Professor Moreno issues a critique of the traditional and behavioral approaches to the study of Latin American politics. He cites relevant literature of the past that still carries weight, and urges its synthesis with the modern field study. The author is at New York University when not studying politics first-hand in Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, and elsewhere.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
David Easton , "Introduction: The Current Meaning of 'Behavioralism' in Political Science," in James C. Charlesworth (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science ( Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1962), p. 18.
2.
"Segments of Political Science Most Susceptible to Behavioristic Treatment," in Ibid., p. 44.
3.
Although this is supposedly a cardinal tenet of instruction in behaviorally oriented departments in this country, there is not enough emphasis placed on cultural variables by most behavioral students. The lack of integration between theory and research to which Professors Easton (op.cit.) and Eulau (op.cit.) make reference to, is indicative of this situation.
4.
For a recent restatement of this thesis, see Pedro J. Frias, "El papel de los expertos en la vida política de América Latina," in Revista de Estudios Politicos, 128 (Marzo-Abril 1963), pp. 193-199.
