolitical ethics. International Journal of Diplomacy and Economy, 2(1–2), 118–138.
Mass, N. J. (1975). Economic cycles: An analysis of underlying causes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mihelj, S. (2005). To be or not to be a part of Europe: Appropriations of the symbolic borders of Europe in Slovenia. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 20(2), 109–128.
Mujagić, N. (2014). The European Union as a spectacle: The case of the Slovenian-Croatian dispute over the sea border. In T. Petrović (Ed.), Mirroring Europe: Ideas of Europe and Europeanization in Balkan societies (pp. 186–203). Leiden: Brill.
Palsan, C., Casile, C., & Stan, M. (2011). Avatars of intellectuals under communism (history of communism in Europe) Vol. 2. Bucharest: Zeta Books.
Plut-Pregelj, L., & Rogel, C. (2010). The a to Z of Slovenia. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Richardson, J. M. (2005). Paradise poisoned: Learning about conflict, terrorism, and development from Sri Lanka's civil wars. Kandy: International Center for Ethic Studies (ICES).
Rupel, D. (2005). Twenty-five years of democratic development: From Nova Revija to the center-right government of Janez Janša. Slovene Studies Journal, 27(1), 45–50.
Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25.
Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501–531.
Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tilly, C. (2002). Stories, identities, and political change. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wikimedia Commons. (2018). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adoption_CLD.svg. Accessed 22 January 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hamilton, M. (2019). Systems Thinking in Politics and Practice – Reflections on France Bučar. In: Kovač, I. (eds) At His Crossroad. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78331-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78331-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78330-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78331-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)