How accurate are comparison experiments in the world of the
sciences? This is a large question that has tried to find the
connection between empirical evidence and the broad generalities that
make up a theory. This question is at the heart of my opinion of
Putnam’s work. I enjoyed reading his account of his study. He is a
very thorough scientist that compiled an impressive amount of data over
a broad range of time, therefore eliminating any seasonal changes that
might have been recorded.
Putnam was interested in studying the regional performance of
Italy’s governmental system. Italy had moved from a strong centralized
government to a network of regional governments. Putnam tried to
measure the relative success of the different regions. He concluded
that the North had a much more successful record of government than did
the South. He based success on factors such as public involvement and
content with government actions. Putnam then used these findings to
develop a theory about the discrepancies between the two regions.
The most important conclusion that resulted from Putnam’s work was
his reasoning behind the relative success or failure of the two Italian
regions. After completing his study, he decided that a strong civic
tradition was behind the advancement of the North over the South. He
cited the strong traditions of government that differed in the regions,
using history as far back as the Late Middle Ages to further his
argument. Putnam compared the different styles of leadership that held
sway in the different regions. In the South, a strong, heavily
centralized system of government had existed since a young Norman noble
had conquered that region. He implemented a system of “Greek
beaurocracy and Norman feudalism ” that kept a centralized tradition
strong in the South well into the modern era. Putnam argues that this
tradition of centralized government kept Southern Italians from
developing a sense of civic involvement. The ordinary people had no
chance for direct involvement under this system of rule. The power was
wielded by a select elite of the leader and his vassals.
This tradition never reached the North. The cities of the North
continued to remain largely independent and developed a tradition of
self-rule. The decentralized system opened the government arena to
almost any person (male) who had the desire to participate. This system
fostered involvement throughout the community, as members had to work
together toward the continuation of their way of life. Putnam believes
that this open involvement created a greater capacity for civic
mindedness among the Northern Italians at present.
Putnam draws these conclusions about civic mindedness from his
data, which showed a correlation between the success of the regional
governments and the density of participation in civic groups in that
region. He finds that belonging to some type of non-political
organization is more common among Northerners than Southerners. He then
uses this finding to support his theory that civic involvement promotes
more active government constituents.
I believe that Putnam’s work is very thorough and his conclusions
are valid deductions from his empirical evidence. I feel that there are
several areas that could have alternate explanations or at least
corollary causes. First of all, I believe that socio-economic factors
would be as important in determining which regions held people that
belonged to more groups. It seems that the richer economy of the North
is more conducive to free time; and therefore, Northerners have more
leisure time to enjoy extra activities. I believe that this factor
would have a more immediate affect on popular participation. In a
region where people have to put most of their energy into just making
ends meet; there would not be as much interest in becoming involved.
I am also against his point that family involvement shows less
willingness to participate in independent civic groups. I believe that
this is a cultural choice and not a good government vs. bad government
choice. The strength of family ties in the South would result from
their feudal history. However, their were strong, powerful family units
in the North across history as well. I disagree with Putnam when he
supposes that strong family ties keep a person from becoming involved in
civic organizations. A person isn’t secluded by his interaction with
his family, and therefore, family connections do not decrease the amount
of interaction in a society. I feel that strong family ties would
strengthen community involvement because of the desire to band to
together and safe guard one’s environment.
Putnam researched his findings over the past 20 years since Italy
had switched to the regional government system. This seems like a
sufficient amount of time to facilitate a good study. However, Putnam
is looking for changes in a system that he believes started several
centuries ago. The kind of change from a familial centered community to
a civic group centered community that he is looking for would probably
take several generations to come about. Ideas so closely intertwined
with culture are slow to change. I believe that this study would have
to be undertaken after giving the government change time to affect the
society. All the study has really shown to this point is how the
society has affected the new government system.
I also do not necessarily agree with the way that Putnam tries to
reconcile two different regions with different histories and a marked
difference in culture. The fact that both regions lie within the same
state leads us to assume that they should bear the same standards.
However, this is not true. The North and the South are completely
different entities, as Putnam has shown, and therefore, one should not
be used as a milestone to judge the other. This seems to fit with the
Eurocentric idea that all things should live up to one ideal, preferable
a European one. Although Southern Italy is a part of Europe, it is
still unique and different from the other half of state.
My last criticism of Putnam is the fact that he uses a case study
of one country to make generalizations about the world at large.
Reverting to my point mentioned in the last paragraph, differences like
culture and history, among other things, should be taken into account
when studying this subject. Some cultures have different norms about
interaction within the population and there are widely varied approaches
to government around the world. I believe that it is wrong to apply
Putnam’s theories to every population and rigidly judge them using that
mold. His findings are interesting and useful when starting a
comparison.
Making Democracy Work was an interesting study on the relationships
within society. I do not agree with all of Putnam’s ideas, but I do
acknowledge that they are a useful start to understanding how our
societies work and the different dynamics involved. As to the question
that I posed in the beginning of this paper, I believe that comparison
studies are not always accurate. They are useful in some respects, but
not to set a standard for judgement.